Make no mistakes : Given his resume (FBI, DOJ, CIA) Bromwich is not there to ensure antitrust compliance when Apple resells PDF files. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">He is here to strong-arm Apple to provide US intelligence</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> an unfettered backdoor in Ap</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ple's too-s</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">ecure</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> ecosystem.</span>
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 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple ID, iCloud, content Stores, device activation, etc.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">:</span>
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]"
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> 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 </span>
remember<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> 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.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> c. Set up a trap. The trap was the </span>
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:
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
Antirust<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Monitor: "Could I see Sir </span>
Jonathan <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Ive please? I kind of </span>
recall<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> he is with the </span>
industrial<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> design </span>
department.<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">? Receptionist: "Do you have an </span>
appointment<span style="line-height:1.4em;">?"</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
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].
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Antirust</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> Monitor: "By the way, is Mr Cook at the office today?"</span>
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...
Brilliant post. Indeed, this one thread highlights the great strength of AppleInsider's membership base and makes me feel lucky that it exists.
This hours wage of $200 (Didn't do the math, just taking everyone's word for it) isn't unreasonable, but the additional service fees as well as charging for others to come in to do the job you can't is unreasonable. I bill in the $200 range (depending on the job and client) but if there is something that needs an outside expert that would be something that would be discussed beforehand and then dealt with separately or I would eat the cost if it's from a lack of comprehension and poor planning on my part after a deal was struck. To me this just ethnical business practices but I suppose the stereotype* of the lawyer evolved for a reason and we are dealing with Apple's very deep pockets.
*[SIZE=2] Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such[/SIZE]
Apple is busy. Tim Cook and Jony Ive are in meetings, designing new products, etc. They're not the guy's slave, the Judge never said they had to submit to him.
I agree 100%, although id miss apple, they should stop ALL sales to Americans for about 1 month and see what happens. They should also make OS X and iOS cease to work in America too, that way, we could get so mad and vote all these stinking politicians out! I AM SICK OF THIS GOVERNMENT. All I've got to say is Obama better intervene and support Apple, otherwise, I'll be mad.
Agreed too. And to be honest, I doubt Apple really did any of that. They are giving Authors the choice to pick their price. And you're telling me Amazon hasn't done any of this? Think again, I bet they have.
While I think Apple has reason for complaint, you sound like a spoiled kid with no understanding of how business or law is conducted. This isn't a dictatorship - Obama can't intervene in a court decision. Whether the judge was right or wrong and whether the Government was right or wrong is not relevant at this point - the court has ruled. Apple is not going to stop making sales in the U.S. and they're not going to cause the OS' not to work (at least not on purpose). "Obama better intervene," otherwise you'll be mad? You sound like a three-year-old stamping their feet.
On the face of it, the court's decision seems wrong. In the Agency model, the publisher sets the price and Apple pays the publisher 70% of the sale. What's the big deal? But instead of books, let's say these were electronics. Should the manufacturer be able to dictate the price a retailer charges for a product? Traditionally, the manufacturer set the "retail price" or "recommended selling price", but the retailer could sell the product for any price they chose, whether that was at, above or below list price or even below the price they paid - either as a loss leader or because they needed to raise cash, even at a loss. (However, see below because that's changed).
The court got involved because it's illegal for two parties to get together and agree upon a selling price, especially if the result is higher prices to consumers. That's traditionally been called "price fixing" or "restraint of trade". When I was in the CD-ROM business and we were working on a distribution deal, the one thing we were never permitted to discuss with the distributor was selling price.
However, the court failed to recognize two things: the first is that while an Agency Model does raise prices to consumers, permitting Amazon to sell ebooks below their cost endangered the long-term health of the industry and those prices would only remain low until Amazon essentially became a monopoly and then prices would rise. (However, publishers and authors complaints that they earned less money were b.s. because Amazon still paid the wholesale price.) This is already happening as Amazon's dominance is destroying physical bookstores (both independent and chain) and the e-commerce sites that accompany them. Borders is gone and Barnes & Noble.com only does a tiny percentage of the business that Amazon does. There are about 13,000 physical bookstores left in the U.S. 15 years ago there were double that number.
The second is that the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite some years ago. Prior to the court ruling, manufacturers could set minimum advertised prices, but not minimum selling prices. But the court ruled they could and manufacturers such as Sony and Nikon are enforcing minimum selling prices on their higher end products. So why is it okay for the electronics manufacturers and not for the publishers?
