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.
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...
The "law" is a system of control. It's a scam. Anyone who has been through the ringer knows Justice is relative and seldom served.
When I first read about Apple's complaint, I wondered why the executives had to be interviewed without legal representation. When reading the interviews would be sent directly to the judge I felt immediate dread that the US government was on a mission to truly wreck Apple by having the confidential interview information "unintentionally" leaked to Apple competitors as well as being used against Apple in the future.
To learn that Bromwich had a legal team assisting him raised a lot of red flags as well. Isn't Apple fighting a patent infringement case now with a lawyer on one of its legal teams? I can see something like this happening with Bromwich.
$138 thousand-plus for two weeks worth of work! In two years this guy would earn north of $13 million!! Talk about being opportunistically greedy.
I am researching Bromwich and his company now and will report my findings. This whole case and punishment wreaks of pockets being lined with payoff money.
As more information about this is uncovered and reported, the situation does not feel good at all! Judge Cote does appear to be doing something underhanded. Having undocumented conversations at least once a month with Bromwich is what Apple was accused of doing with book publishers. Why does she think she is allowed to proceed in this manner?
From my short research effort, I found no direct links to Bromwich and Apple's competitors. I did find links between Goodwin Procter LLP and Samsung though.
Karen A. Shindler (Partner)
Joined in 2013, Counseled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in connection with patent acquisitions and complex strategic licensing transactions.
Thomas Scott
Articulate Systems, inc. V. Apple Computer, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 105, 55 F. Supp. 2d. 78 (D. Mass 1999)
Semiconductor Energy Laboratories Co. V. Samsung Elec. Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 537, 4 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 1998)
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.
But if he doesn't have an anti-trust background (as Apple claims he admitted) then: A) why is Apple paying the salaries of additional lawyers to make up for his lack of experience, and why the h*ll did he ever get appointed as an anti-trust monitor in the first place?!?
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.
There are shenanigans here. Apple didn't even know the judge changed the terms, and is getting secret reports from the "monitor".
Other information submitted by Apple:
Five months ago, Bromberg proposed charging $495 an hour to monitor the New Orleans police department (no administrative fee added). The guy is scum.
The "law" is a system of control. It's a scam. Anyone who has been through the ringer knows Justice is relative and seldom served.
As more information about this is uncovered and reported, the situation does not feel good at all! Judge Cote does appear to be doing something underhanded. Having undocumented conversations at least once a month with Bromwich is what Apple was accused of doing with book publishers. Why does she think she is allowed to proceed in this manner?
From my short research effort, I found no direct links to Bromwich and Apple's competitors. I did find links between Goodwin Procter LLP and Samsung though.
Karen A. Shindler (Partner)
Joined in 2013, Counseled Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in connection with patent acquisitions and complex strategic licensing transactions.
Thomas Scott
Articulate Systems, inc. V. Apple Computer, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 105, 55 F. Supp. 2d. 78 (D. Mass 1999)
Semiconductor Energy Laboratories Co. V. Samsung Elec. Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 537, 4 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 1998)
But if he doesn't have an anti-trust background (as Apple claims he admitted) then: A) why is Apple paying the salaries of additional lawyers to make up for his lack of experience, and
Government looking for potential informants or moles? The dirty tricks continue.