Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker

“Impossible as it sounds, Judge Denise Cote has found a way to make the Justice Department’s antitrust assault on Apple even more abusive. Because it presumed to enter the e-books market, the court is forcing the company to pay for a special prosecutor to investigate itself—and shredding the separation of constitutional powers too,” The Wall Street Journal opines. “In July, Judge Cote of the New York federal district court convicted the iPad of being a conspiracy to increase digital book prices, though the tablet’s 2010 introduction increased competition and consumer choice and, er, lowered digital book prices. She then appointed her friend Michael Bromwich as an external monitor to review antitrust at Apple, which he has interpreted as carte blanche to act as the inquisitor of all things Cupertino.”

“That may be what Judge Cote wants. Before her bench trial began she pre-declared her ‘tentative view’ that Apple was an antitrust violator and indulged Justice Department arguments that have no precedent in antitrust jurisprudence. She essentially ruled before hearing the evidence,” WSJ writes. “Readers may recall Mr. Bromwich as the political fixer President Obama brought in after the BP deepwater oil spill. He worked for Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh in the Reagan era and as inspector general for the Justice Department in the Clinton years. He was confirmed for the latter job despite conflicts of interest; his mentor Philip Heymann was Deputy Attorney General and inspectors general are supposed to be impartial watchdogs. In 1994, Judge Cote wrote Mr. Bromwich an effusive endorsement letter to help push him over the Senate hump.”

“Judge Cote backed off her plan for secret communications with Mr. Bromwich when Apple objected, but otherwise she is giving her friend whatever he wants,” WSJ writes. “The Second Circuit where her ruling is on appeal should remove her from the case. Her condominium with Mr. Bromwich is offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary.”

Much more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: This inexplicably continuing charade’s central issue is that Denise Cote is an abject moron.

Related articles:
In pretrial view, judge says leaning toward U.S. DOJ over Apple in e-books case – May 24, 2013
Lawyers have complained for years that Judge Denise Cote pre-judges cases before she enters the courtroom – August 14, 2013

Apple takes aim not just at court-ordered e-books monitor, but also at U.S. District Judge Denise Cote herself – December 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote assigns DOJ monitor in Apple ebook price-fixing case – October 17, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge issues injunction against Apple in ebooks antitrust case; largely in line with what DOJ wanted – September 6, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote says Apple needs third-party supervision after ‘blatant’ ebook price fixing – August 28, 2013
Apple e-book judge Cote makes short work of Apple’s list of nine evidentiary ‘errors’ – August 15, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Apple faces possible May 2014 trial on e-book damages – August 15, 2013
le-in-e-books-case/”>In pretrial view, judge says leaning toward U.S. DOJ over Apple in e-books case – May 24, 2013
Judge Denise Cote scolds Apple for being ‘unrepentant’ in e-book antitrust case – August 12, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: U.S. District Judge Denise Cote erred during e-books trial, Apple says – August 9, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Cupertino wants a stay in e-books case; DOJ claims publishers are conspiring again – August 9, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ seeks wide-ranging oversight of iTunes Store – August 2, 2013
Apple rejects U.S. DOJ’s proposed e-book penalties as ‘a draconian and punitive intrusion’ – August 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ wants to force Apple to revamp e-book practices – August 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Cupertino could get smacked with $500 million bill in ebook case – July 25, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple verdict could end the book as we know it – July 11, 2013
U.S. DOJ unwittingly causes further consolidation, strengthens Amazon’s domination of ebook industry – July 11, 2013
Where’s the proof that Apple conspired with publishers on ebook pricing? – July 10, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple ruling could allow U.S. government to monitor, interfere with future Apple negotiations – July 10, 2013
Judge Denise Cote likely wrote most of her U.S.A. v. Apple ebooks case decision before the trial – July 10, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: NY judge rules Apple colluded to fix ebook prices, led illegal conspiracy, violated U.S. antitrust laws – July 10, 2013
In U.S.A. v. Apple e-books case, witness Barnes & Noble VP Theresa Horner was everything Apple could hope for – June 19, 2013
The Apple e-books trial takes a detour into the absurd – June 18, 2013
Steve Jobs, Winnie the Pooh and the iBookstore Launch – June 17, 2013
Apple set to present its defense in e-book antitrust case – June 17, 2013
Steve Jobs was initially opposed to entering the e-book market – June 14, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ’s last best chance in e-book case has passed – June 14, 2013
Obama admin trying to throw the book at Apple; U.S. DOJ goes after an innovator whose market entry reduced prices – June 13, 2013
Apple’s Eddy Cue denies price-fixing allegations at U.S v. Apple e-books trial – June 13, 2013
Apple fires back at DOJ with email Steve Jobs actually sent – June 13, 2013
Is Steve Jobs’ unsent email a smoking gun in Apple e-book case? – June 12, 2013
Winds shift toward Apple in U.S. DOJ’s e-book trial – June 12, 2013
Day 5 of the Apple ebooks trial: Publishing execs testify; Rupert Murdoch’s role – June 11, 2013
U.S. v. Apple iBookstore case could go to the Supreme Court – June 5, 2013
Apple accuses DOJ of unfairly twisting Steve Jobs’ words in e-book case – June 4, 2013
U.S. DOJ prosecutors accuse Apple of driving up e-book prices – June 3, 2013
U.S. v. Apple goes to trial; DOJ claims e-book price-fixing conspiracy with Apple as ringmaster – June 3, 2013
U.S. DOJ takes Apple to trial alleging e-book price-fixing – June 2, 2013
Penguin to pay $75 million in e-book settlement with US State Attorneys General – May 23, 2013
The hot mess that is Apple’s e-book legal fight with U.S. DOJ – May 16, 2013
Apple: Deals with publishers improved e-books competition – May 15, 2013
Apple tells U.S. DOJ of tough talks, not collusion, with publishers – May 15, 2013
EU ends e-book pricing antitrust probe into e-book pricing; accepts offer by Apple, four publishers – December 13, 2012
Apple, publishers offer EU e-book antitrust settlement – September 19, 2012
Judge rubber-stamps U.S. e-books settlement – September 6, 2012
Apple, four publishers offer e-books antitrust concessions, says source – August 31, 2012
Apple bashes Amazon, calls U.S. DOJ settlement proposal ‘fundamentally unfair, unlawful, and unprecedented’ – August 16, 2012
U.S. antitrust settlement with e-book publishers should be approved, feds say – August 4, 2012
U.S. Justice Department slams Apple, refuses to modify e-book settlement – July 23, 2012
U.S. senator Schumer: Myopic DOJ needs to drop Apple e-books suit – July 18, 2012
Apple’s U.S. e-books antitrust case set for 2013 trial – June 24, 2012
U.S. government complains, claims Apple trying to rush e-books antitrust case – June 21, 2012
Barnes & Noble blasts U.S. DOJ e-book settlement proposal – June 7, 2012
Apple: U.S. government’s e-book antitrust lawsuit ‘is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law’ – May 24, 2012
Federal Judge rejects Apple and publishers’ attempt to dismiss civil case alleging e-book price-fixing – May 15, 2012
Court documents reveal Steve Jobs email pushing e-book agency model; 17 more states join class action suit – May 15, 2012
Apple vs. Amazon: Who’s really fixing eBook prices? – April 17, 2012
Apple: U.S. DOJ’s accusation of collusion against iBookstore is simply not true – April 12, 2012
Apple not likely to be a loser in legal fight over eBooks – April 12, 2012
16 U.S. states join DOJ’s eBook antitrust action against Apple, publishers – April 12, 2012
Australian gov’t considers suing Apple, five major publishers over eBook pricing – April 12, 2012
DOJ’s panties in a bunch over Apple and eBooks, but what about Amazon? – April 12, 2012
Antitrust experts: Apple likely to beat U.S. DOJ, win its eBook lawsuit – April 12, 2012
Why the market shrugged off the Apple antitrust suit – April 11, 2012
What’s wrong with the U.S. DOJ? – April 11, 2012
Macmillan CEO blasts U.S. DOJ; gov’t on verge of killing real competition for appearance of competition – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ hits Apple, major publishers with antitrust lawsuit, alleges collusion on eBook prices – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ may sue Apple over ebook price-fixing as early as today, sources say – April 11, 2012