Furthermore, I believe the court screwed up in that the judge should have determined in advance how much this antitrust monitor should be paid. He seems to be making a career out of it. All he should be entitled to see are any agreements Apple makes with publishers and e-book distributors. He should receive a copy of each proposed contract automatically. He doesn't need to interview anyone as long as he receives those contracts, but on the outside chance that he does, the only person he needs to interview is the person who negotiates the deals with publishers and possibly the lawyer who writes the contracts. If those contracts don't include any "price-fixing" clauses, then his job is done. He shouldn't need a staff. If he does, then he's the wrong person - he was supposed to be an "expert". I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take the job for one-tenth the $3.64 million a year that this guy wants and I'll work from home as long as Apple sends me all the contracts, so I won't be bothering anybody.
In the end, Apple can accomplish the same result as they originally intended. The publishers, each on their own and independent of Apple can establish a wholesale price that just happens to be 70% of list price. They can inform Apple of what the list price is. Apple can charge that list price or any other price they want to. Apple just can't have any conversation with the publishers about the price they're going to charge and the publishers cannot discuss or agree with each other to charge Apple 70% of list or to set any kind of pre-established prices for ebooks.
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...
That's an interesting theory, but if this were just a simple case of the US Govt wanting force Apple into giving them access, what's in it for Apple if they comply - does the DoJ back off? And what's to stop Apple from simply exposing the demands, which would be catastrophically bad for the government?
Interviews without lawyers? He's going to write a tell-all book titled: "My Year With Apple: Inside look at how one of the world's most secret and admired companies run". Later, he will accept "consulting fees" from Samsung.
Among other bizarre requests: Jony Ive has to vacate his reserved parking spot when Bromwich arrives. Apple employees are required to look down at their feet and address Bromwich as "His High Overseer" He gets first dibs on office space on the top floor of the saucer, when completed. Apple must pay fees and tips for his personal masseuse and "chi wellness coach". Tim Cook is required to surrender his personal phone to Bromwich on demand, and Bromwich is allowed to make 3 prank calls from it each month.. Apple not only pays for his meals, Apple will also pay him a gratuity of 18% to clean up after him. Early access to future Apple products without supervision and the permission to take them anywhere, including, but not limited to, Samsung's new HQ in Silicon Valley. Priority use of Apple executive jets for personal travel. He is allowed to address Apple executives as "The Court's Bitches" for the duration of his employment. He is allowed to select one of the colors for next year's iPod, and that color will be marketed as "dedicated to" him.
Is this the way the court to retaliate Apple for conspiring to raise the retail price of e-books by allowing lawyers charging exorbitant fees to Apple? So the court is no better than Apple. This makes suspicious of the court's authority to judge Apple. The case seems a conspiracy from Amazon and its anonymous friends.
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.
that's not accurate. There is Bromwich and his four-member team, so it's split five ways, not six. 2 weeks full time = 80 hours x 5 people = 400 hours. $138,432 / 400 hours = $346/hour, which equates to just under $700,000 per person per year, which is almost 4x what a federal judge earns in a year.
This hours wage of $200 (Didn't do the math, just taking everyone's word for it) isn't unreasonable, but the additional service fees as well as charging for others to come in to do the job you can't is unreasonable. I bill in the $200 range (depending on the job and client) but if there is something that needs an outside expert that would be something that would be discussed beforehand and then dealt with separately or I would eat the cost if it's from a lack of comprehension and poor planning on my part after a deal was struck. To me this just ethnical business practices but I suppose the stereotype* of the lawyer evolved for a reason and we are dealing with Apple's very deep pockets.
* Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such
The judge should have appointed you then. Would have been a better deal than the one she appointed. But, unfortunately, those at the top usually have rather ... flexible views on ethics and up at that level everything seems to be one gigantic circlejerk.
that's not accurate. There is Bromwich and his four-member team, so it's split five ways, not six. 2 weeks full time = 80 hours x 5 people = 400 hours. $138,432 / 400 hours = $346/hour, which equates to just under $700,000 per person per year, which is almost 4x what a federal judge earns in a year.
