Antitrust monitor again bemoans Apple's lack of cooperation in final report
In a report to a New York district court published on Tuesday, Michael Bromwich, Apple's court-appointed antitrust monitor, said the company has made "substantial progress" in its compliance program, but still exhibits an unwillingness to cooperate with his investigation.
Bromwich brought U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote up to date on Apple's activities, saying the Cupertino, Calif.-based tech giant worked "diligently" to improve on its antitrust compliance program during what could be his final reporting period.
After finding Apple culpable of conspiring with five major book publishers to fix the price of e-books, Judge Cote installed Bromwich to oversee the company's future dealings. That initial two-year term will soon expire, though Judge Cote does have the option to extend Bromwich's appointment.
Despite seeing progress, the external compliance monitor said he was met with constant resistance to the end. In some cases Apple's reluctance to divulge information mirrors accounts of noncompliance in the ECM's first official report published last year. Specifically, as it pertains to requests for information regarding Apple Music content deals, Bromwich complains of "objections, resistance and the provision of minimal information."
"In this respect, Apple has been its own worst enemy," Bromwich writes. "This lack of cooperation has cast an unnecessary shadow over meaningful progress in developing a comprehensive and effective antitrust compliance program."
In spite of these apparent roadblocks, Bromwich reports the company seemed to handle its Apple Music dealings well.
"[...] indeed, it turns out that Apple had a positive story to tell about the attention it paid to antitrust considerations in connection with Apple Music--a positive story that appears to reflect well on its ET, its Board, its lawyers, and its business personnel," Bromwich said.
It remains to be seen what consequences, if any, Judge Cote will assign to Apple for impeding the ECM's monitorship.
Reuters reported on the Bromwich report earlier today.
That Apple is at odds with Bromwich is no secret. The company tried to rein in the ECM from what was characterized as a wide-roving and unconstitutional investigation shortly after his arrival. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York denied Apple's bid to remove Bromwich in May.
Apple maintains its iBooks deals were above board, but at the same time agreed to settle the class-action suit involving consumers and 33 states and territories for $450 million. After losing a final appeal of Judge Cote's ruling in June, Apple has exhausted its options save for a U.S. Supreme Court petition.
Bromwich brought U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote up to date on Apple's activities, saying the Cupertino, Calif.-based tech giant worked "diligently" to improve on its antitrust compliance program during what could be his final reporting period.
After finding Apple culpable of conspiring with five major book publishers to fix the price of e-books, Judge Cote installed Bromwich to oversee the company's future dealings. That initial two-year term will soon expire, though Judge Cote does have the option to extend Bromwich's appointment.
Despite seeing progress, the external compliance monitor said he was met with constant resistance to the end. In some cases Apple's reluctance to divulge information mirrors accounts of noncompliance in the ECM's first official report published last year. Specifically, as it pertains to requests for information regarding Apple Music content deals, Bromwich complains of "objections, resistance and the provision of minimal information."
"In this respect, Apple has been its own worst enemy," Bromwich writes. "This lack of cooperation has cast an unnecessary shadow over meaningful progress in developing a comprehensive and effective antitrust compliance program."
In spite of these apparent roadblocks, Bromwich reports the company seemed to handle its Apple Music dealings well.
"[...] indeed, it turns out that Apple had a positive story to tell about the attention it paid to antitrust considerations in connection with Apple Music--a positive story that appears to reflect well on its ET, its Board, its lawyers, and its business personnel," Bromwich said.
It remains to be seen what consequences, if any, Judge Cote will assign to Apple for impeding the ECM's monitorship.
Reuters reported on the Bromwich report earlier today.
That Apple is at odds with Bromwich is no secret. The company tried to rein in the ECM from what was characterized as a wide-roving and unconstitutional investigation shortly after his arrival. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York denied Apple's bid to remove Bromwich in May.
Apple maintains its iBooks deals were above board, but at the same time agreed to settle the class-action suit involving consumers and 33 states and territories for $450 million. After losing a final appeal of Judge Cote's ruling in June, Apple has exhausted its options save for a U.S. Supreme Court petition.
Comments
Anybody interested in buying the AppleTV game I'm making... iWannaPunchBromwich?
Not music, etc.
He's actually providing evidence for the case Apple made against him earlier this year. Should have thought about that before writing this in hopes of tarnishing Apple. Now Apple has proof from the man himself that he's trying to overreach.
