If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job - declining interviews at times without giving any reasons, failing to provide documents he asks for, and in several cases ignoring his queries entirely. Whether that's intentional or just due to Apple's corporate culture in some way, it's still a problem that's going to cost Apple a boatload of cash. If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor. Ignoring him will only end in disaster and bigger charges.
If Apple had cooperated with the guy I believe the fees wold be more than $300k easily and after 2 years he could easily have made a few millions if not tens of millions.
Just imagine without interviewing any of Apple's employee his fees are already plus $130k and if he included in the many hours spend interviewing them I believe the fees wouldn't be lesser but much higher.
Judging from his mercenary attitude he is milking the opportunity for all its worth.
This guy is just a greedy opportunistic SOB low life.
Why is it even a full time job? Shouldn't it just be that, whenever Apple makes a new agreement with a book publisher, it has to be sent off for review?
Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.
Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.
Why is it even a full time job? Shouldn't it just be that, whenever Apple makes a new agreement with a book publisher, it has to be sent off for review?
Oh, only $200.00 an hour! That level of pay for that kind of work is so unreasonably undervalued! How can they possibly manage to live on $200 an hour?! Must be because of all the workplace insurance needed to coverage workplace injuries like paper cuts. At those paltry rates and sweatshop-like working conditions, they should strike!
That makes it so much different considering people are working harder, for much much much less.
This news is an absolute obscenity. People who do real work in crap jobs with crap bosses get squat. But those at the top like the judge? Well, she just throws highly-overpaid work to friends that look just like her and run in the same elevated hoity-toity circles to save each other from ECONOMIC REALITY the rest of us live in.
Sickest part? We, the consumers end up paying for these parasites, both in terms of taxes as well as Apple passing the costs of the "monitor" eventually to us when at the time of purchase.
FFS, the world is a sh*thole filled with idiots with degrees thinking they're actually intelligent when all they are is an explosion of parasites...
Only $200 an hour... ffs
$200 an hour is about average for an attorney. The law firm appointed to monitor Detroit's spending while it goes through bankruptcy gets $600 an hour.
Keep in mind however that the hourly rate also has to cover paying for the Office expenses.
The issue here is not the hourly rate. It is the scope of the investigation. As another person pointed out, all that should be happening here is Apple sends the monitor publisher contracts for review. Why does the monitor have to interview anybody?
Moreover, it sounds like the monitor is unqualified to do his job if he has to hire a law firm to advise him.
Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.
The court ordered Apple to allow A MONITOR, not a team. If he doesn't know the laws he should be monitoring then the court shouldn't have put him there.
And it seems he's harassing folks to be interviewed that have nothing to do with the issue to inflate hours and bill more. Bad form
The court appointed monitor is not versed in antitrust law. And is demanding Apple pay for lawyers to do the work for him
Then why is he there. Apple needs to not pay him, not go along with his games and file to shut him down. Supreme Court if needed.
This whole thing is nutty to begin with but this is just obscene
Why is Apple basically force to subsidize this guy? If he has to hire outside people, why didn't Judge Cote assign *them* in the first place?
Because the system is a scam. Lawyers taking care of each other.
This is why people outside of the law industry (and that's what it is though some would actually call it a scam) just can't fathom this. Logic is perverted. Optics inside are so very different and they call come off as tone-deaf. They live in a kind of Matrix or something...
Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.
Also the appointment is due to start 90 days from the date of the judgement after Apple has had time to put various court ordered recommendations in place, so this guy has jumped the gun somewhat.
He seems to be attempting to gather evidence for ongoing damages trials related to the case, to report anything he digs up secretly to the court who can release the information publicly, he is possibly acting at the behest of the judge contrary to the judgement she handed down which she apparently amended without telling Apple.
In other words the railroading continues, the kangaroo court is not done yet.
The United States has a constitution which is meant to prevent the judiciary acting in such a way and Apple is understandably pissed off and has every right to take this whole sham higher.
Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.
Under $200 per hour... Reasonable.... These things don't go together. This is just more top 5% of society crap again. There's zero justification for such high pay.
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to read the entire Compliance Monitor Brief from the court.
I"m looking for the passage that I read a couple of days ago, that allows the court appointed monitor (Bromwich) to not only be allowed to interview any and all employees, including executives, without an attorney present... BUT... here's the kicker, can also make those interviews public at any time of his or the court's choosing.
This comes down to this:
Bromwich to Sir Jony: "So what are you working on right now?" Sir Jony: "None of your fuggin' business ya wanker!" Bromwich: "Contempt of court charges on the way unless ya tell". Sir Jony: "Bollocks... ok then... an iWatch".