Except that Bromwich himself claims $1100.00 fee per hour personally + 15% administrative fees. He is a thief. And after reading the attached court filing by Apple, this judge and judgment is so literally bias to hurt Apple in any way possible it is ridiculous and unconstitutional. The judge is receiving ex parte' reports from Bromwich without informing Apple, and Bromwich is conducting those interviews with no counsel (lawyer) present in direct violation of the original court verdict. So what does the judge do? She illegally changes the verdict on her own without a hearing or even talking with anyone at apple, only talking with Bromwich. She should be disbarred as a lawyer and removed from office as a judge. I would say the same if this was not Apple too. She is trying to be judge, jury and executioner all in one. Something that is totally against the constitution, and written law. This is the same judge that went on record before this trial began saying that Apple was already guilty and reported that to the press. And on top of all of this, she is the same judge presiding over the states iBook lawsuits as well. Receiving private ex parte info from Bromwich when she is presiding over the same issue in a different part of the case is illegal and would under the law force her to recuse herself as bias and not impartial. Cote is just about the most corrupt judge I have ever seen.
That's an interesting theory, but if this were just a simple case of the US Govt wanting force Apple into giving them access, what's in it for Apple if they comply - does the DoJ back off? And what's to stop Apple from simply exposing the demands, which would be catastrophically bad for the government?
If, or should I say, when they will comply they will just be allowed to breathe again, having learned who is the boss. The DOJ will then just claim that the antitrust measures are sufficient and that monitoring will be lifted in a couple of years -- And it will be. But the executive team will never sleep again. Exposing? This bullying is difficult for Apple to expose for several reasons:
1. How to you make a case before a judge that you have been bullied by the government with the help of another judge?
2. This would be devastating for their business.
3. Who will back them during this multi-year fight? Who are Apple's friend in the industry or in the US at large?
All US high-tech have bent to the NSA demands: Zero-day attacks provided with a lead time to the NSA for Microsoft, Google has been a good boy and infested about 1 billion devices with the virus-friendly Android and god know who accesses their data centers, etc. Every Apple competitors will be more than happy to see them falling. Wall Street hates a company that does not play by their rules: Too secretive, no insider knowledge, not begging for cash nor giving back their +160 B$. Amazon will rejoice. Not to mention those who have seen their lunch being eaten by Apple like HP, DELL, the telcos or the music industry.
It may be catastrophic for the government? Not so sure. The government can retaliates quick and fast with bogus suits à-la-eBook through IRS, the SEC, antitrust on music or movies, or all at once. But will it be catastrophic for three letters agencies like the NSA? The head of NSA lied in front of Congress and is still in place! These guys has got much more power than J. Edgar Hoover ever had, as his computers stores much more information than the both the Stasi and the KGB ever dreamed of.
Maybe Apple should reissue shares to a body called the "readers trust", enough to sell off so the profits from their sale make enough to refund every iBook sold in the US and make every iBook free moving forward with annual payments to the publishers to cover what they would have made.
I'll bet Denise Cote gets a nice Christmas gift from her buddy this year.
The judge should have appointed you then. Would have been a better deal than the one she appointed. But, unfortunately, those at the top usually have rather ... flexible views on ethics and up at that level everything seems to be one gigantic circlejerk.
I'm not a lawyer. I was speaking purely from a professional standpoint.
Bromwich is probably going to report secrets to Samsung and other Apple competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNosey
That's what I'm thinking. I'm totally for Apple on this one, they did absolutely nothing. Hope this guy has an iPad, Mac, or iPhone, maybe apple'll shut it down for him same with that stinking judge. Samsung never gets in trouble for everything, but Apple, the one company that is actually trying to be a "good force in the world" always is. The judge stinks, this guy stinks, if I were apple, I'd just shut down their iPhones and say oops, technical error, we can't fix it... Sorry! Go Apple!
I hope you guys realize he could lose his license to practice over such an incident. Enjoy your conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This hours wage of $200 (Didn't do the math, just taking everyone's word for it) isn't unreasonable, but the additional service fees as well as charging for others to come in to do the job you can't is unreasonable. I bill in the $200 range (depending on the job and client) but if there is something that needs an outside expert that would be something that would be discussed beforehand and then dealt with separately or I would eat the cost if it's from a lack of comprehension and poor planning on my part after a deal was struck. To me this just ethnical business practices but I suppose the stereotype* of the lawyer evolved for a reason and we are dealing with Apple's very deep pockets.
* Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such
Weren't you in some area of engineering? I vaguely remember references from some time ago.
