Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

US DOJ argues against Apple motion to remove e-book antitrust monitor

Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court

In an opposition filing on Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice argues that Judge Denise Cote acted within her power when she assigned an external antitrust monitor to Apple, recommending the company's appeal have the monitor removed be denied.


According to the filing, the DOJ argues Judge Cote's court did not overstep its bounds by assigning external compliance monitor Michael Bromwich to Apple after the company was found culpable in an e-book price fixing case last year. The document was first spotted by CNET.

From Friday's filing:

In any event, the district court did not exceed its authority in ordering an external monitor for Apple or abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify the selected monitor. Nor can Apple establish that it will be irreparably harmed by the monitorship. Finally, the public interest weighs firmly against any delay in the monitor's work.

Apple won a temporary reprieve on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered a halt to the ECM's oversight pending appeal.

The DOJ argues that Apple has not shown "irreparable harm" by the ECM's presence, a stipulation needed to remove Bromwich from his monitorship. Even if Apple were able to prove such conditions, the government says a replacement monitor is called for, not a complete removal.

The filing is the latest development in an ongoing kerfuffle between the Apple and its court-appointed antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich. After finding Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme, Judge Cote appointed Bromwich to ensure the company's current and future dealings are above board.

Apple and Bromwich have been butting heads since the monitorship began. The company has accused Bromwich of conducting an unconstitutional wide-roving inspection atypical of a monitorship.

In December, Apple filed a motion to suspend the "inquisitorial" nature of Bromwich's assignment. Aside from his actions, Bromwich is also charging exorbitant fees to the tune of over $70,000 per week, Apple said.

Judge Cote denied Apple's request to remove the ECM earlier in January, prompting Apple to take its case to appeals court.



36 Comments

mechanic 13 Years · 805 comments

Wow Just wow, the DOJ sure has a real issue with apple. They should just shut up and wait for the case with the appeals court to rule. What a bunch of buffoons.

🍪
darklite 11 Years · 229 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic 

Wow Just wow, the DOJ sure has a real issue with apple. They should just shut up and wait for the case with the appeals court to rule. What a bunch of buffoons.

What, you'd rather have the DOJ immediately appeal the current appeal if it gets overturned? It's much better to get it all done at once. Let everyone have their say and then make a ruling instead of playing whack-a-mole with appeals on both sides.

☕️
mdriftmeyer 20 Years · 7395 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic 

Wow Just wow, the DOJ sure has a real issue with apple. They should just shut up and wait for the case with the appeals court to rule. What a bunch of buffoons.

 

They're doing the job required of them. Let the system work itself out.

🎁
tzeshan 14 Years · 2350 comments

I think Apple was originally sued by DOJ.  So how could DOJ tell the Circuit Court what to do?  DOJ is not a neutral party. 

anantksundaram 18 Years · 20391 comments

Holder's team is absolutely out of control. And, he's one pathetic, clueless bureaucrat. :no: