+ Reply
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Judge Explains Denial of Request to Remove External Antitrust Compliance Monitor

is a discussion within the

Mac News

forums, a part of the

General Apple/Mac

section;
...
  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,767
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 118 Times in 104 Posts

    Default Judge Explains Denial of Request to Remove External Antitrust Compliance Monitor


    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 lengthy filing begins with an in-depth background of the situation which describes a continual locking of horns between Apple and Bromwich. Troubles began almost immediately after the ECM, who was tasked with ensuring Apple doesn’t engage in further illegal price fixing activities, was appointed to monitorship in October. Bromwich’s assigned task is a direct result of Judge Cote’s ruling that found Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme played out through the iBookstore.

    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.
    As a result, Judge Cote denies Apple’s request to remove Bromwich and subsequently, the company’s motion to suspend her initial injunction ruling.

    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

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    294
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 25 Times in 23 Posts

    It's like your going down the highway and there is a red light with a camera and you hate that camera and now you stop at the yellow light instead of trying to go through the light. If Apple is honest then why care?

  3. #3
    iPhoneaholic
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    398
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 42 Times in 34 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by WHUDS View Post
    It's like your going down the highway and there is a red light with a camera and you hate that camera and now you stop at the yellow light instead of trying to go through the light. If Apple is honest then why care?

    Typical Judge with a little bit of power with a hard on for Apple wants to throw her weight around i say Apple keep this little Gnat in the dark and make him work hard to get every snipit of info he needs .

  4. #4
    iPhone? More like MyPhone rockyseay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    228
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 21 Times in 16 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by tridley68 View Post
    Typical Judge with a little bit of power with a hard on for Apple wants to throw her weight around i say Apple keep this little Gnat in the dark and make him work hard to get every snipit of info he needs .
    Yea that's right. Allow apple to screw the consumer with their price fixing schemes. Forget that. Apple has to learn to stop trying to monopolize everything.

  5. #5
    iPhoneaholic tekwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    302
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 28 Times in 17 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by WHUDS View Post
    It's like your going down the highway and there is a red light with a camera and you hate that camera and now you stop at the yellow light instead of trying to go through the light. If Apple is honest then why care?
    WTF are you babbling about. Please explain how being honest somehow makes you feel that paying $1000+ an hour is ok? That being messed with PRIOR to your deadline is ok. Besides all of this, the effect Apple and the publishers actually had on the industry was that e-book prices went DOWN. Judge Cote also PUBLICLY PRE JUDGED this case and should have immediately been removed from the bench if you know anything at all about legal proceedings. Don't believe me, read the great Salon article about it. This entire case was and is ******** brought mainly by Amazon because it messed with THEIR anti-competitive practices, AMAZON is who put small bookstores out of business, AMAZON is the one who screwed everyone over by selling things at a loss thus not allowing others to fairly compete.

    Amazon’s bogus anti-Apple crusade - Salon.com

    Quote Originally Posted by tekwiz View Post
    WTF are you babbling about. Please explain how being honest somehow makes you feel that paying $1000+ an hour is ok? That being messed with PRIOR to your deadline is ok. Besides all of this, the effect Apple and the publishers actually had on the industry was that e-book prices went DOWN. Judge Cote also PUBLICLY PRE JUDGED this case and should have immediately been removed from the bench if you know anything at all about legal proceedings. Don't believe me, read the great Salon article about it. This entire case was and is ******** brought mainly by Amazon because it messed with THEIR anti-competitive practices, AMAZON is who put small bookstores out of business, AMAZON is the one who screwed everyone over by selling things at a loss thus not allowing others to fairly compete.

    Amazon’s bogus anti-Apple crusade - Salon.com

    Yeah, price fixing MY ***, the result was that ebook prices WENT DOWN!

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amaz...apple_crusade/
    Last edited by tekwiz; 01-17-2014 at 01:46 PM.

  6. #6
    iPhoneaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    316
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by tekwiz View Post
    WTF are you babbling about. Please explain how being honest somehow makes you feel that paying $1000+ an hour is ok? That being messed with PRIOR to your deadline is ok. Besides all of this, the effect Apple and the publishers actually had on the industry was that e-book prices went DOWN. Judge Cote also PUBLICLY PRE JUDGED this case and should have immediately been removed from the bench if you know anything at all about legal proceedings. Don't believe me, read the great Salon article about it. This entire case was and is ******** brought mainly by Amazon because it messed with THEIR anti-competitive practices, AMAZON is who put small bookstores out of business, AMAZON is the one who screwed everyone over by selling things at a loss thus not allowing others to fairly compete.

    Amazon’s bogus anti-Apple crusade - Salon.com




    Yeah, price fixing MY ***, the result was that ebook prices WENT DOWN!

    http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amaz...apple_crusade/
    The prices went down on older books, the prices of newer books went UP! This is from the consumer point of view. The prices may have went down form the publisher's point of view, as they are getting less money per book, but are now setting the final price. Under Amazon's original setup, the publishers said how much they wanted from Amazon for each copy and Amazon set the price according to how much profit or loss they wanted to take on the book.

  7. #7
    Green Apple
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Price fixing? Blame the publishers, not the distributors.
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoUniversity View Post
    Yea that's right. Allow apple to screw the consumer with their price fixing schemes. Forget that. Apple has to learn to stop trying to monopolize everything.
    Have you ever noticed that books, whether hard-cover or soft-cover, always have a price printed on them? And no matter what bookstore you go into to buy a book, the price on that book (unless it's on sale) is always the same, because it is printed on the cover, or on the dust jacket? And if the book is on sale -- for instance, a new release or a best-seller, etc. -- the sale price is pretty much the same at every bookseller you go to? That's because the publishing business has been fixing prices for a very, very, very, long time.

    The fact we now have e-books doesn't make any difference (and if you really stop to think about it, e-books should be substantially cheaper than their physical counterparts because the production costs are minimal (no printing presses, no paper, no ink, no binding and stitching, no shipping-related costs, no labor costs, etc...)), e-book prices are pretty much the same whether you go looking at B&N, Amazon, or iBooks. The publishers are still controlling book prices for the most part.

    And it's the same for music and movies: Digital versions of media costs only slightly less than physical media. Why? The same reason. The record labels and the movie studios control dictate prices to the resellers.

    Take an objective look, and you'll see it's not just Apple; it's Amazon, and B&N, and all the other e-book retailers as well. The publishers (whether that be books, music, or video/movies) set the prices and the distributors are bound by those prices -- much like authorized Apple resellers are bound by Apple pricing when they sell Apple's product.
    Last edited by pulsecub; 01-21-2014 at 02:36 AM.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts