Love that this festering pustule is receiving irate emails from the public. I wonder what the judge's inbox is looking like these days?
The whole trial and outcome stunk to high heaven.
You like the fact that this guy is receiving emails that essentially make the rest of us Apple fans look like zealous, irate jacka**es? Regardless if it's true or not the perception is there. The public already thinks of us as a mindless cult. I'd rather not add to that perception or give more fuel to the fire.
As for the future of the e-book price fixing case, Apple is appealing the ruling and Judge Cote is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the injunction stay on Jan. 13, 2014.
Can anyone with a legal background explain why on earth Judge Cote would be hearing or ruling on Apple's appeal of her judgements? It seems like black (not racial) comedy to have to appeal unjust decisions to the unjust entity that made those very decisions. Why wouldn't this appeal automatically go to an appeals court or circuit court? Presuming that Judge Cote will reject Apple's appeal then it should go to a higher court, but this just delays justice even longer.
I just finished reading Bromwich's declaration. I tried to keep an open mind throughout the reading. There are many questions to be asked and answered but I doubt any asked question will be answered honestly. A few takeaways from this are...
1. Apple is not prepared to deal with the people in Washington, DC.
2. Bromwich denied he requested interviews without Apple employees having legal representation. I paused here. I realized Judge Cote had just been outed.
3. I Yahooed a statement made by the DOJ about Judge backing off from her expansion plans after Apple had exposed her. On fortune.com I found, "Buterman also noted that Judge Cote has since backed away from adopting any of several proposed expansions of Bromwich's mission, which had been the original triggering event for Apple's Thanksgiving tirade."
4. What triggered Apple's tirade were the proposed expansions.
5. Unless I missed it, Bromwich did not address the proposed expansions beyond takeaway #2.
5. I realized I was not going to maintain impartiality as I continued reading the declaration.
6. As much as Bromwich presented himself as an honest guy attempting to do his job, I cannot get beyond his relationship with Judge Cote. Something does not sound or feel right about them.
7. Are any of these meetings being recorded? Yes, there is an email trail, but how about audio and/or video as well? If Bromwich, Judge Cote, and the DOJ have nothing to hide, having all of this stuff recorded should be allowed in my opinion.
8. I am glad Al Gore is on Apple's board right now! Apple needs all the help Al can offer to get fight Washington, DC.
Of course it makes total sense for the guy who is being accused of the impropriety to defend himself without any sort of independent review or investigation.
And what a cry baby move to say things like every other company I ever had to infiltrate was much more cooperative. The whole - never had to wait so long for a meeting bit - makes me wonder who the other companies were and how effectively they were being run if the board or directors could be at the beck and call of this hack.
You like the fact that this guy is receiving emails that essentially make the rest of us Apple fans look like zealous, irate jacka**es? Regardless if it's true or not the perception is there. The public already thinks of us as a mindless cult. I'd rather not add to that perception or give more fuel to the fire.
I'd rather have Apple's lawyers do the talking.
Yes, I do like it. Unfair, unjust actions from government need to be confronted and exposed. Sitting on your hands is no longer an option. You could be the next target of injustice, randomly applied.
Bromwich continued to illustrate his disgust with his treatment by Apple executives by complaining, "they are clearly implementing passive-aggressive tactics by routinely supplying Sweet-n-Low with my mochaccinos despite my explicit commands for Splenda! And you see my Bentley out there? It's as dirty as they first day I got here!" Furthermore, the monitor was cited, while stomping his left foot, as stating, "I will continue with my threats to tell on them unless this behavior is halted immediately."
And worse, they took his stapler. He's going to burn the place down.
The entire thing is ridiculous. No one should need to be interviewed because the monitor is not about the past, for which Apple has already been "punished", it's about the future. And as far as the future goes, all Bromovich has to do is one thing: receive copies of any proposed agreements between Apple and publishers. He then should be reviewing the proposed contract for any violations of the judge's order. If there is any, he contacts the lawyer or business exec in charge of the deal and says, "unless you change X to Y, you can't do the deal."
The judge said that Apple can't do Agency Agreements. So as long as the contract doesn't contain the equivalent of an agency agreement, Apple should be in the clear.
End of story. This should be really easy and not complicated for either Apple or Bromwich. What is interviewing Board members going to do for Bromwich?
I think Bromwich is trying to make a career out of this. He obviously wants to be involved in day-to-day business decisions at Apple that IMO, go way beyond the court's mandate.
