Apple gets temporary reprieve from external antitrust monitor; should it be a permanent one?
Apple has been temporarily spared the presence of an external antitrust monitor, initially placed at the company as part of the judgment in the U.S. government's case against Apple regarding ebooks. Apple has been fighting to remove the monitor, Michael Bromwich, since he was placed at the company last summer. The company believes that Bromwich is a disruptive and unnecessary imposition, according to Reuters:
Apple has complained that Bromwich has been too intrusive, including by seeking interviews with top executives and board members, and has been charging an inflated $1,100 per hour for his services to rack up high fees.
Do you think that the monitor should be removed, or is he necessary to ensure that Apple doesn't violate antitrust regulations? Sound off in the comments below.