Judge denies Apple request to remove e-books antitrust monitor
Apple on Monday was denied its motion to remove a court-appointed antitrust monitor tasked to ensure the company would not enter into further illegal agreements after being found culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme last year.
In a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote blocked the motion to remove Michael Bromwich from his post, saying there was "nothing improper" about the monitor's recently filed declaration, reports Reuters. Apple cited the filing as grounds for dismissal, claiming it suggested personal bias against the company.
"I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple," Judge Cote said.
The jurist's full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.
Monday's determination is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Apple and Bromwich. The parties' relationship has been strained almost since the start of the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment.
As seen in multiple court filings, Apple takes issue with how Bromwich is handling his monitorship, including what the company feels is an overstepping of boundaries, exorbitant fees and conducting a "roving" investigation.
For his part, Bromwich claims Apple has been less than cooperative in furnishing employee interviews and deemed-necessary documentation in a timely manner. Both complaints were outlined in detail in the ECM's December declaration.
Bromwich was vetted and selected by Judge Cote to monitor Apple after she found the company to have conspired in falsely inflating the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.
After Judge Cote's decision is officially filed, Apple has 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from a federal appeal court.
In a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote blocked the motion to remove Michael Bromwich from his post, saying there was "nothing improper" about the monitor's recently filed declaration, reports Reuters. Apple cited the filing as grounds for dismissal, claiming it suggested personal bias against the company.
"I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple," Judge Cote said.
The jurist's full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.
Monday's determination is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Apple and Bromwich. The parties' relationship has been strained almost since the start of the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment.
As seen in multiple court filings, Apple takes issue with how Bromwich is handling his monitorship, including what the company feels is an overstepping of boundaries, exorbitant fees and conducting a "roving" investigation.
For his part, Bromwich claims Apple has been less than cooperative in furnishing employee interviews and deemed-necessary documentation in a timely manner. Both complaints were outlined in detail in the ECM's December declaration.
Bromwich was vetted and selected by Judge Cote to monitor Apple after she found the company to have conspired in falsely inflating the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.
After Judge Cote's decision is officially filed, Apple has 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from a federal appeal court.
Comments
They don't mock around, these Apple lawyers.
I thought Apples reasoning was fair. Apparently the jury thought otherwise...?
Jurist, not jury.
And all to support the poor defenseless Amazon book monopoly. Amazing.
Not unexpected given the judge's previous comments about Apple during the case. My guess is that the brief was written primarily for the appellate court.
I think I know which one. 8-)
A judge other than Cote making that decision would have been a nice idea.
I presume they could file for an appeal or review with the next higher court?
The best decision would have been to hire the lawyer that Bromwich hired in the first place to do his job.
Apple's best step is to videotape every meeting with Bromwich. This is to make sure Bromwich is aware that his every move is also being investigated.
Who still uses videotape?
Pretty sure this wouldn't happen under Australian law, where we have an independent watchdog (with teeth).
Perhaps it is time for Apple to set up corporate offices in Taiwan or Singapore. Heck, that's where most of their product is manufactured.