Court shoots down Apple motion to rein in e-books antitrust monitor

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 74
    Failing to show irreparable harm is courtspeak for there being at least one other way Apple can solve this problem, however painful that may be. In this case, it's that, like it or not, Apple is deep-pocketed enough to afford to pay those outlandish fees.
    This illustrates a common pattern within virtually any bureaucracy--in this case our judicial system. Little failures and little crimes are easy to get corrected. They don't suggest that there's anything wrong with the system itself. For instance, a judge who's run up a lot of parking tickets is easily disciplined.
    On the other hand, a really bad pattern of corruption is hard to get changed. Why? Because a failure at that high a level means that the system itself is flawed. This dispute isn't about mere parking tickets. It's about a judge so incompetent and corrupt that she has appointed a lawyer who knows nothing about anti-trust law to lead and allowed him to charge well above the going rate, particularly given his lack of expertise. Admitting that a judge could err this badly is to admit that the court system itself is flawed. I might add that it demonstrates what's trying to be concealed, that the court system in this district is serious flawed.
    That hardly surprises me. In copyright law, the Second Circuit (NY) is notorious for pandering to large copyright holders. I actually filed a grievance against a nasty, bully lawyer in the Second, giving detailed evidence, including his calling me a criminal simply for not rolling over and doing as he said. The Second Circuit's grievance board not only turned down my request they quite literally--I kid you not--rubber stamped that rejection. That's how little they care about the ethics of New York lawyers. I consoled myself with the fact that lawyer I'd criticized at least had to take the time to defend himself.
    There's actually an effective way for Apple to get even for all this bullying by the Obama administration and its Chicago-machine DOJ, one that doesn't depend on persuading judges.
    In politics, if you don't punish the one who hurts you, you get walked over. Right now, everyone knows that Apple has a 'kick me' sign on their back. Howling, whining and complaining will do no good.
    If Apple wants to send a message that is actually heard, in the next few months the websites track political contributions by employer need to show a hefty tilt at Apple from D to R. Nothing else will work. Anything else is a waste of time.
  • Reply 22 of 74

    The lawyer here loves it  - MB has to go get a real job -

     

    Court slaps him with a focused ruling politely saying cut the c.r.a.pola - focus on what you were hired for not unrelated fishing - you are not entitled to chase American companies just because you want to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  • Reply 23 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LOLpatentz View Post

     

    Poor Apple!

     

    But not to fear, fanbois, Obama/The White House will soon right this wrong...


    Groanz.... notz anotherz onez....

  • Reply 24 of 74
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    I'm pretty disappointed in this AI story, especially with the false headline. It's not a good summary of what the court ruled - for that, go to the link in Sacto Joe's previous post. This is a win for Apple, though not a total victory (the monitor stays for now). If you really look at it, during the appeal the DOJ backed down in a major way - they actually said (quoted in today's ruling) that the monitor was only authorized to look into Apple's antitrust compliance program, and only interview executives on whether they were informed of it. He's not authorized to investigate anything.

     

    That's much less than Bromwich was trying to do - he was conducting a limitless investigation of Apple and its executives. The Justice Deplartment backed down in court (in my opinion) because they knew they would lose if they insisted Bromwich had the power to investigate Apple. This ruling lets them save face (because the press is calling it a DOJ win and Apple loss), so they can make public statements about being vindicated in their prosecution.

     

    With Bromwich's power limited, he'll have a harder time running up legal fees (though he'll certainly try). It'll be interesting to see if there are continued clashes over what Bromwich tries to do going forward.

     

    A hearing for an emergency stay is much different than an actual court case on the merits. To succeed, Apple had to prove irreparable harm, which became pretty hard to show once the DOJ backed down on how much power the monitor should have. But in the full court appeal that will come later, all the issues will come out, and everything will be argued in full. That will be extremely interesting.

  • Reply 25 of 74
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,679member
    lolpatentz wrote: »
    Poor Apple!

    But not to fear, fanbois, Obama/The White House will soon right this wrong...

    Clueless trolls should learn about the US Court system.
  • Reply 26 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Apple's latest attempt to rein in e-books antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich has been denied, with the federal appeals court hearing the case saying the company failed to present evidence of irreparable harm.

     

    Although not the full removal as Apple had asked for, this decision definitely reins in Bromwich. 

     

    "Thus, according to appellees, the monitor was empowered to demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility as so defined, and to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility."