1 - A lawyer not qualified on antitrust matters appointed to oversee antitrust matters? 2 - A matter related to price fixing is subjected to monopolistic pricing terms imposed by a bureaucrat abusing his power?
... is this the Soviet Union or the United States?
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.
I believe you're wrong. The total hour figure is not a total for each lawyer (to be multiplied by 5), but rather a measure of the total hours worked by the 5 lawyers. So it is $1100 per hour.
The guy admits in his letter that his rate is higher than any lawyer's rate, because he claims to be a consultant, so he is charging consultant's rates. That is not $200/hour. Lawyers don't bill like that. He clearly states his personal fee is $1100 per hour +15% administrative fee. The other lawyers are billed separately at their own rate (+15% for them also).
Comments
Brilliant post. Indeed, this one thread highlights the great strength of AppleInsider's membership base and makes me feel lucky that it exists.
*[SIZE=2] Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such[/SIZE]
Anytime a book uses the word aluminium Jony gets a kickback.
Apple is busy. Tim Cook and Jony Ive are in meetings, designing new products, etc. They're not the guy's slave, the Judge never said they had to submit to him.
I agree 100%, although id miss apple, they should stop ALL sales to Americans for about 1 month and see what happens. They should also make OS X and iOS cease to work in America too, that way, we could get so mad and vote all these stinking politicians out! I AM SICK OF THIS GOVERNMENT. All I've got to say is Obama better intervene and support Apple, otherwise, I'll be mad.
Agreed too. And to be honest, I doubt Apple really did any of that. They are giving Authors the choice to pick their price. And you're telling me Amazon hasn't done any of this? Think again, I bet they have.
While I think Apple has reason for complaint, you sound like a spoiled kid with no understanding of how business or law is conducted. This isn't a dictatorship - Obama can't intervene in a court decision. Whether the judge was right or wrong and whether the Government was right or wrong is not relevant at this point - the court has ruled. Apple is not going to stop making sales in the U.S. and they're not going to cause the OS' not to work (at least not on purpose). "Obama better intervene," otherwise you'll be mad? You sound like a three-year-old stamping their feet.
On the face of it, the court's decision seems wrong. In the Agency model, the publisher sets the price and Apple pays the publisher 70% of the sale. What's the big deal? But instead of books, let's say these were electronics. Should the manufacturer be able to dictate the price a retailer charges for a product? Traditionally, the manufacturer set the "retail price" or "recommended selling price", but the retailer could sell the product for any price they chose, whether that was at, above or below list price or even below the price they paid - either as a loss leader or because they needed to raise cash, even at a loss. (However, see below because that's changed).
The court got involved because it's illegal for two parties to get together and agree upon a selling price, especially if the result is higher prices to consumers. That's traditionally been called "price fixing" or "restraint of trade". When I was in the CD-ROM business and we were working on a distribution deal, the one thing we were never permitted to discuss with the distributor was selling price.
However, the court failed to recognize two things: the first is that while an Agency Model does raise prices to consumers, permitting Amazon to sell ebooks below their cost endangered the long-term health of the industry and those prices would only remain low until Amazon essentially became a monopoly and then prices would rise. (However, publishers and authors complaints that they earned less money were b.s. because Amazon still paid the wholesale price.) This is already happening as Amazon's dominance is destroying physical bookstores (both independent and chain) and the e-commerce sites that accompany them. Borders is gone and Barnes & Noble.com only does a tiny percentage of the business that Amazon does. There are about 13,000 physical bookstores left in the U.S. 15 years ago there were double that number.
The second is that the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite some years ago. Prior to the court ruling, manufacturers could set minimum advertised prices, but not minimum selling prices. But the court ruled they could and manufacturers such as Sony and Nikon are enforcing minimum selling prices on their higher end products. So why is it okay for the electronics manufacturers and not for the publishers?
Furthermore, I believe the court screwed up in that the judge should have determined in advance how much this antitrust monitor should be paid. He seems to be making a career out of it. All he should be entitled to see are any agreements Apple makes with publishers and e-book distributors. He should receive a copy of each proposed contract automatically. He doesn't need to interview anyone as long as he receives those contracts, but on the outside chance that he does, the only person he needs to interview is the person who negotiates the deals with publishers and possibly the lawyer who writes the contracts. If those contracts don't include any "price-fixing" clauses, then his job is done. He shouldn't need a staff. If he does, then he's the wrong person - he was supposed to be an "expert". I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take the job for one-tenth the $3.64 million a year that this guy wants and I'll work from home as long as Apple sends me all the contracts, so I won't be bothering anybody.
