Jesus. Money well spent, eh guys? What the **** is this guy contributing to humanity for $1,100/hr?
$1,100/hr is not all that much - good attorney could charge double - or even triple (if that great). Clearly this is not a great or even good attorney, though he appears very aggressive.
Gee, if the attorneys and DOJ and other agencies were "this good" at policing Wall Street, we may have never had the Great Recession! Also, I would be more worried about Amazon's business model than Apple's - in this case.
That is what I don't get...if you need to hire someone to help you do your job for a customer, that comes out of your pocket, not theirs.
Monitors are allowed some help, as staff. But I've thought that this is too much. The problem with him being a friend of Cote, is that she appointed someone who isn't an expert in the work he's supposed to be doing. This had been questioned when he was first appointed.
Just take a look at this guy's picture.
We now have a perfect idea of what "corruption" looks like.
This whole case is an impossible (but real) travesty of Justice, and Holder did Nothing to stop it. That lame-o is trying to show how the Obama administration will follow nastiness wherever it leads, even if it starts with themselves.
This is disgusting.
When Apple wins the appeal, take these losers to the cleaners. My how at this time they must be mocking Apple.
The administration has nothing to do with the courts. That's a different branch of government. They did bring the lawsuit, or, that is, the Justice Department did. And while I don't agree with it, they had that right.
I was getting all ready to be inflamed, and then I saw this was just an editorial in the WSJ. Pfft. The editorial page of the WSJ is the domain of right wing hacks. This is just an attack on anti-trust law. If there's truth to it, it's purely coincidental.
Not really. Many professors in this field of law had stood up for Apple right before the case began, during the case, and afterwards as well.
How do you appoint a monitor who hasn't ever done any work in the area this requires? In fact, the appointment of a monitor itself has been questioned by legal experts in the field. It's been stated, with a number of citations, that companies that have never before exhibited any behavior of this type previously are given the benefit of the doubt to monitor themselves. Only if they've done this before is a monitor appointed. So the appointment of the monitor was considered to be incorrect.
Hmm.. The WSJ gets what is potentially the Apple leak of the century with the car rumor (a la bloomberg's expose on the rumored Apple watch a couple years ago), then not too much later a story is published calling out Bromwich for his unethical practices and even suggesting lawsuit. I'm not sure that this is a coincidence.
Moral of the story: Don't mistake Tim Cook's affable nature for weakness, he will %^*# your $#*] up! Especially if you're as big a dick as Bromwich.
Fuçk that guy! I hope Apple wins their appeal, all charges get dropped, and this guy gets ruined. And I mean his career ruined for life… which isn't even something I have ever wished for Samsung, Microsoft, or any other company. But this guy? Fuçk him! He seems like complete scum.
I don't care that he charges that much. He has a right to charge what he wants. I care that Apple had no say in the matter and there was pay tier for a government appointed position and, most egregiously, he had to hire others to do his job because he was way out office depth and then wants Apple to pay for both him and the other people. Fuçk that guy!
It's not just what he charges. That doesn't bother me all that much either, except he seems to be charging time improperly. What bothers me is that as a crony of Judge Cote, he was appointed by her even though he has no experience in doing this. And therefor, he had to hire an expert, likely the guy who should have been appointed in the first place, at another $1,025 an hour, because he doesn't know what to do. Then they both need some staff.
And this is beyond the fact that a monitor shouldn't have been appointed in the first place, because in losing this case, Apple is a first time offender, unless they win on appeal, of course.
When Apple wins on appeal, the DOJ, Cote, and Bromwich should be sued.
You can't sue a judge for doing their job. If there's proof of malfeasance then charges could be brought. I don't know of you can sue the Justice Department, or even the monitor.
I've read the entire Appeal document submitted by Apple and I am very confident Apple will, and should, walk away totally exonerated.
The many arguments Apple puts forth in its appeal shows prejudice on the part of the court, several major departures from established precedent on application of the Sherman Act, legally disallowable application of inference, barring of defense expert witness, allowing the Justice department to withdraw testimony from at least one of Apple's expert witnesses when they didn't like the answer given to the Justice department's own questioning, then allowing testimony from the government's own witness when asked substantially the same question, etc.
The details are too extensive to impart here and I wholly recommend a full reading of the document for anyone truly interested, but here is one example of the court's behavior: Anti-trust law does not allow a judgement of conspiracy where the actions, negotiations, and ultimate agreements between the accused parties is consistent with those same actions, negotiations, and agreements being carried out without resorting to conspiracy. The court must view these as non-conspiratorial unless there is direct evidence of a conspiracy. The supreme court's example of what would constitute direct evidence is that of a CEO confessing that the chairman of the board directed him to meet with a competing CEO in order to fix prices. But the judge in this case offered nothing other than circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy based upon her confidence one existed. What she presented, in a single paragraph of her ruling, would not meet any precedent and directly conflicts with many previous rulings. I could go on...
