or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple now cooperating says external compliance monitor Bromwich in first report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple now cooperating says external compliance monitor Bromwich in first report

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Apple's court-appointed external compliance monitor Michael Bromwich on Monday issued his first report to U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, noting a marked improvement in relations between himself and the Cupertino, Calif. company.

Bromwich


In the 77-page report, first spotted by The Wall Street Journal, Bromwich says Apple has been more cooperative since he was installed last year to watch over the company's dealings.

The report is the first of many to Judge Cote, who in July found Apple culpable of conspiring with five major book publishers to fix the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore. price fixing the U.S. Department of Justice's successful case over e-book price fixing,

"As described above, and more fully in this Report, there has been a shift of tone in our relationship with Apple since mid-February, largely attributable to Apple's designation of a new in-house principal point of contact and to changes Apple has made in the outside counsel with whom we deal," Bromwich writes.

Apple has made attempts to remove Bromwich from his position after claiming the ECM was conducting an unconstitutional and wide-roving investigation of the company that far surpassed his jurisdiction. Complaints ranged from supposedly excessive pay to unreasonable requests for interviews of high-level executives not involved in the company's day-to-day operations.

In January, Apple's motions to remove culminated in an official request to dislodge Bromwich that was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in February. The appellate court ultimately shot down the attempt, saying the company failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm.

Bromwich goes into detail regarding his monitorship thus far, with more than half of the document describing friction between himself and Apple. He notes that Apple's Vice President and Associate General Counsel Doug Vetter is the company's new "point of contact" and has proven to be more willing to work with the ECM than his predecessor.

With documents furnished and requests fulfilled, Bromwich appears to be optimistic that he and his team can complete the court's assigned task. He goes on to note the various programs and initiatives Apple has instituted -- or is planning to -- with an eye on avoiding another antitrust kerfuffle.

"Our judgment is that Apple has made a promising start in enhancing its Antitrust Compliance Program since issuance of the Final Judgment, but that it still has much work to do," Bromwich said.

post #2 of 21
At this point, not a whole heckuva lot of people care about this Bromwich guy and his broom-witch.

In fact, I wish Apple would just sell off this low-margin business so that these two losers can be jettisoned.
post #3 of 21
Didn't the judge end up limiting the scope of what he could do?
post #4 of 21
Bromwich noted that the company also complied with his request to park in Tim Cook's parking spot and also to name a company cafeteria sandwich after him: "The Bromwich." 1smile.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

At this point, not a whole heckuva lot of people care about this Bromwich guy and his broom-witch.

In fact, I wish Apple would just sell off this low-margin business so that these two losers can be jettisoned.
Lol, exactly. I'm not a fan of judge cote either. She's totally against apple in every way!
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Bromwich noted that the company also complied with his request to park in Tim Cook's parking spot and also to name a company cafeteria sandwich after him: "The Bromwich." 1smile.gif

Not sure that's a big seller. It's full of BS.

I wonder how many times a day does this guy have to remove a "kick me" sign off his back.
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Didn't the judge end up limiting the scope of what he could do?

 

Exactly. So to say Apple is cooperating implies Apple is caving in to Bromwich when in fact his scope was significantly narrowed (which is what Apple really wanted).

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #8 of 21
Jerkwich is beef jerky sandwich names after him, flush down with colecola
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Didn't the judge end up limiting the scope of what he could do?

My understanding is that Bromwich was put on a shorter leash.  He couldn't request to interview executives (like Jony Ive), people that have absolutely nothing to do with the ebook debacle.

Sounds like Apple assigned one guy to be the focal point that Bromwich could be a pest to.  I just hope they assigned Bromwich a broom closet to do his "business" from.

post #10 of 21
Of course Apple are more cooperative now Bromwich has been reigned in by Cote's clarification enforced by the court of appeal.

Meanwhile the appeals continue.

How many million dollars is "irreparable harm"?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #11 of 21
My guess - based upon nothing other than the sequence of press reports - is that Apple has assigned a less-adversarial interface person to work with the somewhat-restricted Bromwich while the appeal is in play.

His pay may still be way-out-of-line but that can be dealt with later. Apple might win that, or not, but now is not the time for that fight.

His scope of operation would appear to be much more concentrated on the issues at trial and his ability to dig into unrelated lines of business seems to be either very limited or eliminated.

The appeal is the big deal here and Apple does not want to provide a pile of prejudicial material to the other side. Everything is therefore proceeding nicely and will continue to do so until the Court rules on the appeal.

From a personal perspective, I don't know how the appeal will go. That's because appeals are based upon the law, and not upon the facts. The facts are decided at the initial trial and, in my opinion, the Judge got them wrong. But the appeals court can't correct that, although it can find that - in the vernacular - it was borked and should be done over. That is, vacate the decision and send it back for retrial. But if the appeals court accepts the facts then remedies at law are not plentiful. This will be an interesting case to follow.
post #12 of 21
Apple is a weak fighter, trying to get justice through the legal system while the likes of Cote, Bromwich, and Samsung are using every-which tool, legal or not, to get what they want. Apple needs to implement Job's nuclear war theory, and go apeshit over their asses.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

How many million dollars is "irreparable harm"?

No amount of money is "irreparable harm". I'm not sure if it's in the definition, but the essence of irreparable harm is that which can NOT be compensated for by money. Such as one's personal reputation, or the market position of a business..

 

Consider this thought-experiment:  RSA. Many have criticized it lately for its alleged involvement with the NSA. And its reputation has certainly suffered as a result of these allegations. Now consider what might happen if RSA receives and produces a gold-plated certificate of non-involvement and "goodness". Will its former reputation be restored? Can it somehow be "made whole"? 

 

And now contemplate again what is "irreparable harm" in light of this scenario. 

post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

My guess - based upon nothing other than the sequence of press reports - is that Apple has assigned a less-adversarial interface person to work with the somewhat-restricted Bromwich while the appeal is in play.

His pay may still be way-out-of-line but that can be dealt with later. Apple might win that, or not, but now is not the time for that fight.

His scope of operation would appear to be much more concentrated on the issues at trial and his ability to dig into unrelated lines of business seems to be either very limited or eliminated.

The appeal is the big deal here and Apple does not want to provide a pile of prejudicial material to the other side. Everything is therefore proceeding nicely and will continue to do so until the Court rules on the appeal.

From a personal perspective, I don't know how the appeal will go. That's because appeals are based upon the law, and not upon the facts. The facts are decided at the initial trial and, in my opinion, the Judge got them wrong. But the appeals court can't correct that, although it can find that - in the vernacular - it was borked and should be done over. That is, vacate the decision and send it back for retrial. But if the appeals court accepts the facts then remedies at law are not plentiful. This will be an interesting case to follow.

The biggest error was treating Apple as a horizontal participant when in fact they were a vertical participant.

The verdict was determined under this fatal flaw.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #15 of 21

That woman, Judge Cote, is not a good judge.

 

More than half of the lawyers who rated her on a judge rating site said that she was biased and pre-judged cases before hearing any evidence.

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/14/apple-ebook-judge-cote-2/

 

And just what does the current DOJ have against Apple? The current DOJ is a big joke, one of the worst in recent history, if not the worst ever, and not just because of Apple. That's minor, compared to the other stuff.

post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The biggest error was treating Apple as a horizontal participant when in fact they were a vertical participant.

The verdict was determined under this fatal flaw.

Could you explain what the terms horizontal and vertical mean in this instance?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #17 of 21
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Could you explain what the terms horizontal and vertical mean in this instance?

 

Wouldn’t it be the same as anywhere else?

Horizontal as in cornering the market on all aspects of one level of the process: i.e., deals with all publishers in the market. Vertical as in owning one piece of every aspect of the process in a direct line from content creator to content consumer.

 

When this all comes out and Apple gets to countersue for tens of billions in damages by the government, I certainly hope Amazon foots some of that bill.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Bromwich noted that the company also complied with his request to park in Tim Cook's parking spot and also to name a company cafeteria sandwich after him: "The Bromwich." 1smile.gif

 

I can see a sandwich being named after him. Tim Cook doesn't care about sandwiches anyway. Apparently Fries are his thing...

post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wouldn’t it be the same as anywhere else?


Horizontal as in cornering the market on all aspects of one level of the process: i.e., deals with all publishers in the market. Vertical as in owning one piece of every aspect of the process in a direct line from content creator to content consumer.

When this all comes out and Apple gets to countersue for tens of billions in damages by the government, I certainly hope Amazon foots some of that bill.

Amazon already paid the DOJ to investigate.
post #20 of 21

It actually sounds like Apple figured out a way to deal with him with out dealing with him. The fact his report is just him lambasting about how Apple is treating him tells me he is not doing anything of substance which I what Apples original complaint was. He is just now seen as the cost of doing business and Apple gets to write this guys costs off their taxes. Just means the government is making less money off Apple.

post #21 of 21
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
Amazon already paid the DOJ to investigate.

 

I’m not as big a fan of humor that makes you mad as some people. :lol:

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple now cooperating says external compliance monitor Bromwich in first report