District Court Judge Denise Cote recently filed an opinion and order detailing the reasoning behind her denial of Apple’s request to remove an external antitrust compliance monitor. In the 64-page document, Judge Cote offers an exhaustive opinion on her order to deny Apple’s motion to remove court-appointed antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich. With the filing, the jurist fulfills a promise made to explain the reasoning behind her decision, stating that many of the arguments the company made are now moot. The following was mentioned in the opinion and order:
In brief, many of the arguments which Apple once made (and is no longer pursuing) have been waived or are moot. In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction. Finally, there has been no showing that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm. For these and all of the other reasons stated herein, Apple's request for a stay is denied.
The recent filing gives a rundown of Apple’s main complaints. The company takes issue with Bromwich’s fee structure, which will cost millions of dollars over the ECM’s tenure; his allegedly “unconstitutional” wide-roving inspection of current operations; and an overstepping of bounds in demanding interviews with top Apple executives and board members who play no role in day-to-day operations, especially those dealing with the iBookstore. The Cupertino California company formally aired its grievances to the court in a number of filings, to which Bromwich filed his own declaration rebutting the claims. The monitor noted a distinct lack of willingness to participate on the part of Apple. The Cupertino California claimed this was grounds for dismissal as it brought Bromwich’s impartiality into question.
Judge Cote mentioned the following regarding the situation:
The deterioration of the relationship between Apple and the Monitor is unfortunate and disappointing. Hopefully, that relationship can be "reset" and placed on a productive course. But it is strongly in the public's interest for the Monitor to remain in place. A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple.
In order to appeal today’s order; Apple must file a motion to stay with the Second Circuit by Saturday. We’ll have to wait and see what move the Cupertino California company makes next.
Source: Scribd via AppleInsider