In the end, Apple can accomplish the same result as they originally intended. The publishers, each on their own and independent of Apple can establish a wholesale price that just happens to be 70% of list price. They can inform Apple of what the list price is. Apple can charge that list price or any other price they want to. Apple just can't have any conversation with the publishers about the price they're going to charge and the publishers cannot discuss or agree with each other to charge Apple 70% of list or to set any kind of pre-established prices for ebooks.
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...
That's an interesting theory, but if this were just a simple case of the US Govt wanting force Apple into giving them access, what's in it for Apple if they comply - does the DoJ back off? And what's to stop Apple from simply exposing the demands, which would be catastrophically bad for the government?
Jony Ive has to vacate his reserved parking spot when Bromwich arrives.
Apple employees are required to look down at their feet and address Bromwich as "His High Overseer"
He gets first dibs on office space on the top floor of the saucer, when completed.
Apple must pay fees and tips for his personal masseuse and "chi wellness coach".
Tim Cook is required to surrender his personal phone to Bromwich on demand, and Bromwich is allowed to make 3 prank calls from it each month..
Apple not only pays for his meals, Apple will also pay him a gratuity of 18% to clean up after him.
Early access to future Apple products without supervision and the permission to take them anywhere, including, but not limited to, Samsung's new HQ in Silicon Valley.
Priority use of Apple executive jets for personal travel.
He is allowed to address Apple executives as "The Court's Bitches" for the duration of his employment.
He is allowed to select one of the colors for next year's iPod, and that color will be marketed as "dedicated to" him.
Is this the way the court to retaliate Apple for conspiring to raise the retail price of e-books by allowing lawyers charging exorbitant fees to Apple? So the court is no better than Apple. This makes suspicious of the court's authority to judge Apple. The case seems a conspiracy from Amazon and its anonymous friends.
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.
that's not accurate. There is Bromwich and his four-member team, so it's split five ways, not six. 2 weeks full time = 80 hours x 5 people = 400 hours. $138,432 / 400 hours = $346/hour, which equates to just under $700,000 per person per year, which is almost 4x what a federal judge earns in a year.
This hours wage of $200 (Didn't do the math, just taking everyone's word for it) isn't unreasonable, but the additional service fees as well as charging for others to come in to do the job you can't is unreasonable. I bill in the $200 range (depending on the job and client) but if there is something that needs an outside expert that would be something that would be discussed beforehand and then dealt with separately or I would eat the cost if it's from a lack of comprehension and poor planning on my part after a deal was struck. To me this just ethnical business practices but I suppose the stereotype* of the lawyer evolved for a reason and we are dealing with Apple's very deep pockets.
* Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such
The judge should have appointed you then. Would have been a better deal than the one she appointed. But, unfortunately, those at the top usually have rather ... flexible views on ethics and up at that level everything seems to be one gigantic circlejerk.
that's not accurate. There is Bromwich and his four-member team, so it's split five ways, not six. 2 weeks full time = 80 hours x 5 people = 400 hours. $138,432 / 400 hours = $346/hour, which equates to just under $700,000 per person per year, which is almost 4x what a federal judge earns in a year.
Except that Bromwich himself claims $1100.00 fee per hour personally + 15% administrative fees. He is a thief. And after reading the attached court filing by Apple, this judge and judgment is so literally bias to hurt Apple in any way possible it is ridiculous and unconstitutional. The judge is receiving ex parte' reports from Bromwich without informing Apple, and Bromwich is conducting those interviews with no counsel (lawyer) present in direct violation of the original court verdict. So what does the judge do? She illegally changes the verdict on her own without a hearing or even talking with anyone at apple, only talking with Bromwich. She should be disbarred as a lawyer and removed from office as a judge. I would say the same if this was not Apple too. She is trying to be judge, jury and executioner all in one. Something that is totally against the constitution, and written law. This is the same judge that went on record before this trial began saying that Apple was already guilty and reported that to the press. And on top of all of this, she is the same judge presiding over the states iBook lawsuits as well. Receiving private ex parte info from Bromwich when she is presiding over the same issue in a different part of the case is illegal and would under the law force her to recuse herself as bias and not impartial. Cote is just about the most corrupt judge I have ever seen.
that's not accurate. There is Bromwich and his four-member team, so it's split five ways, not six.
What makes you think he's splitting his hourly rate with 4 others?
Bet you don't split your wage 3 ways when you work on a project with 2 other people.
What makes you think a lawyer on something this big would work 40 hours a week?
Since he's just starting, likely they are only doing a few hours a day.
If he was doing full time work in this case only, he'd easily be doing +12 hours a day.
That's an interesting theory, but if this were just a simple case of the US Govt wanting force Apple into giving them access, what's in it for Apple if they comply - does the DoJ back off? And what's to stop Apple from simply exposing the demands, which would be catastrophically bad for the government?
If, or should I say, when they will comply they will just be allowed to breathe again, having learned who is the boss. The DOJ will then just claim that the antitrust measures are sufficient and that monitoring will be lifted in a couple of years -- And it will be. But the executive team will never sleep again. Exposing? This bullying is difficult for Apple to expose for several reasons:
1. How to you make a case before a judge that you have been bullied by the government with the help of another judge?
2. This would be devastating for their business.
3. Who will back them during this multi-year fight? Who are Apple's friend in the industry or in the US at large?
All US high-tech have bent to the NSA demands: Zero-day attacks provided with a lead time to the NSA for Microsoft, Google has been a good boy and infested about 1 billion devices with the virus-friendly Android and god know who accesses their data centers, etc. Every Apple competitors will be more than happy to see them falling. Wall Street hates a company that does not play by their rules: Too secretive, no insider knowledge, not begging for cash nor giving back their +160 B$. Amazon will rejoice. Not to mention those who have seen their lunch being eaten by Apple like HP, DELL, the telcos or the music industry.
It may be catastrophic for the government? Not so sure. The government can retaliates quick and fast with bogus suits à-la-eBook through IRS, the SEC, antitrust on music or movies, or all at once. But will it be catastrophic for three letters agencies like the NSA? The head of NSA lied in front of Congress and is still in place! These guys has got much more power than J. Edgar Hoover ever had, as his computers stores much more information than the both the Stasi and the KGB ever dreamed of.
I'm not optimistic on this -- At all.
I'll bet Denise Cote gets a nice Christmas gift from her buddy this year.
Cost to Apple zero.
I'm not a lawyer. I was speaking purely from a professional standpoint.
Bromwich is probably going to report secrets to Samsung and other Apple competitors.
That's what I'm thinking. I'm totally for Apple on this one, they did absolutely nothing. Hope this guy has an iPad, Mac, or iPhone, maybe apple'll shut it down for him same with that stinking judge. Samsung never gets in trouble for everything, but Apple, the one company that is actually trying to be a "good force in the world" always is. The judge stinks, this guy stinks, if I were apple, I'd just shut down their iPhones and say oops, technical error, we can't fix it... Sorry! Go Apple!
I hope you guys realize he could lose his license to practice over such an incident. Enjoy your conspiracy theories.
This hours wage of $200 (Didn't do the math, just taking everyone's word for it) isn't unreasonable, but the additional service fees as well as charging for others to come in to do the job you can't is unreasonable. I bill in the $200 range (depending on the job and client) but if there is something that needs an outside expert that would be something that would be discussed beforehand and then dealt with separately or I would eat the cost if it's from a lack of comprehension and poor planning on my part after a deal was struck. To me this just ethnical business practices but I suppose the stereotype* of the lawyer evolved for a reason and we are dealing with Apple's very deep pockets.
* Stereotypes are always an oversimplified concept that do not necessarily represent the norm, may be an outdated truth, or may have never represented the truth to begin with so all lawyers reading this post should take my comment as such
Weren't you in some area of engineering? I vaguely remember references from some time ago.
2 - A matter related to price fixing is subjected to monopolistic pricing terms imposed by a bureaucrat abusing his power?
... is this the Soviet Union or the United States?
That is correct.
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.
I believe you're wrong. The total hour figure is not a total for each lawyer (to be multiplied by 5), but rather a measure of the total hours worked by the 5 lawyers. So it is $1100 per hour.
The guy admits in his letter that his rate is higher than any lawyer's rate, because he claims to be a consultant, so he is charging consultant's rates. That is not $200/hour. Lawyers don't bill like that. He clearly states his personal fee is $1100 per hour +15% administrative fee. The other lawyers are billed separately at their own rate (+15% for them also).