Media headlines within a week: "Sir Jony Ives of Apple Admits to Apple iWatch in the Works" subhead "Says Court Appointed Bromwich"
AFAIK, that very scenario is allowed by the mandate... and is thoroughly F****ED UP!!!!
Please, someone tell me that I'm interpreting this wrong....:no:
In a strongly-worded complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York earlier this week, Apple lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. outlines Bromwich's recent activities since he was assigned as a monitor in October.
Michael Bromwich is already operating in an unfettered and inappropriate manner, outside the scope of the Final Judgment, admittedly based on secret communications with the Court, and trampling Apple's rights; the Court's proposal out of the blue to grant him even greater powers as monitor would only make things worse. Since his appointment, Mr. Bromwich has run far afield from his mandate and informed Apple that his fee structure is designed to "generate profits" for himself and the law firm he has retained to make up for the antitrust experience he lacks.
Boutrous is referring to an order from presiding Judge Denise Cote that extends further power to Bromwich by allowing him to interview Apple executives and personnel without the presence of a lawyer. While the nature of the monitor's proposed meetings is unknown, he demanded time with "the very top executives" of the company, including those who do not in any way deal with the daily operations of the iBookstore. One such ask was SVP of Design Jony Ive.
Make no mistakes : Given his resume (FBI, DOJ, CIA) Bromwich is not there to ensure antitrust compliance when Apple resells PDF files. He is here to strong-arm Apple to provide US intelligence an unfettered backdoor in Apple's too-secure ecosystem.
Because Apple's sin is to have built, for its customers, the most secure ecosystem in history of computing.
Just think for 5 min. about their ecosystem, that is Apple ID, iCloud, content Stores, device activation, etc.:
1. It was designed from the ground up and largely post 9/11. That is at at time where any computer scientist could see the surveillance state coming. And Apple's infrastructure architects, those that designed iCloud, Apple ID, App Stores, iOS locking & activation, etc. certainly did. And they took this threat into account while designing the ecosystem's architecture.
2. It is based on strong and proven secure technologies: E.g. Kerberos on the SW side and A7's secure enclaves on the HW side.
3. It really has customer's privacy and security at its first and top design goal. Just think about this summer's story on the FBI complaining about not being able to break into iMessage. iMessage was designed this way, with public-keys encryption at it core, at a time everybody knew that RIM/BlackBerry was in bed with the US gov.
4. It has not been broken to date. An no, jailbreaking does not count as a breach in the ecosystem: It is just about getting back some control on devices, not about breaking into Apple's iCloud, IDs, and Stores.
My guess is that Apple designed all their infrastructure from the ground up such that they were (1) complying with the law, including NSLs. But at the same time (2) make it sure that they would not be in a position to be forced, even by NSLs, to be able to snoop on users's data.
Now, all this antitrust thing is designed from the ground up to make it clear to Apple's management that they have no choice but to bent. This is plain bullying, as in The Godfather of fame:
a. Ask your target politely first, just to confirm that they will turn you down. I assume that the NSA and Apple had had the following conversations several times:
NSA: "Could you please provides us access to Mr X's data/device [or private key, or remote access, or whatever] ?"
Apple: "Sorry sir, we would like to help but, due to the way our system is built, what you are asking for is out of our reach because of [Insert perfectly good technical reason that is not violating the letter of Patriot Act]"
b. Meet with one of your enemy and offer him protection if he teams against you. Let this meetings leaks enough for the target to be ware of it. Now some of you may remember that it has been documented that the DOJ met with Amazon, the real monopolist at the time and now, prior to filling for anti-trust on ebooks.
c. Set up a trap. The trap was the constructed anti-trust trial on ebooks. The whole case was so ludicrous that the DOJ knew for sure that Apple would not settle on such a joke.
d. Once trapped, get your hands around your target's neck and make him slowly suffocate until he whisper and recon who's the boss. That last step started a couple of weeks ago, when the so-called monitor showed up at Apple HQ. I guess it went like this:
Antirust Monitor: "Could I see Sir Jonathan Ive please? I kind of recall he is with the industrial design department."
? Receptionist: "Do you have an appointment?"
Antirust Monitor: "No, but I do not need one. Just show him my business card."
Receptionist: [Trying to figure out how to reach Apple's head of security without visitor noticing].
Antirust Monitor: "By the way, is Mr Cook at the office today?"
Receptionist: [thinking "What the hell is this all about?!?"].
So it might turns out that the surveillance state put in place by the US after 9/11 might be fought by a corporation and not the civil liberty organization as one would expect.
The outcome of all this antitrust joke is far more reaching than it looks...