     

    How else should I interpret the above statement.  If anything I would say this decision is a partial win for both DOJ (monitoring stays in place) and Apple (Bromwich can only monitor that they have a compliance training program and that the employees are participating in it).

     

    I was really shocked to see such an anti-Apple headline/slant from AppleInsider.

  • Reply 27 of 74
    Rein - as to pull on it pull back: reign as to govern over others as a King reugns over a kingdom.
  • Reply 28 of 74
    I might have better entitled this article as "Court rules Bromwick stays, but gets his wings clipped".
  • Reply 29 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Groanz.... notz anotherz onez....


     

    I know right? They can't all be Zither Zather Zuzz sock puppet accounts… or can they?

  • Reply 30 of 74
    poochpooch Posts: 768member
    AppleInsider writers have a hard-on for war or race metaphors. "Shoots down"? Everything is a showdown, fight, battle for, or else competition for or race for.

    don't forget "flagship" ...

    every apple store is a flagship store
  • Reply 31 of 74
    Why is there so little respect for the rule of law in this comment section? Apple 2.0 had already reported that the judges questions made it sound like they were going to limit the scope of Bromwich's requests not his existence as a special prosecutor.. This is the logical thing to do. Wasting Mr Ive's and Mr Cook's time is at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than paying Mr Bromwich's hourly rate.

    Apple got what they really needed from the court. The other appeal route may over turn part of Judge Cote's ruling and they are the ones digging in deep enough to make that kind of judgement. This court did its job and not that the proper boundaries have been set both sides can end the kindergarten name calling and get back to work.
  • Reply 32 of 74
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    Failing to show irreparable harm is courtspeak for there being at least one other way Apple can solve this problem, however painful that may be. In this case, it's that, like it or not, Apple is deep-pocketed enough to afford to pay those outlandish fees.

    You don't understand it at all. Money is never an "irreparable harm", because if it's later found to be unjust or "outlandish", they can order Bromwich to pay it back (and the harm is repaired).

  • Reply 33 of 74
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Here's another story that's a much better analysis of the ruling, the issues involved, and the road ahead:

     

  • Reply 34 of 74
    There it is in the DOJs own words, they want to cause Apple irreparable harm.
  • Reply 35 of 74
    person wrote: »
    There it is in the DOJs own words, they want to cause Apple irreparable harm.

    I think as members of the tax paying public it is up to us to loudly voice our outrage to our elected representatives over this harassment and miscarriage of justice.
  • Reply 36 of 74
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    I think as members of the tax paying public it is up to us to loudly voice our outrage to our elected representatives over this harassment and miscarriage of justice.

     

    Who the heck did I elect to the DoJ? :grumble: 



    Every position appointable by the President should be fireable by Congress at the behest of its constituents.

  • Reply 37 of 74

    Here's some interesting comments

     

    Great another Samsung fan who thinks Obama saved Apple when it was Samsung that he actually saved. are all Samsung Fans dumb people?

    Do you realize what would have happened if Obama wouldn't interfere? Apple it would won around 50 billion simple by suing back ITC and Samsung

     

    Apple won, all i'm saying they should it won after the iPhone 4 and iPad got banned. Apple was already preparing their second case (for damages and shame) thats a fact.

    What kinda person goes on Youtube and he makes sure he gets there first to dislike an Apple product? the answer is Samsung trash and based on ur comment you're on of them

     

    First they screw00d Apple plans and now this? Obama and the US it looks like they are against Apple. First of all Amazon "Internet Shoping" should just give 1 billion to Apple for respect because without them they wouldn't exist and Second how is changing the price any different from what Amazon did and why is that illegal?

  • Reply 38 of 74
    Quote:

    Apple one it 


     

    Darn that auto correlation!

  • Reply 39 of 74
    I own this town. How dare you attempt to judge over me, you worthless slob.
  • Reply 40 of 74
    elroth wrote: »
    <p>Here's another story that's a much better analysis of the ruling, the issues involved, and the road ahead:</p><p> </p><div><a href="http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/02/10/apple.had.wanted.monitor.suspended.while.appeal.goes.forward/">Court: Antitrust monitor Bromwich stays, with limits | MacNN</a></div>
    Interesting read.
    A ruling both sides can claim vindicates their stand.
    Until the final appeal is heard and the dust settles. Once again the winner that will emerge will be the lawyers.
Sign In or Register to comment.