I have a high school education. Let's see if that has afforded me a clearer view of the facts versus Judge Cote. The answer will come with the Federal Appeals court's eventual ruling.
I've read the entire Appeal document submitted by Apple and I am very confident Apple will, and should, walk away totally exonerated.
The many arguments Apple puts forth in its appeal shows prejudice on the part of the court, several major departures from established precedent on application of the Sherman Act, legally disallowable application of inference, barring of defense expert witness, allowing the Justice department to withdraw testimony from at least one of Apple's expert witnesses when they didn't like the answer given to the Justice department's own questioning, then allowing testimony from the government's own witness when asked substantially the same question, etc.
The details are too extensive to impart here and I wholly recommend a full reading of the document for anyone truly interested, but here is one example of the court's behavior: Anti-trust law does not allow a judgement of conspiracy where the actions, negotiations, and ultimate agreements between the accused parties is consistent with those same actions, negotiations, and agreements being carried out without resorting to conspiracy. The court must view these as non-conspiratorial unless there is direct evidence of a conspiracy. The supreme court's example of what would constitute direct evidence is that of a CEO confessing that the chairman of the board directed him to meet with a competing CEO in order to fix prices. But the judge in this case offered nothing other than circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy based upon her confidence one existed. What she presented, in a single paragraph of her ruling, would not meet any precedent and directly conflicts with many previous rulings. I could go on...
I have a high school education. Let's see if that has afforded me a clearer view of the facts versus Judge Cote. The answer will come with the Federal Appeals court's eventual ruling.
Hah! I bet you can't trump her in education. I have full confidence she has a high school education as well.
He's saying that she can be held accountable by her words and her deeds, which, as a judge, are on display for us to see. How much more proof does one need?
You can't sue a judge for doing their job. If there's proof of malfeasance then charges could be brought. I don't know of you can sue the Justice Department, or even the monitor.
Obviously the decision in itself can't be sued over unless conspiracy/corruption is involved. Still her buddy was conveniently selected as a monitor. Follow the $$$.
Hmm.. The WSJ gets what is potentially the Apple leak of the century with the car rumor (a la bloomberg's expose on the rumored Apple watch a couple years ago), then not too much later a story is published calling out Bromwich for his unethical practices and even suggesting lawsuit. I'm not sure that this is a coincidence.
Moral of the story: Don't mistake Tim Cook's affable nature for weakness, he will %^*# your $#*] up! Especially if you're as big a dick as Bromwich.
WSJ would happily done this without the tip. I doubt that Apple would have given up information on a possible automotive project for anything, and Bromwich's bad behavior is irrelevant to the pending case, assuming that Apple has been complying with Cote's ruling.
That said, the Appellate Court might rule in Apple's favor, and after that, slap Bromwich for exceeding the scope of his duties as monitor. and Cote for not reining him in.
This whole case really bothers me. I think the courts have overstepped their legal authority with appointing this scumbag antitrust monitor. For starters this guy doesn't even have experience in antitrust cases. That's a huge red flag there. Then this clown wants to meet with top execs such as Jony Ive, who have nothing to do with this. Bromprick is totally extorting Apple. I can't believe he's charging $1,100 an hour, plus 15% administrative fee, and another $1,025 an hour for the lawyer with antitrust experience. It's troublesome Judge Cote made an order that allowed her to meet with Bromprick privately to discuss his findings. I don't see how an order like that is legal. I hope Apple wins so this ridiculous case is overturned.
Comments
"Mr. Bromwich bills at $1,100 an hour. "
Jesus. Money well spent, eh guys? What the **** is this guy contributing to humanity for $1,100/hr?
$1,100/hr is not all that much - good attorney could charge double - or even triple (if that great). Clearly this is not a great or even good attorney, though he appears very aggressive.
Gee, if the attorneys and DOJ and other agencies were "this good" at policing Wall Street, we may have never had the Great Recession! Also, I would be more worried about Amazon's business model than Apple's - in this case.
Monitors are allowed some help, as staff. But I've thought that this is too much. The problem with him being a friend of Cote, is that she appointed someone who isn't an expert in the work he's supposed to be doing. This had been questioned when he was first appointed.
The administration has nothing to do with the courts. That's a different branch of government. They did bring the lawsuit, or, that is, the Justice Department did. And while I don't agree with it, they had that right.
Not really. Many professors in this field of law had stood up for Apple right before the case began, during the case, and afterwards as well.
