Apple's feud with antitrust monitor continues; company accused of not cooperating in iBooks oversigh
Tension between Apple and its court-appointed antitrust monitor continues to mount, as Michael Bromwich has accused the iPad maker of reducing its cooperating with his reviews of the company.
Bronwich has been assigned to keep tabs Apple's operations following an antitrust lawsuit won against the company by the U.S. government. And while Apple and Bromwich have not seen eye to eye from the start, in recent months the relationship has worsened, he said in a report to Judge Denis Cote, as noted by Reuters.
Bromwich told the judge that Apple has taken a more "adversarial tone" in recent discussions. In addition, he said that no interviews have been conducted since January, since Apple has rejected his requests.
Apple has taken issue with the extent of the investigations by Bromwich, alleging that his reviews have gone beyond the original intent by the court. Some outside of the company have agreed, including a circuit court judge and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.
In February, the Journal's opinion page slammed Bromwich's approach as being "major abuse, even by the standards of modern antitrust." The newspaper even alleged that Apple should sue Bromwich for his investigation, which has cost the company more than $2.65 million and has involved investigations into Apple's Siri, Maps and hardware engineering groups, none of which are related to the e-book antitrust lawsuit.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Courtrequest to have him removed. Its efforts were shot down by an appellate court, which found that the company failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm.
Last April, Bromwich suggested matters had improved, telling the court that relations between himself and Apple were better off.
Bronwich has been assigned to keep tabs Apple's operations following an antitrust lawsuit won against the company by the U.S. government. And while Apple and Bromwich have not seen eye to eye from the start, in recent months the relationship has worsened, he said in a report to Judge Denis Cote, as noted by Reuters.
Bromwich told the judge that Apple has taken a more "adversarial tone" in recent discussions. In addition, he said that no interviews have been conducted since January, since Apple has rejected his requests.
Apple has taken issue with the extent of the investigations by Bromwich, alleging that his reviews have gone beyond the original intent by the court. Some outside of the company have agreed, including a circuit court judge and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal.
In February, the Journal's opinion page slammed Bromwich's approach as being "major abuse, even by the standards of modern antitrust." The newspaper even alleged that Apple should sue Bromwich for his investigation, which has cost the company more than $2.65 million and has involved investigations into Apple's Siri, Maps and hardware engineering groups, none of which are related to the e-book antitrust lawsuit.
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court
Last April, Bromwich suggested matters had improved, telling the court that relations between himself and Apple were better off.
Comments
Apple should simply shut down iBook.
It's not worth the hassle, and the DoJ and its lackeys can have/stuff it.
Apple should simply shut down iBook.
It's not worth the hassle, and the DoJ and its lackeys can have/stuff it.
A part of me completely agrees with you. All else not changing, Apple should shut it down, and boot Bromwich out the door before the ink is dry.
The other part thinks Apple should pursue every avenue to removing Bromwich, and "somehow" sanctioning the judge that (imho) obviously had a back-end deal with Bromwich. This whole episode just stinks of abuse.
Kick that guy out and write a check for the difference.
Kick that guy out and write a check for the difference.
Seriously... whatever fine that Apple would have to pay for their "insubordination" would be so infinitesimal, it wouldn't even qualify as a "rounding error" on their books. Apple should move Bromwich's office to a storage room beneath the A/C unit in the basement and tell the the judge to go f**k herself and wait for the appeal process to run its course.
Honestly, I really think Apple will win the case. When that happens, I hope the court system recognizes that the judge crossed a line and has her removed from the bench.
Besides, Bromwich isn't even qualified in anti-trust law, so this highly lucrative appointment by his friend Judge Denise Cote is more than a little suspicious. Google for pictures of her, and not that makes two spooky looking people in this dispute. Could there be something going on between them that we've not been told about?
And no, Apple should not "shut down iBooks." The dispute was born when a Seattle law firm a mere 10 minutes walk from Amazon's headquarters met with DOJ lawyers, so uou know who is behind this.
If Apple's executives want to demonstrate that they're qualified to wear 'big boy pants,' they should invest in move that will lead Amazon to rue the day is decided to go after Apple via the DOJ.
If Apple's executives want to demonstrate that they're qualified to wear 'big boy pants,' they should invest in move that will lead Amazon to rue the day is decided to go after Apple via the DOJ.
Don't underestimate the size/power of the government.
Principles are crucial, I agree, but there's also such a thing as the smart thing to do (i.e., weighing the potential costs of dragging this on and having this low-life around, versus the costs of letting it all go).
Re, "big boy pants," this one somehow doesn't seem to rise to the level of the battle to pick to demonstrate the size of the pants, IMHO. Moreover, Apple has demonstrated its "big boy pants" in countless different ways in the past decade and a half.
Cotes' interpretation of anti-trust is fatally flawed Under the agreements Apple entered into with the publishers, Apple gets the same price as does Amazon (and vice versa), but with Apple onboard Amazon could no longer sell eBooks for below cost as the publishers required Amazon to adopt the "agency" model.
Forcing consumers to pay cost plus is not harmful to the consumers, UNLESS it can be shown that the publishers colluded to set retail pricing. In any event Apple demonstrated that it was not party to any such discussions, further that IF those discussions of that nature did in fact take place, Apple was unaware of them.
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/58023/width/400/height/800[/IMG]
What a f*cking idiot.
For a minute I was worried you thought Amazon needed competition. /s
Apple should simply shut down iBook.
It's not worth the hassle, and the DoJ and its lackeys can have/stuff it.
That would be the same as if Apple just raised the white flag, admitted guilt, and allowed a corrupt judge and two-bit schister to win. They need to fight this all the way to the bitter end on principle!
gift him with the cheapest android watch.
Probably a Galaxy Gear then
Michael Bromwich:
What a f*cking idiot.
That picture makes me think he's saying to the camera man "Oh, you want me to say something intelligent now?"
The next time we want your opinion Mr. Bromwhich, we'll give it to you.
Seriously, shouldn't he simply stick to his fact finding(?)
That picture makes me think he's saying to the camera man "Oh, you want me to say something intelligent now?"
This is what Bromwich was thinking...