Vector 51

The ongoing challenge of ebooks

News

Apple agrees to pay $450 million to resolve ebook price fixing case

News

Apple settles ebook price-fixing trial outside the courts

Apps

Amazon brings Audible integration to the Kindle app

Links

With iBooks tied up by courts, Amazon runs roughshod over publishers

News

Amazon offers Kindle e-book buyers antitrust settlement credit - did you get yours?

News

Apple brings out the big guns in ebooks case — economists!

News

Apple formally appeals ebook antitrust ruling - does it stand a chance?

News

Apple's iBooks court monitor stays in place, but there's a catch

News

Apple gets temporary reprieve from external antitrust monitor; should it be a permanent one?

Links

How anti-Apple, pro-Amazon manipulations have resulted in less competition, higher ebook prices

Links

Apple ebook bench called out as 'offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary'

News

Amazon offering 12 days of Kindle book deals starting now

Links

Apple says overseer out of order, judge out of order, entire ebooks case out of order!

News

Scribd offers e-book subscriptions for $8.99 a month

News

Apple given permanent injunction in ebook case, external antitrust monitor to be installed

News

Amazon to offer discounted Kindle ebooks when you buy real, printed books

News

Judge to install external antitrust monitor at Apple

News

Department of Justice submits new punishment proposal for Apple, still as ludicrous as the old one

News

Antitrust judge refuses to suspend Apple ruling, accuses Apple and publishers of "danger of collusion"

< >

Apple really doesn't like their antitrust monitor; attempts to put his work on hold

Apple really doesn't like their antitrust monitor; attempts to put his work on hold

Apple is once again asking a federal appeals court to grant a stay on the work of court-appointed antitrust monitor, Michael Bromwich. While a temporary reprieve was granted two weeks ago, Apple hopes that the court will put Bromwich's work on hold until its decided whether or not he should have been placed at Apple to begin with. While the government argues that the monitor is needed to prevent Apple from violating antitrust regulations again, Apple's attorneys argue that Bromwich's presence is unnecessary, and harmful to Apple's business, according to Reuters:

"We can't turn back the clock," said Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Apple, in explaining why the company would suffer irreparable harm if the monitor is allowed to continue before the appeals court has a chance to decide whether his appointment was appropriate in the first place.

Do you think that Apple needs an antitrust monitor, or did the court overreach by placing him at the company? Sound off below in the comments.

Source: Reuters

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is a news reporter for iMore. He's also chilling out and having a sandwich.

More Posts

 

6
loading...
12
loading...
41
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

iOS 7.1 beta 5 now available; developers, go grab it!

Next up →

How to determine if your streaming music's audio quality is worth paying for

Reader comments

Apple really doesn't like their antitrust monitor; attempts to put his work on hold

15 Comments

Do you think that Apple needs an antitrust monitor?
No.
Did the court overreach by placing him at the company?
Yes.

Do you think that Apple needs an antitrust monitor? Yes. Apple was found by a court to have conspired to manipulate prices. That is unlawful and they should be punished.
Did the court overreach by placing him at the company? No. If they aren't violating antitrust laws anymore they should have no problem with being monitored.

When the monitoring costs the company resources (time, people, and money) and potentially interferes with other aspects of business then I believe it is a unnecessary.

Posted via the Android iMore App!

The thing is, Apple WAS found guilty, and the assignment of the monitor is normal practice. Why should Apple get special treatment?

They've been found guilty of violating the law. Nothing you've stated: "Costing money and interfering with business" exculpates them from the need to be monitored or is a legal justification for reducing punishment always costs a company and interferes with business. If you violate the law it costs a company time, people, and money. Apple is no different.

And what if the "time" was unreasonable? For example, what if you were given 30 years prison for stealing a loaf of bread from the supermarket?

The whole issue here is that the monitor is not an expert in the field, so he hired another lawyer to help, so is double-billing Apple for their time. Why didn't the court appoint a lawyer who does have expertise in the field directly? The monitor is also requesting interviews with people at Apple who have nothing to do with eBook pricing, further showing his ignorance.

The punishment is not fitting the crime. That's the problem.

How is Michael Bromwich not an expert? Have you read his bio. Harvard Summe Cum laude, Harvard Law, DOJ in white collar crimes, SEC regulation, compliance, Litigator for Goodwin & Proctor, tons of government regulatory work, led the BP oil spill regulatory enforcement. Regulation is what he's been doing the bulk of his career.

Apple is arguing against any monitoring whatsoever. If all they was that they were being overcharged then they'd simply argue for reimbursement. That's not what they are asking for. Apple has bid several times to stop the monitoring. Clearly apple does not want to comply with the preliminary injunction requiring monitoring. They are not simply fighting over the single lawyer's fee. The fee was one point among many. Apple didn't want monitors speaking to executives as well. The truth is if Apple is in compliance with Antitrust laws they have no reason at all to try to prevent executives from speaking to the monitor. And the scope of the monitors work is anything that is needed to maintain compliance with the law. Apple's lawyers have clearly stated that either way they object to the monitoring as "unnecessary." So it's clearly not just about fees. Apple doesn't want to be monitored at all. Apple is subject to the same laws the rest of the businesses are.

The issue isn't punishment not fitting the crime. The issue is Apple wants no punishment.

Do ALL instances of this kind of behavior warrant an "antitrust monitor" be assigned to the infringing entity or is this simply overkill because someone seeks to make an example of a company such as Apple. Apple is suffering the consequences of its previous actions - They won't be doing that again...
No - they don't need an antitrust monitor standing over their shoulder.
... "2 words for it..."

Totally inappropriate -- no one assigned could possibly comprehend corporate operations to the point of being at all beneficial.