Apple should wage a massive public relations campaign against both of these crooked rats and the legal system that allows such judicial overreach in the first place. Cote should be unseated and Bromwich should be sued.
I am glad Apple shut him out of unfettered information gathering from the beginning. Côte had made it possible for Bromwich to gather sensitive information and report it to her without anyone else being privy to the report. Not a good move by Cote.
Apple should wage a massive public relations campaign against both of these crooked rats and the legal system that allows such judicial overreach in the first place. Cote should be unseated and Bromwich should be sued.
Actually I rather suspect that Apple has a much bigger problem on the horizon with the EuGH (the highest EU Court) invalidating the "Safe Harbor" treaty (which is the foundation of Apple's so-vaunted Privacy Policy) as not providing adequate protection of the Fundamental Rights of EU Citizens with respect to both Privacy AND the access to effective judicial remedies. In the mid to long term this will be a huge burden on Apple (and most US Dataprocessors). The problem Apple will need to solve is to get rid of its belief that they are above the law and to understand that compliance with the laws is a must. There is little evidence of this understanding in the way Apple responds ... Bromwitch being just one example. The way the Company mishandled the UK Court was even more petulantly arrogant.
Sounds like more anti-Apple trolling. How about you provide some no-BS story links to bolster your assertions.
The EU privacy spat will have barely an effect on Apple. In fact, I'll bet Apple welcomes it. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. otoh....
As to the UK court ruling, that judge was an utterly corrupt doofus. If I recall right, that moron went on to work for Samsung or some such thing.
Actually I rather suspect that Apple has a much bigger problem on the horizon with the EuGH (the highest EU Court) invalidating the "Safe Harbor" treaty (which is the foundation of Apple's so-vaunted Privacy Policy) as not providing adequate protection of the Fundamental Rights of EU Citizens with respect to both Privacy AND the access to effective judicial remedies. In the mid to long term this will be a huge burden on Apple (and most US Dataprocessors). The problem Apple will need to solve is to get rid of its belief that they are above the law and to understand that compliance with the laws is a must. There is little evidence of this understanding in the way Apple responds ... Bromwitch being just one example. The way the Company mishandled the UK Court was even more petulantly arrogant.
Sounds like more anti-Apple trolling. How about you provide some no-BS story links to bolster your assertions.
Read the transcripts, don't be so damned lazy. Its never a good idea to play the smart-ass with a very senior judge who specializes in patent law in the UK. The judicial response surprised nobody but a few AI readers. In a courtroom the Judge has always the bigger stick and the last word. You know the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". Get used to it. Game-playing is not a smart thing to do at that level and in that court. In fact the only surprise was that the Judge restrained himself and didn't put the lawyers in the can for contempt of court. It was pure arrogance on the part of Apple in that case.
Actually I rather suspect that Apple has a much bigger problem on the horizon with the EuGH (the highest EU Court) invalidating the "Safe Harbor" treaty (which is the foundation of Apple's so-vaunted Privacy Policy) as not providing adequate protection of the Fundamental Rights of EU Citizens with respect to both Privacy AND the access to effective judicial remedies. In the mid to long term this will be a huge burden on Apple (and most US Dataprocessors). The problem Apple will need to solve is to get rid of its belief that they are above the law and to understand that compliance with the laws is a must. There is little evidence of this understanding in the way Apple responds ... Bromwitch being just one example. The way the Company mishandled the UK Court was even more petulantly arrogant.
The EU privacy spat will have barely an effect on Apple. In fact, I'll bet Apple welcomes it. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. otoh....
As to the UK court ruling, that judge was an utterly corrupt doofus. If I recall right, that moron went on to work for Samsung or some such thing.
Well, what you personally think of a particular judge ... is not something that concerns anybody that matters.
Whether the privacy "spat" is as trivial as you would appear to want to believe is another matter. But by all means rely on your personal expertise in this area of law if it makes you feel good. You're completely wrong. But who cares ??
Provide a link to your source, genius.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon...these are all tyrannical monsters who should be shut down immediately. Apple is our lord and savior, the way, the truth and the light, and should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it because....well, because those Apple logos are just so pretty to look at.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon...these are all tyrannical monsters who should be shut down immediately. Apple is our lord and savior, the way, the truth and the light, and should be allowed to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it because....well, because those Apple logos are just so pretty to look at.
Was there a point to your comment?