How do you appoint a monitor who hasn't ever done any work in the area this requires? In fact, the appointment of a monitor itself has been questioned by legal experts in the field. It's been stated, with a number of citations, that companies that have never before exhibited any behavior of this type previously are given the benefit of the doubt to monitor themselves. Only if they've done this before is a monitor appointed. So the appointment of the monitor was considered to be incorrect.
This whole thing is wrong from the start.
Never done work in this field before.
Moral of the story: Don't mistake Tim Cook's affable nature for weakness, he will %^*# your $#*] up! Especially if you're as big a dick as Bromwich.
It's not just what he charges. That doesn't bother me all that much either, except he seems to be charging time improperly. What bothers me is that as a crony of Judge Cote, he was appointed by her even though he has no experience in doing this. And therefor, he had to hire an expert, likely the guy who should have been appointed in the first place, at another $1,025 an hour, because he doesn't know what to do. Then they both need some staff.
And this is beyond the fact that a monitor shouldn't have been appointed in the first place, because in losing this case, Apple is a first time offender, unless they win on appeal, of course.
You can't sue a judge for doing their job. If there's proof of malfeasance then charges could be brought. I don't know of you can sue the Justice Department, or even the monitor.
I've read the entire Appeal document submitted by Apple and I am very confident Apple will, and should, walk away totally exonerated.
The many arguments Apple puts forth in its appeal shows prejudice on the part of the court, several major departures from established precedent on application of the Sherman Act, legally disallowable application of inference, barring of defense expert witness, allowing the Justice department to withdraw testimony from at least one of Apple's expert witnesses when they didn't like the answer given to the Justice department's own questioning, then allowing testimony from the government's own witness when asked substantially the same question, etc.
The details are too extensive to impart here and I wholly recommend a full reading of the document for anyone truly interested, but here is one example of the court's behavior: Anti-trust law does not allow a judgement of conspiracy where the actions, negotiations, and ultimate agreements between the accused parties is consistent with those same actions, negotiations, and agreements being carried out without resorting to conspiracy. The court must view these as non-conspiratorial unless there is direct evidence of a conspiracy. The supreme court's example of what would constitute direct evidence is that of a CEO confessing that the chairman of the board directed him to meet with a competing CEO in order to fix prices. But the judge in this case offered nothing other than circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy based upon her confidence one existed. What she presented, in a single paragraph of her ruling, would not meet any precedent and directly conflicts with many previous rulings. I could go on...
I have a high school education. Let's see if that has afforded me a clearer view of the facts versus Judge Cote. The answer will come with the Federal Appeals court's eventual ruling.
You can't sue a judge for doing their job. If there's proof of malfeasance...
There's only Cote's words and actions!
Hah! I bet you can't trump her in education. I have full confidence she has a high school education as well.
I don't know what that means.
There's only Cote's words and actions!
I don't know what that means.
How could he be any clearer?
He's saying that she can be held accountable by her words and her deeds, which, as a judge, are on display for us to see. How much more proof does one need?
Obviously the decision in itself can't be sued over unless conspiracy/corruption is involved. Still her buddy was conveniently selected as a monitor. Follow the $$$.
Hmm.. The WSJ gets what is potentially the Apple leak of the century with the car rumor (a la bloomberg's expose on the rumored Apple watch a couple years ago), then not too much later a story is published calling out Bromwich for his unethical practices and even suggesting lawsuit. I'm not sure that this is a coincidence.
Moral of the story: Don't mistake Tim Cook's affable nature for weakness, he will %^*# your $#*] up! Especially if you're as big a dick as Bromwich.
WSJ would happily done this without the tip. I doubt that Apple would have given up information on a possible automotive project for anything, and Bromwich's bad behavior is irrelevant to the pending case, assuming that Apple has been complying with Cote's ruling.
That said, the Appellate Court might rule in Apple's favor, and after that, slap Bromwich for exceeding the scope of his duties as monitor. and Cote for not reining him in.
and you thought I was kidding when I said Bromwich demanded that an Apple cafe sandwich be named after him ("The Bromwich filled with creamy goo")
I think they call it the "Dirty Bromwich".
This whole case really bothers me. I think the courts have overstepped their legal authority with appointing this scumbag antitrust monitor. For starters this guy doesn't even have experience in antitrust cases. That's a huge red flag there. Then this clown wants to meet with top execs such as Jony Ive, who have nothing to do with this. Bromprick is totally extorting Apple. I can't believe he's charging $1,100 an hour, plus 15% administrative fee, and another $1,025 an hour for the lawyer with antitrust experience. It's troublesome Judge Cote made an order that allowed her to meet with Bromprick privately to discuss his findings. I don't see how an order like that is legal. I hope Apple wins so this ridiculous case is overturned.