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.
I'd like to know precisely the nature of the relationship between Cote and Bromwich also. The whole thing stinks like a rotting whale carcass.
Don't be a jokester.The administration is composed of more people than just the president! Obama likes to see himself in pictures with Cook, and don't you think his aides notice that. You are being PC. Obama wants to have a chunk of that overseas money. He wants to put his feet in both camps, and that never works out. My real emphasis in this is Holder. He thinks he is doing "anti-trust" a favor, but this isn't anti-trust. This is distrust.
This whole thing has bothered me from the start. Cote has been known to give the prosecution a win before cases even start. She did that here, declaring, even before she saw any evidence from Apple, that they abused the system, and that they were guilty. If I were Apple attorneys, I would have protested her presence on the case.
As far as Bromwitch goes, he's known to be a friend of hers. That's not even proper. This whole thing stinks.
Why didn't Apple file for a mis-trial? If the judge is opinionated, wouldn't they have had grounds to appeal for a mis-trial? I wonder why they didn't.
Amazon should be forced to reimburse Apple all legal costs as well. We know they were behind this.
We know nothing. All there is is hearsay an innuendo, none of which is even remotely admissible in a court of law.
Not quite. We do know that DOJ officials met Amazon execs in a private weekend session, where no official record of their 'talks' was kept. It was deemed in admissible for the court proceedings. All according to PED at tech.fortune.
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 believe you that he demanded it, but I believe Apple rejected it on the grounds that a turd sandwich could not actually be served in their cafeteria.
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?
It could have been clearer, because there needs to be proof that she acted improperly. You should have read my posts by now to know that I believe she did. But she's been doing this for years, and so far, she hasn't been called on it. So that's why his post was unclear. Saying that she needs to BA accountable for her statements and deeds says nothing in and of itself.
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1.5em;">Let’s not forget who owns the WSJ.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1.5em;">Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which also owns Big Five publisher HarperCollins.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-bottom:1.5em;">The elder Murdoch and his son James figured prominently in the price-fixing affair, their names coming up repeatedly in Judge Cote’s opinion.</p>
Gee, do you suppose the WSJ has a dog in this hunt?
Why didn't Apple file for a mis-trial? If the judge is opinionated, wouldn't they have had grounds to appeal for a mis-trial? I wonder why they didn't.
As has been stated by Shiller, Apple was so certain that they would win, that they went along with the trial. They also stated that they wanted a definition of what the industry was. Besides, asking that a judge be removed from a case is rarely granted.
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?
It could have been clearer, because there needs to be proof that she acted improperly. Y
U should have read my posts by now to know that I believe she did. But she's been doing this for years, and so far, she hasn't been called on it. So that's why his post was unclear.
I think his point was that the proof is already there in her words and actions. The fact that she hasn't been taken to task yet doesn't mean that the proof isn't there.
I wouldn't go expecting any recrimination against Cote or Bromwich when/if the case gets overturned by the 2nd. Federal District (trial) judge rulings get overturned all the time on appeal. They are the ones in the trenches dealing with new situations and aren't experts in all aspects of the law, so there's nothing inherently unusual about one having made mistakes, and that's probably more true for antitrust than any other area of the law. Proving malfeasance or corruption is a real longshot.
Also the WSJ has a long history of being pro-business and anti antitrust. Nobody should find anything unusual in their defense of Apple here, especially when the case is a reversal of traditional anti-trust values by prosecuting the new entrant bringing competition to the market and seeking to protect the monopolist abusing its market power.
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.
How can somebody be worth $1,100 an hour and be so inexpert he has to hire an actual expert?
If employees can unionise to ensure that they're not being exploited by their employer why can't publishers unionise to ensure that they're not being exploited by Amazon?
There is nothing that says Amazon has a right to sell books. Their business model (selling eBooks at a loss to spur kindle sales) was clearly at the expense of publishers hard copy sales. In my opinions publishers threatening to window Amazon was no less ethical than Amazon introducing artificial processing delays to punish books retailers that didn't tow the line.
If retail pricing was so important to publishers they should never have ceded control over their retail pricing in the first place. They didn't need Apple to tell them that.
If employees can unionise to ensure that they're not being exploited by their employer why can't publishers unionise to ensure that they're not being exploited by Amazon?
There is nothing that says Amazon has a right to sell books. Their business model (selling eBooks at a loss to spur kindle sales) was clearly at the expense of publishers hard copy sales. In my opinions publishers threatening to window Amazon was no less ethical than Amazon introducing artificial processing delays to punish books retailers that didn't tow the line.
If retail pricing was so important to publishers they should never have ceded control over their retail pricing in the first place. They didn't need Apple to tell them that.
