Apple objects after court-appointed e-book compliance monitor charges $138,432 for first two weeks

“Apple has issued a formal objection to the court-appointed lawyer assigned to monitor its compliance with the decision handed down in its e-book pricing fixing case back in July,” Darrell Etherington reports for TechCrunch.

“The monitor was assigned by the DOJ back in October, and has apparently been charging Apple a very high price for his services – he made $138,432 in his first two weeks on the job, according to Apple’s official filing on the matter,” Etherington reports. “Apple says that’s the highest rate it’s paid a lawyer in its history, which is saying a lot given the company’s decidedly litigious streak.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Quite possibly, Apple would be far less “decidedly litigious” if classless companies worldwide didn’t continuously decide to steal Apple’s patented intellectual property.


  1. So Apple charges more than 99c for eBooks and gets a string of ridiculous law suits, Google scans books without publisher consent, making them available to all free of charge and its classed as “fair use”
    The only fun thing in the string of Apple related lawsuits is the comments you read by fandroids confirming the study stating that Android users/fans have a lower level of intelligence

    1. And, even is we assume this person put in 12 hours a day *only* on this case and worked seven days a week that’s still only 168 hours. This works out to $824 an hour. In what world is someone who pulls in a salary ever worth $824 an hour?

      (Conversely, if he only worked a 40 hour week each week on this case that turns out to be $1,730.40 an hour. That’s more than a third more in one hour than a minimum wage worker makes in a month!)

          1. No. You completely misunderstood my reply. I was saying if you are so surprised at how much this lawyer expects to be paid by the hour, do the math on some of the Fortune 500 CEO’s for a real shocker.

      1. In true Machiavellian style he’s protecting minimum wage workers across the country from Apple’s extortionate schemes cause, you know, he’s serving the public’s interest as is the court…
        /s (in case there’s any doubt)

  2. That lawyer would have been otherwise unemployed so the socialists at the WH and DOJ have created work for one of their crony lawyers by forcing the private sector to employ him at super high rates.

    But of course they need a fig leaf to hide behind, so they start by bringing a frivolous lawsuit against an innocent company on the taxpayer’s dime. Typical socialist dogma practised throughout the world, inc. the socialist state of U.S.A. as seen by the WH.

    1. Oh please, everyone and their dog knows that the US is a warist state, based on warism. Heck those lawyers are there to ensure that the US can attack anyone anywhere on the earth at anytime and make it sound legal.

      1. Warism. Good point.

        But relevance? And then you throw in lawyers? That’s going as oblique as calling incompetent DOJ lawsuits against the best company on the planet an attack of ‘socialism’. That does not compute. This is my summary of the situation: #MyStupidGovernment.

  3. Lets see here. Apple has been put in e-book jail, but has to pay the guards out of their own pocket? That seems even more wrong than the case itself. Since it was put in jail supposedly to benefit taxpayers, shouldn’t the cost of jail be borne by the taxpayers? (Not that I think the whole bit of nonsense has any merit anyhow)

    1. I will start by saying that I do not think that Apple did anything wrong, and I think that what this lawyer is charging is criminal in itself.

      However, Apple lost in court. IF a company was guilty, should the taxpayers have to foot the bill to make sure that they carry out the court orders? As to the rest of your argument, I think that society would be a whole lot better off if criminal were sent a bill for everything they cost society (court costs, jail, etc.) That would be a much bigger deterrent than serving time.

      1. What you *should* start by saying is that Apple’s lawyers are too stupid to not know the difference between a “Most Favored Nation” clause and a “Best Customer” clause.

        It does not help that the judge in the case did not know the difference. It does not help that the prosecutor(s) did not know the difference (or at the very least claimed they were the same thing). It does not help that 99.99999% of the media does not know the difference.

        I know the difference. The majority of the contracts people who do any form of major contracts with the U.S. Government know the difference. Why Apple’s lawyers don’t know the difference and didn’t point out the difference during the trial is completely beyond my comprehension.

        MFN clauses, if not implemented carefully, can be illegal. BC clauses never are. MFN clauses are proactive clauses. BC clauses by their very nature are 100% reactive. MFN clauses change the nature of the competitive landscape to favor the company requiring them. BC clauses do nothing more than continuously even the playing field.

        MFN clauses upset the dynamic of the system. BC clauses maintain the fairness to all.

        Apple what convicted of implementing MFN clauses when in reality they were BC clauses. Apple’s lawyers were too stupid to know the difference and too stupid to clearly explain this to the court. Every lawyer who worked on this case for Apple should be fired.

        And they should *personally* have to pay this outside monitor’s fees and expenses.

  4. … you gave two of the regular trolls (to date) a forum to spew anti-democratic, or anti-non-conservative?, ignorance in a space supposedly set aside for Mac-centric (Apple-centric?) discussions. Does “Bot” not realize it is the anti-women’s-rights republicans who want the “nanny state” up side women’s private parts? Does “Soc” not realize that Socialists do not believe in over-charging for services? Like the pay difference between the lawyer in question and the high-school drop-out who served him his lunch this afternoon?
    Lawyers, in general, are well known for being greedy, bottom-feeding scum. More may be republicans than democrats, that’s merely a statistic. This one is greedy even for a LAWYER! Apple has every right to complain.

    1. while I am not a republican, please note the following:

      • First female supreme court appointee: by a republican.
      • Most females in cabinet-level positions: by a republican.
      * Nineteenth Amendment passed during a republican administration.
      • First female US Army general, appointed by a republican.

      1. And anyone willing to put the time in could come up with just as impressive a list as this for Democrats. Cherry picking history can be done ad infinitum. It proves absolutely nothing.

    1. Actually, it’s: “What’s 1,000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?”

      At the bottom of a lake they might still get out — especially if they they not chained down.

      The one I like best: “99.9% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.”

      The one I like second best is, “Why do sharks not eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.”

  5. The other point is this Judge. She is overstepping her authority and she needs to be investigate or reviewed for her conduct and decision making. I sincerely hope Apple finds a way to have this judge reviewed for her competence and integrity.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.