Shane Cole
Apple has officially notified the court that it will appeal this week's ruling denying the company's request for the external compliance monitor imposed as part of the government's e-book antitrust suit to be disqualified.
The notice states that Apple intends to fight "all of the Court's rulings adverse to Apple in its January 16, 2014 Order, and the Court's modifications to the Plaintiff United States' Final Judgment." Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Apple's lead counsel in the case, submitted the notice on Apple's behalf.
Apple's filing comes on the heels of a Monday hearing in which Judge Denise Cote rejected the company's motion to remove the court-appointed monitor, Michael Bromwich, from that post. Apple has taken issue with Bromwich's handling of the monitorship seemingly since the moment he was appointed, accusing him of conducting what the company feels is an overly-expansive, "roving" investigation and charging exorbitant fees.
Judge Cote expanded on her reasoning in a lengthy, 64-page opinion on Thursday in which she said that Apple failed to show "that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm." She also expressed hope that Apple and Bromwich could come to a mutually beneficial arrangement:
The deterioration of the relationship between Apple and the Monitor is unfortunate and disappointing. Hopefully, that relationship can be "reset" and placed on a productive course. But it is strongly in the public's interest for the Monitor to remain in place. A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple.
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Andrew Orr
29 Comments
"She also expressed hope that Apple and Bromwich could come to a mutually beneficial arrangement:..." Fat chance since Apple knows Bromwich is totally incompetent (he admitted it by needing to hire someone who does) and has no business monitoring anything Apple is doing. Of course, the whole issue is a blatant which-hunt against Apple by the DOJ showing how out of touch they are with the whole e-book industry. If they actually knew anything, they would have gone against Amazon years ago with their predatory pricing instead of going against Apple and the book publishers. The US government has a responsibility to defend publishers as much as customers, something they aren't doing with this case.
Bring it to SCOTUS. Cote will never admit her mistake.
I frankly *still* don't get why Apple's approach was found to be in violation in the first place. If anyone can point me to a clear and cogent interpretation of why Apple's original approach was a violation and Amazon's is OK, please post a link. Thanks.
"She also expressed hope that Apple and Bromwich could come to a mutually beneficial arrangement:..." Fat chance since Apple knows Bromwich is totally incompetent (he admitted it by needing to hire someone who does) and has no business monitoring anything Apple is doing. Of course, the whole issue is a blatant which-hunt against Apple by the DOJ showing how out of touch they are with the whole e-book industry. If they actually knew anything, they would have gone against Amazon years ago with their predatory pricing instead of going against Apple and the book publishers. The US government has a responsibility to defend publishers as much as customers, something they aren't doing with this case.
Although I seem to be on the same side as you, just not as virulently:
"Someone who does" what?
And what's a "which-hunt?"
[OK I'm Knit picking you. But maybe take a second or two to read your post before you submit? ;-) ]
The US government has a responsibility to defend publishers as much as customers, something they aren't doing with this case.
Agree with you, but the problem isn't so much defending customers (historically people have always gotten short shrift from the government.) It seems to me that in the past they have always tilted toward publishers (as they are corporate and big business.) Problem is the courts are following their traditional instinct and favoring Amazon as the biggest business with the greatest influence over Apple, Publishers, and last of all, the lowly citizens.