I don't think what Apple did was wrong in their negotiated agreements - but whatever - they lost the case and the court ordered a compliance monitor. Fair enough I guess.
The real injustices are that;
Here goes a second attempt at replying to this post with inline quotes. I'm very new to this editor so I made stupid mistakes like not realising ctrl + enter will submit my post without warning. It's a shame this can't be a little more intuitive, it seems impossible to delete quote blocks so I have to copy and paste all your text to reply to it instead of interjecting mine. Ah well. My point in replying is that I think you get a few things wrong here and I'd like to start a discussion on them.
1. The judge appointed a friend as the monitor.
The only evidence I've seen for this is that the Judge may have written him an endorsement 19 years ago. I don't really think that's any evidence of a conflict of interest. In fact a Judge would surely be more likely to appoint someone if they had previously endorsed them for excellent work or skill.
2. The friend is completely unqualified to do the job he was appointed to do
Bromwich may not be an antitrust expert, but from his biog it seems that he has completed several monitorships at extremely high levels and so seems actually to be well qualified. Apple doesn't seem to have raised much in the way of objections pre-assignment so I'm not sure what option was available here.
3. The friend is investigating things which are completely irrelevant to the issues he was appointed to monitor
Is he? He has only requested materials related to Apple's antitrust compliance and I've seen absolutely no evidence of him doing anything but investigating this. Apple may claim he has made voluminous requests but his requests have been submitted in evidence and they are perfectly reasonable.
4. The friend is allowed to bill any amount he wants and has chosen to bill an exorbitant amount of money for himself
5. Due to the friend's vast incompetence, he has had to hire a team of professionals who apparently *do* have experience and competence in this area of law and instead of paying them out of his salary, he is submitting their fees to Apple for additional reimbursement.
The difference between Apple's proposed rate and Bromwich's proposed rate is $300/hour. This is really not a massive concern for Apple who already retain a massive legal team. Apple has been found guilty and so the costs involved with the judicial decision are not something they can reasonably complain about when it's such a drop in the ocean.
I don't think that Apple is completely against their punishment of having a monitor - but the monitor should:
1. Be someone who does not have a personal relationship with the judge who is presiding over the case and ordering the monitoring.
This seems rather silly. It is the Prosecutor he should not have a relationship with. The Judge is perfectly fine. You would hardly expect her to appoint someone she's never met and doesn't know from Adam for reasons of impartiality.
2. Be someone who has the necessary experience, skillset and competence to do the job they are being appointed to do
In this case it appears Bromwich does. It's not unusual to hire assistants and when investigating one of the most powerful companies in the western world it seems reasonable enough to me.
3. Be compensated at fair market value for the type of work they are doing and the time it takes them to do that work
Agreed, but if you read Judge Cote's filing you'll find out that Apple decided to completely ignore the dispute resolution process put in place by her original ruling. They tried to bypass it all and go straight to the Court to settle their matters. This forms part of her reasoning. Apple has a method to dispute these fees already, but refuses to use it.
4. Have a very clear and limited scope for their investigation
This is the case, and Apple have provided no evidence he's stepped outside this. In fact they've resorted to significant hyperbole, saying that 1 hour meetings with senior staff would irreparably harm Apple and prevent them from manufacturing new and innovative products. The Judge gave that argument basically 0 weight and that seems reasonable to me.
You go on to call this arrangement crooked but I have read as much as possible on both sides and to me it seems like Apple is throwing their toys out of their pram. They didn't get their way and so they have immediately filed the most ridiculous hyperbolic requests they have had to immediately abandon.
For example. If you read only the opinions on this site, you'll believe that Bromwich was allowed to have secret communications with the Judge to make a plan to ruin Apple, wheras in reality
- That order was never passed
- Apple's lawyers did not understand what ex-parte meant
- Apple thoroughly abandoned that line of argument (along with almost all others) as soon as they understood it
I believe your opinions are held in earnest, but the facts underlying them appear to be wrong. Still I don't want to come across as demanding I am right and you are wrong, but I would encourage you to read over the actual filings in the case rather than media reporting as every site seems to be applying their own bias to the story.