District Court Judge Denise Cote on Thursday filed an opinion and order detailing the reasoning behind her denial of Apple's request to remove an external antitrust compliance monitor, saying many of the arguments the company made are now moot.
Apple on Monday was denied its motion to remove a court-appointed antitrust monitor tasked to ensure the company would not enter into further illegal agreements after being found culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme last year.
In a letter submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote on Tuesday, Apple asks for the removal of court-appointed antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich from his post, citing the monitor's recent declaration chastising Apple's supposed lack of cooperation.
Court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich filed a declaration on Monday saying Apple has been very uncooperative compared to his past monitorships, rebuking the company's actions thus far and denying claims of "a broad and amorphous inquisition."
In a series of court filings late last week, Apple officially moved to halt the 'unconstitutional' compliance monitoring imposed as part of the government's e-book antitrust lawsuit, while the Department of Justice defended the monitor's actions and urged that the oversight be upheld.
A new opinion piece lambasts Judge Denise Cote, the federal judge in charge of the Justice Department's antitrust suit against Apple, for being "abusive" and "shredding the separation of constitutional powers" by appointing and granting broad authority to antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich.
Apple this week filed an official complaint with a U.S. district court, saying the antitrust compliance monitor tasked with keeping tabs on the company's dealings is requiring excessive pay, over $138,000 for the past two weeks, and is making unreasonable requests outside of his mandated jurisdiction.
New York Judge Denise Cote on Wednesday assigned Apple a third-party monitor to ensure compliance with federal antitrust laws, one result of the U.S. Department of Justice's successful case against the company over e-book price fixing.
Two of the publishers named as colluders with Apple in the Justice Department's iBookStore price fixing antitrust case against Apple have already begun contacting former customers, alerting them that a "plan of distribution" has been proposed to the court for a final settlement payout.
The district court judge presiding over Apple's e-books antitrust case said on Tuesday that she plans to require the company take on an external antitrust monitor, but expects the final terms of the injunction to not restrict other facets of the iTunes business.
An order issued on Tuesday by U.S District Court Judge Denise Cote, who is presiding over the Justice Department's antitrust case against Apple's e-book pricing policies, notes all parties must by ready for a damages trial tentatively scheduled for May 2014.
Friday is set to be an important date for Apple as the company heads for the courtroom in three separate cases, two pertaining to its ongoing patent fight against Samsung and another regarding the U.S. Justice Department's e-books antitrust suit.
In a court filing on Wednesday, five major U.S. book publishers objected to the penalties proposed by the Department of Justice against Apple's e-book business, saying the program would change the terms of their respective settlements with the government.
The U.S. Department of Justice's case against Apple over alleged e-book price fixing came to an end on Thursday, with both sides presenting standard closing summations to Judge Denise Cote, each reiterating arguments asserted over the past two weeks.
A U.S. District Court Judge presiding over the Department of Justice's antitrust trial against Apple made a cryptic statement on Wednesday, saying the "issues have shifted" after hearing two weeks worth of testimony from both parties.
Apple's vice president of Internet Services and Software Eddy Cue retook the stand on Monday, looking to add clarity to U.S. Department of Justice allegations that the so-called agency model contracts the company signed with publishers caused an overall inflation in e-book pricing.
Proceedings continued in the U.S. Department of Justice e-book antitrust suit against Apple on Thursday, with the company's SVP of Internet Software and Service Eddy Cue testifying that he "didn't care" what prices publishers set for content sold through the iBookstore.
An email from late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs is being used by the U.S. Department of Justice to suggest the company was leaning on book publishers to push Amazon to the agency model, a main contention of the government in its e-book antitrust suit.
The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday called a Google director to testify against Apple in its antitrust case over e-book price fixing, but the move proved unhelpful at best as the executive buckled under questioning.