I still find it hard to believe that these publishers, some of which have been doing business for the better part of a century, allowed Amazon to bully them. They might not have gotten in trouble if they had collectively bargained before Apple came on the scene. They could've cited self preservation as the reason why they negotiated better terms with Amazon, if questioned about it.
Comments
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.
I'd like to know precisely the nature of the relationship between Cote and Bromwich also. The whole thing stinks like a rotting whale carcass.
I worry about how the 'bell can be unrung' vis-a-vis all the information this unethical bozo is sucking up....
Gosh, as an economic competitor, the US is its own worst enemy.
Rupert Murdoch%u2019s News Corp, which also owns Big Five publisher HarperCollins.
The elder Murdoch and his son James figured prominently in the price-fixing affair, their names coming up repeatedly in Judge Cote%u2019s opinion.
Gee, do you suppose the WSJ has a dog in this hunt?
Let’s not forget who owns the WSJ.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which also owns Big Five publisher HarperCollins.
The elder Murdoch and his son James figured prominently in the price-fixing affair, their names coming up repeatedly in Judge Cote’s opinion.
Gee, do you suppose the WSJ has a dog in this hunt?
Don't be a jokester.The administration is composed of more people than just the president! Obama likes to see himself in pictures with Cook, and don't you think his aides notice that. You are being PC. Obama wants to have a chunk of that overseas money. He wants to put his feet in both camps, and that never works out. My real emphasis in this is Holder. He thinks he is doing "anti-trust" a favor, but this isn't anti-trust. This is distrust.
This whole thing has bothered me from the start. Cote has been known to give the prosecution a win before cases even start. She did that here, declaring, even before she saw any evidence from Apple, that they abused the system, and that they were guilty. If I were Apple attorneys, I would have protested her presence on the case.
As far as Bromwitch goes, he's known to be a friend of hers. That's not even proper. This whole thing stinks.
Why didn't Apple file for a mis-trial? If the judge is opinionated, wouldn't they have had grounds to appeal for a mis-trial? I wonder why they didn't.
Not quite. We do know that DOJ officials met Amazon execs in a private weekend session, where no official record of their 'talks' was kept. It was deemed in admissible for the court proceedings. All according to PED at tech.fortune.
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 believe you that he demanded it, but I believe Apple rejected it on the grounds that a turd sandwich could not actually be served in their cafeteria.
Quote:
I think they call it the "Dirty Bromwich".
Patron: I will have a Dirty Bromwich
Server: Here ya go.
Patron: Thanks
10 minutes later...
Patron: Hey!! This Dirty Bromwich tastes like crap and leaves a really bad after taste!!
Server: Glad you enjoyed it, we worked hard to get it just right.
And that's the Bromwich sandwich.
It could have been clearer, because there needs to be proof that she acted improperly. You should have read my posts by now to know that I believe she did. But she's been doing this for years, and so far, she hasn't been called on it. So that's why his post was unclear. Saying that she needs to BA accountable for her statements and deeds says nothing in and of itself.
No, I don't.
As has been stated by Shiller, Apple was so certain that they would win, that they went along with the trial. They also stated that they wanted a definition of what the industry was. Besides, asking that a judge be removed from a case is rarely granted.
I think his point was that the proof is already there in her words and actions. The fact that she hasn't been taken to task yet doesn't mean that the proof isn't there.
I wouldn't go expecting any recrimination against Cote or Bromwich when/if the case gets overturned by the 2nd. Federal District (trial) judge rulings get overturned all the time on appeal. They are the ones in the trenches dealing with new situations and aren't experts in all aspects of the law, so there's nothing inherently unusual about one having made mistakes, and that's probably more true for antitrust than any other area of the law. Proving malfeasance or corruption is a real longshot.
Also the WSJ has a long history of being pro-business and anti antitrust. Nobody should find anything unusual in their defense of Apple here, especially when the case is a reversal of traditional anti-trust values by prosecuting the new entrant bringing competition to the market and seeking to protect the monopolist abusing its market power.
How can somebody be worth $1,100 an hour and be so inexpert he has to hire an actual expert?
There is nothing that says Amazon has a right to sell books. Their business model (selling eBooks at a loss to spur kindle sales) was clearly at the expense of publishers hard copy sales. In my opinions publishers threatening to window Amazon was no less ethical than Amazon introducing artificial processing delays to punish books retailers that didn't tow the line.
If retail pricing was so important to publishers they should never have ceded control over their retail pricing in the first place. They didn't need Apple to tell them that.
I still find it hard to believe that these publishers, some of which have been doing business for the better part of a century, allowed Amazon to bully them. They might not have gotten in trouble if they had collectively bargained before Apple came on the scene. They could've cited self preservation as the reason why they negotiated better terms with Amazon, if questioned about it.