Apple is completely correct to be complaining about this guy. The problem isn't that it's an unconstitutional investigation. It's that he's trying to make this about much more than monitoring to make sure Apple doesn't do any other agency agreements.
Law is as filled with specialization as medicine. Whatever talents Bromwich has--other than complaining--he doesn't know antitrust law. Apple shouldn't have to pay his huge, per-hour fees, getting nothing in return, and also pay someone who actually knows the field.
Bromwich ought to be tossed out and a new and less prejudiced trial judge attached to this case pronto.
Comments
Why was Mr Broomwitch's email address not included in this article?
Because posting his email addy ([email protected]) would just be so, so wrong to do.
Just. Beautifully. Evil.
I'd rather have Apple's lawyers do the talking.
sosumi!
As for the future of the e-book price fixing case, Apple is appealing the ruling and Judge Cote is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the injunction stay on Jan. 13, 2014.
Can anyone with a legal background explain why on earth Judge Cote would be hearing or ruling on Apple's appeal of her judgements? It seems like black (not racial) comedy to have to appeal unjust decisions to the unjust entity that made those very decisions. Why wouldn't this appeal automatically go to an appeals court or circuit court? Presuming that Judge Cote will reject Apple's appeal then it should go to a higher court, but this just delays justice even longer.
So how many new book deals has Apple entered into for this guy to monitor?
Is the ninety day deadline for Apple to present their antitrust training program to this guy up yet?
Otherwise he can go f*ck himself with a rake.
1. Apple is not prepared to deal with the people in Washington, DC.
2. Bromwich denied he requested interviews without Apple employees having legal representation. I paused here. I realized Judge Cote had just been outed.
3. I Yahooed a statement made by the DOJ about Judge backing off from her expansion plans after Apple had exposed her. On fortune.com I found, "Buterman also noted that Judge Cote has since backed away from adopting any of several proposed expansions of Bromwich's mission, which had been the original triggering event for Apple's Thanksgiving tirade."
4. What triggered Apple's tirade were the proposed expansions.
5. Unless I missed it, Bromwich did not address the proposed expansions beyond takeaway #2.
5. I realized I was not going to maintain impartiality as I continued reading the declaration.
6. As much as Bromwich presented himself as an honest guy attempting to do his job, I cannot get beyond his relationship with Judge Cote. Something does not sound or feel right about them.
7. Are any of these meetings being recorded? Yes, there is an email trail, but how about audio and/or video as well? If Bromwich, Judge Cote, and the DOJ have nothing to hide, having all of this stuff recorded should be allowed in my opinion.
8. I am glad Al Gore is on Apple's board right now! Apple needs all the help Al can offer to get fight Washington, DC.
Of course it makes total sense for the guy who is being accused of the impropriety to defend himself without any sort of independent review or investigation.
And what a cry baby move to say things like every other company I ever had to infiltrate was much more cooperative. The whole - never had to wait so long for a meeting bit - makes me wonder who the other companies were and how effectively they were being run if the board or directors could be at the beck and call of this hack.
Yes, I do like it. Unfair, unjust actions from government need to be confronted and exposed. Sitting on your hands is no longer an option. You could be the next target of injustice, randomly applied.
138 grand for two weeks work? Highway robbery.
And worse, they took his stapler. He's going to burn the place down.
Because it is legal protocol. Apple has to play by the rules or have any higher case rejected because they didn't.
The entire thing is ridiculous. No one should need to be interviewed because the monitor is not about the past, for which Apple has already been "punished", it's about the future. And as far as the future goes, all Bromovich has to do is one thing: receive copies of any proposed agreements between Apple and publishers. He then should be reviewing the proposed contract for any violations of the judge's order. If there is any, he contacts the lawyer or business exec in charge of the deal and says, "unless you change X to Y, you can't do the deal."
The judge said that Apple can't do Agency Agreements. So as long as the contract doesn't contain the equivalent of an agency agreement, Apple should be in the clear.
End of story. This should be really easy and not complicated for either Apple or Bromwich. What is interviewing Board members going to do for Bromwich?
I think Bromwich is trying to make a career out of this. He obviously wants to be involved in day-to-day business decisions at Apple that IMO, go way beyond the court's mandate.
Apple is completely correct to be complaining about this guy. The problem isn't that it's an unconstitutional investigation. It's that he's trying to make this about much more than monitoring to make sure Apple doesn't do any other agency agreements.
Lawyers will destroy this country.
Lawyers will make USA mediocre.
Bromwich ought to be tossed out and a new and less prejudiced trial judge attached to this case pronto.