I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the scope of the monitor should just be the contracts Apple signs with book publishers, right? I don't understand why he would need to even interview any employees besides the person in charge of iBooks store and the lawyers at Apple that drafted the contracts. What legal reason would he have to interview anybody else?
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
So if I robbed a bank of $140,000, I shouldn't be charged because the bank hasn't suffered "irreparable harm".
Is that how this works?
From what I've read, Apple could have objected to fees but they chose not to use the dispute procedure laid out and instead filed for an emergency measure. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that 'irreparable harm' is the standard for an emergency appeal against a court order.
Holder's team is absolutely out of control. And, he's one pathetic, clueless bureaucrat.
Holder's DOJ itself, not just the anti-trust team, is awash in some kind of political calculus in all its doings. Sometimes they land on the right side of things like not prosecuting DOMA cases or not pursuing marijuana cases, even though they said if users or possessors of marijuana will still be pursued in states that make marijuana legal. Other times, well.
The most egregious things he's done is provided legal cover for Obama's drone strikes, really, provided legal cover for anything related to the war on terror, and to not prosecute any person, CEO, CFO involved in the 2008 mortgage securities scandals. The reasons given for not prosecuting are so ridiculous that Holder himself should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting in the defrauding of its citizens. The banking scandal cost Americans billions to trillions of dollars, increased the unemployment rate putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, yet those responsible were bailed out; and, not one person was held responsible.
Not exactly sure what the political calculus for the e-books thing is, as small and runtish a market as it is. Maybe they even think they were protecting ebook buyers, but given the above, I don't think so.
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
You're not saying anything different from HuskyOffset.
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
Yikes. Talk about clueless. I said Holder’s team is out of control. Who said anything about anyone ‘visible’!?
(Asking myself: Why bother with people who can’t process a simple sentence….)
". . . he's one pathetic, clueless bureaucrat."
I'm sure Holder knows very well what's going on with Apple, and the control is out of his hands. This is about an unseen larger issue. Or the probability of that is so high that, once again, your harsh judgment of an individual is misplaced, and ultimately, naive.
You're not saying anything different from HuskyOffset.
Uh, then perhaps you should re-read what they said. I was illustrating why despite the context, he has permission to interview any member or review any document.
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
Hogwash. He's going on a fishing expedition. If the DOJ has proof of any other anti trust activities, they can sue. Absent of any evidence, they are over reaching.
Hogwash. He's going on a fishing expedition. If the DOJ has proof of any other anti trust activities, they can sue. Absent of any evidence, they are over reaching.
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
Uh, then perhaps you should re-read what they said. I was illustrating why despite the context, he has permission to interview any member or review any document.
You have not said anything different from HuskyOffset. Read your response to him again. All you were saying was that the monitor needed to review the antitrust compliance program, which was what HuskyOffset said.
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
He was requesting to speak with members of the executive team that had no involvement with iBooks or its deals; Jony Ives being one of them. Interviewing members of Apple, whether it is board members or executives not involved with iBooks, would be out of his purview. I also think part of the issue is that Apple didn't even need to be compliant until the order took effect in January and he was asking for meetings and documents way in advance with people not even tied to the trial or certain aspects of operating iBooks. That's fishing in my opinion.
That's not taking into account facts like how he has no experience in this field but was collecting a fee and had to hire outside help as well as tacking on an additional 15% administration fee. It's also not taking into consideration all the other things that have come to light, like the ex parte meetings that were going to take place between the judge and the monitor, with the judge pulling back after scrutiny. It's not even taking into consideration that the judge who appointed the monitor is not an impartial party to deciding whether he should be removed.
Considering all those facts and more, I think that is why this whole situation with the monitor has been put under an administrative stay and is now being addressed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
He was requesting to speak with members of the executive team that had no involvement with iBooks or its deals; Jony Ives being one of them. Interviewing members of Apple, whether it is board members or executives not involved with iBooks, would be out of his purview. I also think part of the issue is that Apple didn't even need to be compliant until the order took effect in January and he was asking for meetings and documents way in advance with people not even tied to the trial or certain aspects of operating iBooks. That's fishing in my opinion.
Both of those are entirely incorrect and have been discussed many times. The Monitor is there to evaluate Apple's antitrust training and policies. Nothing to do with the iBooks deal. He therefore can interview any relevant staff member and has put forward that meeting with the board members is how he's conducted previous monitorships.
Secondly, the idea that he's supposed to just sit around for 90 days doing no work then suddenly produce a report instantly is nonsense. Even Apple have dropped that contention.
No, that is exactly the case. That is his responsibility and the reason he is there.
But that is not reflected in his ever wider list of interview demands of people far removed from iBooks* (Al Gore???). And it doesn't address his seeming need to hire (and bill Apple for) another law firm to guide him through the legal issues of his monitorship.... One would have thought actual expertise in the subject to hand would have been on the list of criteria for getting chosen, apparently not.
* That being the issue of the litigation: "After finding Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme, Judge Cote appointed Bromwich to ensure the company's current and future dealings are above board." In e-books, one would expect and not nanometer scale logic board design and implementation.
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
The nature of a fishing expedition is that they don't know what they're looking for and won't know if and until they find it. He seems to think he can request any document or interview any person affiliated with Apple, for any reason. That's actually the reason Apple filed this motion.
N.B. Bromwich is working for the same "judge" that found Apple guilty before the trial began...
Comments
If you think any of the visible officials are in control, you are one pathetic, clueless citizen.
Yikes. Talk about clueless. I said Holder’s team is out of control. Who said anything about anyone ‘visible’!?
(Asking myself: Why bother with people who can’t process a simple sentence….)
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the scope of the monitor should just be the contracts Apple signs with book publishers, right? I don't understand why he would need to even interview any employees besides the person in charge of iBooks store and the lawyers at Apple that drafted the contracts. What legal reason would he have to interview anybody else?