No, attorney "billable hours" are not split among a team. Each person who makes up an hour of work (heavily padded), bills for an hour. In this case, $1,100 per hour plus "handing." This is pure horseshit.
The guy doesn't realize that he's outside of Washington DC and he's not billing the government, but a profit-conscious corporation.
Someone at Apple needs to explain to Michael Bromwich that his "office is in a warehouse with no HVAC and the bathroom is across a busy street at a burnt out gas station well known for its drug traffic. As long as he stays in his "office" he is safe, if he is seen anywhere near an Apple building, anything might happen to him... you catch my drift?"
Comments
If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job - declining interviews at times without giving any reasons, failing to provide documents he asks for, and in several cases ignoring his queries entirely. Whether that's intentional or just due to Apple's corporate culture in some way, it's still a problem that's going to cost Apple a boatload of cash. If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor. Ignoring him will only end in disaster and bigger charges.
I'd actually recommend reading the documents involved (http://allthingsd.com/20131129/apple-doesnt-want-to-pay-the-feds-e-book-lawyer-70000-a-week/ ) - they're very interesting on both sides.
If Apple had cooperated with the guy I believe the fees wold be more than $300k easily and after 2 years he could easily have made a few millions if not tens of millions.
Just imagine without interviewing any of Apple's employee his fees are already plus $130k and if he included in the many hours spend interviewing them I believe the fees wouldn't be lesser but much higher.
Judging from his mercenary attitude he is milking the opportunity for all its worth.
This guy is just a greedy opportunistic SOB low life.
Land of the free. Indeed. /s
Which pair are you referring to?
Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.
Bingo.
$200 an hour is about average for an attorney. The law firm appointed to monitor Detroit's spending while it goes through bankruptcy gets $600 an hour.
Keep in mind however that the hourly rate also has to cover paying for the Office expenses.
The issue here is not the hourly rate. It is the scope of the investigation. As another person pointed out, all that should be happening here is Apple sends the monitor publisher contracts for review. Why does the monitor have to interview anybody?
Moreover, it sounds like the monitor is unqualified to do his job if he has to hire a law firm to advise him.
How about you play a guessing game.... with yourself.
Then why is he there. Apple needs to not pay him, not go along with his games and file to shut him down. Supreme Court if needed.
This whole thing is nutty to begin with but this is just obscene
The court ordered Apple to allow A MONITOR, not a team. If he doesn't know the laws he should be monitoring then the court shouldn't have put him there.
And it seems he's harassing folks to be interviewed that have nothing to do with the issue to inflate hours and bill more. Bad form
The court appointed monitor is not versed in antitrust law. And is demanding Apple pay for lawyers to do the work for him
Then why is he there. Apple needs to not pay him, not go along with his games and file to shut him down. Supreme Court if needed.
This whole thing is nutty to begin with but this is just obscene
Why is Apple basically force to subsidize this guy? If he has to hire outside people, why didn't Judge Cote assign *them* in the first place?
Because the system is a scam. Lawyers taking care of each other.
This is why people outside of the law industry (and that's what it is though some would actually call it a scam) just can't fathom this. Logic is perverted. Optics inside are so very different and they call come off as tone-deaf. They live in a kind of Matrix or something...
Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.
Also the appointment is due to start 90 days from the date of the judgement after Apple has had time to put various court ordered recommendations in place, so this guy has jumped the gun somewhat.
He seems to be attempting to gather evidence for ongoing damages trials related to the case, to report anything he digs up secretly to the court who can release the information publicly, he is possibly acting at the behest of the judge contrary to the judgement she handed down which she apparently amended without telling Apple.
In other words the railroading continues, the kangaroo court is not done yet.
The United States has a constitution which is meant to prevent the judiciary acting in such a way and Apple is understandably pissed off and has every right to take this whole sham higher.
Under $200 per hour... Reasonable.... These things don't go together. This is just more top 5% of society crap again. There's zero justification for such high pay.
How about you play a guessing game.... with yourself.
Okay.
No idea why you think Apple is being arrogant in this case.
Don't understand why people need to get so defensive & juvenile when posting here.
Okay.
No idea why you think Apple is being arrogant in this case.
Don't understand why people need to get so defensive & juvenile when posting here.
I had no intention of being defensive.
To the contrary, I thought you were being needlessly sarcastic, since I felt it was rather obvious that I was referring to Bromwich and Cote.
But apparently, that was not so obvious....
Okay. I agree with your comment.
I was unsure of who you were referring to since the article is about Apple & Bromwich and others are mentioned as an aside.
