Apple wins temporary reprieve from monitor in e-books antitrust case

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 2014
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday issued an order that temporarily halts compliance monitor Michael Bromwich's oversight while the appeal awaits a ruling.

e-books order


"It is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is referred to a three-judge motions panel and shall be heard as soon as possible," the order reads. "It is further ordered that an administrative stay of the district court's order is granted until the motion for stay pending appeal is determined by the motions panel."

The order, handed down by Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., comes five days after Apple notified the court that it planned to appeal Judge Denise Cote's imposition of an external compliance monitor. Apple elevated the case to the appellate court after Judge Cote refused to remove Bromwich herself, saying that the company failed to show "that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm."

Apple has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the appointment of a monitor in general and Bromwich in particular. The company has called Bromwich's oversight "inquisitorial" and says the "investigation significantly interferes with the ability of Apple's managers to lead the company."

The Department of Justice has until Jan. 24 to respond to the stay.
«13456710

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 190

    At last !

  • Reply 2 of 190

    Now to eliminate this clown completely from Apple's life.

  • Reply 3 of 190

    Buh-bye, Mr. B.

  • Reply 4 of 190
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,664member
    Suck it, Cote. No kickback for you.
  • Reply 5 of 190
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,458member
    That was fast is all I can say. No arguing the point just BAM, granted.
  • Reply 6 of 190
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,007member

    Once this 3-judge motions panel reads how Cote was prejudicial to Apple, they should throw out the decision and at least give Apple another trial. A second trial better include an impartial judge who will listen to all the facts instead of picking the ones they want to use against Apple. This is supposed to be the US where we're supposed to have fair and impartial courts. 

  • Reply 7 of 190
    A litany of "Haha Apple deserves it" posts to follow.
  • Reply 8 of 190
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member

    The Crow's Going Down: Ms Cote Sent To Bedroom With Pencil & Plenty of Paper- 1100 Times Contemplation.

    "I am a bad judge and will do no more wrong.

    My friends can go to food banks from now on.

    Spankings aren’t enough and lynching way rough;

    licking Apple shoes should be enough.

    My bad, Apple’s tough.

    Bending over now.

    Bring on the brush."

  • Reply 9 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    Once this 3-judge motions panel reads how Cote was prejudicial to Apple, they should throw out the decision and at least give Apple another trial. A second trial better include an impartial judge who will listen to all the facts instead of picking the ones they want to use against Apple. This is supposed to be the US where we're supposed to have fair and impartial courts. 


     

    I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.

     

     

    I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.

  • Reply 10 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    A litany of "Haha Apple deserves it" posts to follow.

     

    Apple certainly should have the right to appeal any ruling, but in this case I find it extremely hard to believe they will prevail. The attitude seems to be that they have done no wrong therefore they should escape any repercussions.

     

     

    The problem with that is that until the ruling is overturned, Apple did indeed do wrong and cannot expect to prevail with an attitude that they should not be held accountable.

  • Reply 11 of 190
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,501member

    Only one thought came to mind when security approached Mr. Bromwich to escort him out...





    I hope Apple stiffed him with the bill.

  • Reply 12 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Joined: Jan 2014

     

    nice try troll. Try your clown show under another bridge


     

    Just because I'm new doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Did you read her opinion filing? If so can you name a single thing wrong with it?

  • Reply 13 of 190
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

    Just because I'm new doesn't change the fact that I'm right.


     

    Wow, that’s the meanest way to write that sentence. <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

     

    You mean to say, “I can be new and correct,” which is true. But you’re not here. By a long shot.

  • Reply 14 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    I know the judge and the appointed monitor are friends.


    I couldn't find any evidence for that other than the monitor being recommended by the Judge 19 years ago. A Judge appointing someone she has previously recommended for good work is not evidence of corruption

     

    Quote:


     I know the facts of the case support Apple.


    I disagree. The facts of the case might support Apple but as there has been a court ruling then stating it outright is at odds with the law. If the case gets overturned then perhaps you'll have a point.

     

    Quote:


     I don't care the flowery words this lawyer (all judges are former lawyers) says in here BS document.  I know the facts of this case and they don't point to Apple doing anything wrong.


    I see so you didn't even bother to read the opinion. I don't think we can really discuss it any further when you're admitting to being intentionally ignorant and being very rude towards me. Good day.

  • Reply 15 of 190
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,481member

    As some pointed out before, ever if Cote felt she might have been wrong she would never admit it publicly. And she can now  let another court decide and even they over turn her decision she will still claim the higher court was wrong or that apple manipulate the outcome. The only issue for Ms Cote is the fact if too many of her decision are pushed up the higher courts will not look kindly on her and will limit her forward progress.

  • Reply 16 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    You tell me what Apple did WRONG.  You have the burden of proof.


    The burden of proof was on the Prosecution. They managed it. What Apple did wrong was to organise a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.

     

    Quote:


     Why did the judge appoint Mr Brownwich if he has no experience with this type of work?  So much so he had to hire an ADDITIONAL lawyer and staff to help him?


    Because Apple objected to the other candidate much more strongly, and Bromwich has carried out extremely high level monitorships before.