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
So if I robbed a bank of $140,000, I shouldn't be charged because the bank hasn't suffered "irreparable harm".
Is that how this works?
From what I've read, Apple could have objected to fees but they chose not to use the dispute procedure laid out and instead filed for an emergency measure. I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that 'irreparable harm' is the standard for an emergency appeal against a court order.
Holder's team is absolutely out of control. And, he's one pathetic, clueless bureaucrat.
Holder's DOJ itself, not just the anti-trust team, is awash in some kind of political calculus in all its doings. Sometimes they land on the right side of things like not prosecuting DOMA cases or not pursuing marijuana cases, even though they said if users or possessors of marijuana will still be pursued in states that make marijuana legal. Other times, well.
The most egregious things he's done is provided legal cover for Obama's drone strikes, really, provided legal cover for anything related to the war on terror, and to not prosecute any person, CEO, CFO involved in the 2008 mortgage securities scandals. The reasons given for not prosecuting are so ridiculous that Holder himself should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting in the defrauding of its citizens. The banking scandal cost Americans billions to trillions of dollars, increased the unemployment rate putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, yet those responsible were bailed out; and, not one person was held responsible.
Not exactly sure what the political calculus for the e-books thing is, as small and runtish a market as it is. Maybe they even think they were protecting ebook buyers, but given the above, I don't think so.
Quote:
The scope of his position is to evaluate the antitrust policies and procedures in place at Apple. They're looking to ensure that Apple establishes a good internal training procedure and doesn't go into any similar arrangement in future.
You're not saying anything different from HuskyOffset.
Shut up.
That was not the case.
". . . he's one pathetic, clueless bureaucrat."
I'm sure Holder knows very well what's going on with Apple, and the control is out of his hands. This is about an unseen larger issue. Or the probability of that is so high that, once again, your harsh judgment of an individual is misplaced, and ultimately, naive.
Shut up.
That was not the case.
No, that is exactly the case. That is his responsibility and the reason he is there.
Quote:
You're not saying anything different from HuskyOffset.
Uh, then perhaps you should re-read what they said. I was illustrating why despite the context, he has permission to interview any member or review any document.
Hogwash. He's going on a fishing expedition. If the DOJ has proof of any other anti trust activities, they can sue. Absent of any evidence, they are over reaching.
Hogwash. He's going on a fishing expedition. If the DOJ has proof of any other anti trust activities, they can sue. Absent of any evidence, they are over reaching.
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
You have not said anything different from HuskyOffset. Read your response to him again. All you were saying was that the monitor needed to review the antitrust compliance program, which was what HuskyOffset said.
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
He was requesting to speak with members of the executive team that had no involvement with iBooks or its deals; Jony Ives being one of them. Interviewing members of Apple, whether it is board members or executives not involved with iBooks, would be out of his purview. I also think part of the issue is that Apple didn't even need to be compliant until the order took effect in January and he was asking for meetings and documents way in advance with people not even tied to the trial or certain aspects of operating iBooks. That's fishing in my opinion.
That's not taking into account facts like how he has no experience in this field but was collecting a fee and had to hire outside help as well as tacking on an additional 15% administration fee. It's also not taking into consideration all the other things that have come to light, like the ex parte meetings that were going to take place between the judge and the monitor, with the judge pulling back after scrutiny. It's not even taking into consideration that the judge who appointed the monitor is not an impartial party to deciding whether he should be removed.
Considering all those facts and more, I think that is why this whole situation with the monitor has been put under an administrative stay and is now being addressed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.
He was requesting to speak with members of the executive team that had no involvement with iBooks or its deals; Jony Ives being one of them. Interviewing members of Apple, whether it is board members or executives not involved with iBooks, would be out of his purview. I also think part of the issue is that Apple didn't even need to be compliant until the order took effect in January and he was asking for meetings and documents way in advance with people not even tied to the trial or certain aspects of operating iBooks. That's fishing in my opinion.
Both of those are entirely incorrect and have been discussed many times. The Monitor is there to evaluate Apple's antitrust training and policies. Nothing to do with the iBooks deal. He therefore can interview any relevant staff member and has put forward that meeting with the board members is how he's conducted previous monitorships.
Secondly, the idea that he's supposed to just sit around for 90 days doing no work then suddenly produce a report instantly is nonsense. Even Apple have dropped that contention.
No, that is exactly the case. That is his responsibility and the reason he is there.
But that is not reflected in his ever wider list of interview demands of people far removed from iBooks* (Al Gore???). And it doesn't address his seeming need to hire (and bill Apple for) another law firm to guide him through the legal issues of his monitorship.... One would have thought actual expertise in the subject to hand would have been on the list of criteria for getting chosen, apparently not.
* That being the issue of the litigation: "After finding Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme, Judge Cote appointed Bromwich to ensure the company's current and future dealings are above board." In e-books, one would expect and not nanometer scale logic board design and implementation.
The injunction was focused on ebooks: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/net-us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE97M0OU20130827
As highlighted by Section V A here: where iBooks are specifically referenced. http://www.scribd.com/doc/166019353/US-v-Apple-Injunction "relating to Apple's iBookstore".
What exactly do you think he is fishing for? If he uncovered any evidence of any other anti-trust violations he couldn't do anything but report them to the court. He's not requested any documents out of his purvue and the main contention seems to be that he doesn't need to interview board members. Is that the argument you're using to justify 'fishing expedition'?
The nature of a fishing expedition is that they don't know what they're looking for and won't know if and until they find it. He seems to think he can request any document or interview any person affiliated with Apple, for any reason. That's actually the reason Apple filed this motion.
N.B. Bromwich is working for the same "judge" that found Apple guilty before the trial began...