I"m looking for the passage that I read a couple of days ago, that allows the court appointed monitor (Bromwich) to not only be allowed to interview any and all employees, including executives, without an attorney present... BUT... here's the kicker, can also make those interviews public at any time of his or the court's choosing.
This comes down to this:
Bromwich to Sir Jony: "So what are you working on right now?"
Sir Jony: "None of your fuggin' business ya wanker!"
Bromwich: "Contempt of court charges on the way unless ya tell".
Sir Jony: "Bollocks... ok then... an iWatch".
Media headlines within a week: "Sir Jony Ives of Apple Admits to Apple iWatch in the Works" subhead "Says Court Appointed Bromwich"
AFAIK, that very scenario is allowed by the mandate... and is thoroughly F****ED UP!!!!
Please, someone tell me that I'm interpreting this wrong....:no:
In a strongly-worded complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York earlier this week, Apple lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. outlines Bromwich's recent activities since he was assigned as a monitor in October.
Boutrous is referring to an order from presiding Judge Denise Cote that extends further power to Bromwich by allowing him to interview Apple executives and personnel without the presence of a lawyer. While the nature of the monitor's proposed meetings is unknown, he demanded time with "the very top executives" of the company, including those who do not in any way deal with the daily operations of the iBookstore. One such ask was SVP of Design Jony Ive.
Make no mistakes : Given his resume (FBI, DOJ, CIA) Bromwich is not there to ensure antitrust compliance when Apple resells PDF files. He is here to strong-arm Apple to provide US intelligence an unfettered backdoor in Apple's too-secure ecosystem.
Because Apple's sin is to have built, for its customers, the most secure ecosystem in history of computing.
Just think for 5 min. about their ecosystem, that is Apple ID, iCloud, content Stores, device activation, etc.:
1. It was designed from the ground up and largely post 9/11. That is at at time where any computer scientist could see the surveillance state coming. And Apple's infrastructure architects, those that designed iCloud, Apple ID, App Stores, iOS locking & activation, etc. certainly did. And they took this threat into account while designing the ecosystem's architecture.
2. It is based on strong and proven secure technologies: E.g. Kerberos on the SW side and A7's secure enclaves on the HW side.
3. It really has customer's privacy and security at its first and top design goal. Just think about this summer's story on the FBI complaining about not being able to break into iMessage. iMessage was designed this way, with public-keys encryption at it core, at a time everybody knew that RIM/BlackBerry was in bed with the US gov.
4. It has not been broken to date. An no, jailbreaking does not count as a breach in the ecosystem: It is just about getting back some control on devices, not about breaking into Apple's iCloud, IDs, and Stores.
My guess is that Apple designed all their infrastructure from the ground up such that they were (1) complying with the law, including NSLs. But at the same time (2) make it sure that they would not be in a position to be forced, even by NSLs, to be able to snoop on users's data.
Now, all this antitrust thing is designed from the ground up to make it clear to Apple's management that they have no choice but to bent. This is plain bullying, as in The Godfather of fame:
a. Ask your target politely first, just to confirm that they will turn you down. I assume that the NSA and Apple had had the following conversations several times:
NSA: "Could you please provides us access to Mr X's data/device [or private key, or remote access, or whatever] ?"
Apple: "Sorry sir, we would like to help but, due to the way our system is built, what you are asking for is out of our reach because of [Insert perfectly good technical reason that is not violating the letter of Patriot Act]"
b. Meet with one of your enemy and offer him protection if he teams against you. Let this meetings leaks enough for the target to be ware of it. Now some of you may remember that it has been documented that the DOJ met with Amazon, the real monopolist at the time and now, prior to filling for anti-trust on ebooks.
c. Set up a trap. The trap was the constructed anti-trust trial on ebooks. The whole case was so ludicrous that the DOJ knew for sure that Apple would not settle on such a joke.
d. Once trapped, get your hands around your target's neck and make him slowly suffocate until he whisper and recon who's the boss. That last step started a couple of weeks ago, when the so-called monitor showed up at Apple HQ. I guess it went like this:
Antirust Monitor: "Could I see Sir Jonathan Ive please? I kind of recall he is with the industrial design department."
? Receptionist: "Do you have an appointment?"
Antirust Monitor: "No, but I do not need one. Just show him my business card."
Receptionist: [Trying to figure out how to reach Apple's head of security without visitor noticing].
Receptionist: [thinking "What the hell is this all about?!?"].
So it might turns out that the surveillance state put in place by the US after 9/11 might be fought by a corporation and not the civil liberty organization as one would expect.
The outcome of all this antitrust joke is far more reaching than it looks...
The guy doesn't realize that he's outside of Washington DC and he's not billing the government, but a profit-conscious corporation.