     

    Quote:


     I noticed in your other threads you also defended Google for stealing personal information, defended Samsung for blantantly coping Apple IP.  I'm sorry your clown show won't work here.


    I didn't do either of these things. Please don't make up lies about me.

     

    Quote:


     You obviously have something against Apple and I find it totally sad and pathetic that you make it your personal quest to continue to bash Apple.  Does Samdung pay you enough for this?  Did Apple fire your mother in the 1980's?  Did Steve Jobs yell at you at Stanford?  I just don't get clowns like you who live to see others fail.


    I'm uh, British, so no to the last few. I don't have anything against Apple. On the contrary I find them to be one of the most advanced companies technologically. They pushed 64 bit ARM before anyone else. They push manufacturing technology right to the limit.

     

    I'm here because I'm interested in the future of Apple. I didn't defend 'Google stealing'. I can't even stand most of Samsung's products. Maybe before you accuse me you should bother to actually read what I am posting.

  • Reply 17 of 190
    I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.


    I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.
    And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.

    Tell me, in that 61 pages did they talk about Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees not involved in e-books? In fact, did any of those pages present Apple's case? Or did you read one side of the story and base your decision only on that version?
  • Reply 18 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post





    And yet Apple got a stay. Sounds like 61 pages of nothing if they so quickly decided to give Apple that stay. They could have granted Apple an appeal hearing AND kept Bromwich working while waiting for the appeal, but they didn't. Speaks volumes to me.

    Why does it speak volumes? Granting temporary stays is very common. If you go look at my previous argument with TS you'll find Apple was granted a stay in that case and then utterly slammed by the Court.

     

    Quote:


    Tell me, in that 61 pages did they talk about Bromwich trying to interview Apple employees not involved in e-books? In fact, did any of those pages present Apple's case? Or did you read one side of the story and base your decision only on that version?


    I read both sides very thoroughly. If you don't believe me that Apple comes off badly then just read some of my previous posts. They put in excessive and hyperbolic complaints about court orders that were never imposed, using terms they didn't understand, all the time while bypassing the dispute resolution process already in place.

     

    I speculate that it's because their lawyers have been put in an impossible position. According to emails from Apple there's still significant anger about the decision so I expect the lawyers are between a rock and a hard place.

  • Reply 19 of 190
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    right here you defend Samsung saying they didn't really copy Apple IP:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161647/apple-offers-samsung-patent-settlement-deal-tied-to-anti-cloning-provision/40

     

    "Right but there's plenty of examples of similar looking phones and phones with similar functionality etc before the iPhone. Not that I'm arguing they were a success or anything. Just saying that you can easily show things in a less distinct light than Apple's view of things."


    How exactly is that defending Samsung? Samsung certainly copied some of Apple's IP and were found guilty of doing so. That doesn't mean that the iPhone came out of nowhere. I was using a full touch screen smartphone in 2006.

     

    I don't think you can really criticise me for not being enough of a fan.

  • Reply 20 of 190
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

     

     

    I doubt this will happen. Cote's opinion reads very well and the basis of her judgements also seems sound. I doubt anyone so far in this thread actually read her 64 page opinion filing.

     

     

    I did, Apple comes across very badly in it, so I would not be cheerleading this at all. There's no evidence whatsoever of Cote being prejudicial, if there is I invite you to cite it.


    Of course Cote's opinion reads very well -- to you. She wrote it and choose what she wanted to include and what she didn't want to. I wasn't at the trial and I doubt you were either, therefore, neither one of us can speak on exactly what was and wasn't said. We have to rely on what was reported, which as everyone knows is always bias one way or the other. No, I haven't read her filing and am not going to since I know it's full of legalese that the vast majority of people don't understand. This is what keeps lawyers and judges in business. 

     

    The first time these proceedings came to light, Cote was supposed to have said "In an unusual pre-trial "tentative view," the judge in charge of the Apple versus the Department of Justice trial over alleged e-book price-fixing said that the DOJ would likely be able to prove that Apple colluded with publishers to raise e-book prices, despite not having seen all available evidence. This is not the first time Judge Denise Cote has ruled against Apple ahead of a full examination of the facts." Did she actually say this? Everything on the Internet is true isn't it? /s

     

    If Judge Cote did say this, what was she allowed to preside over the trial? She already stated she felt Apple was guilty. How does Apple receive a presumption of innocence, a legal right, when the judge already believes they're guilty? Apple was tried in the court of internet bloggers long before they stepped foot in court. Everything these bloggers stated as fact was pure conjecture since I highly doubt any of them had access to any of the discussions made between Apple and the publishers.

     

    Speaking of these discussions, how can anyone do business without talking to the suppliers of the product involved in that business? Should Apple have simply opened an e-book store and waited for someone to come through the door? I can absolutely guarantee Amazon had many discussions with publishers before they started selling e-books. As usual, there are always laws for and against doing something but it's the interpretation and implementation of these laws that gets companies in trouble. The DOJ went after Apple, a newcomer to e-books, while allowing Amazon to do anything they wanted to. I'm sure someone in the DOJ could easily find several laws Amazon has broken but they chose not to. Why is that?

Sign In or Register to comment.