Skip to main content

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 is the former Editor in Chief of iMore. An Apple user for almost 20 years, he spends his time learning the ins and outs of iOS and macOS, always finding ways of getting the most out of his iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac.

  • Do you think that Apple needs an antitrust monitor?
    Did the court overreach by placing him at the company?
  • Feel free to expand upon those answers ;-)
  • 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.
  • Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
  • 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 do you know? As for the crime, it appears to be about a billion dollars of theft by apple
  • 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.
  • At what the hourly rate is, no he does not to be there.
  • If you do a little research, his hourly rate isn't even close to the hourly rate of Apple's lawyers.
  • 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..."
  • Does every company have an anti trust monitor? I hope they are able to work it out. Sent from the iMore App
  • Totally inappropriate -- no one assigned could possibly comprehend corporate operations to the point of being at all beneficial.