  1. The fees that Michael Bromwich wants to charge in his court-appointed role are insanely overpriced. It is a sleazy racket by a sleazy court-appointed administrator.

    1. They’re not defending Apple. They’re attacking a judge appointed by a Democrat and the Obama Justice Department. The bad part is they’re doing it with actual facts. Is no one in the White House awake?

      1. Are you a bit slow? Of course they are awake. This is their hit job. They are showing Apple that the Federal Government is in charge and you do what Obama says or you pay a big price. Now, the White House can get back to destroying the American health care system and the rest of the private economy.

        1. So you’re point is that the reason Apple is now doing assembly work in the US is because of this whack job, and not because of the superiority of the American work force? (Remember Jobs telling Obama “those jobs are never coming back”)

          That would take tremendous organization and coordination. Be advised, the motto of Democrats everywhere is “I don’t belong to any organized party, I’m a Democrat” (hat tip to Will Rogers). So you’re probably wrong. Just a rogue judge with early onset Alzheimers. And a lawyer with fewer than average scruples.

      1. … “Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh in the Reagan era”!
        Don’t try to get cute, JCR, you don’t have it in you.
        ON Topic: sounds like a chance for Apple to ask for judicial measures against both Judge Cote and her guy-pal for abuse of the system.

  2. Instead of the monopoly being held accountable (Amazon). the company that increased competition is attacked by the Justice Department. Denise Cote decides Apple is guilty before the case is tried and calls Apple executives liars. Her sly smile barely hides her evil intent in her Kangaroo Court. Unbelievable.

  3. This is what you get when you elect socialist DemocRATS.. Corruption & control… Hence why people are freaking out over ObaMaoCare… If this is what these people do to corporations, just wait until you see what they do to you! Recognition of this is too little too late by the low information voters..

  4. I have just read “Willful Blindness as Boardroom “Bad Faith”” by Michael W. Peregrine in Columbia Law School Blue Sky –

    What I find most chilling and fearful coming from the article is that Judge Denise Cote and her henchman Michael Bromwich COULD BE PURSUING THEIR PARANOID BELIEFS THAT APPLE IS A HARDENED CRIMINAL (in that in the eBook case Apple still denies guilt while six “fellow conspirators” accepted “guilt” to save money*) and is searching for evidence (privately and conspiratorially thus illegally – in her “very house of law”).

    The way Bromwich entered Apple with imperial demands or could I say dictatorial demands throwing his weight around to disrupt the daily business of Apple’s staff and directors shows SS jackboot tactics, not the roll of a court appointed monitor.

    Judge Denise Cote digs her own grave by redefining on the fly her rules of engagement. At best such action as she showed is intemperate or ill-advised and at worst a gross illegal abuse of Judicial power. (I could add that her mercurial actions show why Muslims give women only half the credence of a man in their court. – Now there’s a cat amongst the birds!)

    USA Law and USA Judges are now being tested for fairness and impartiality.
    The Rule of Law cannot be broken by the Court, otherwise there is no law but anarchy.

    I will offer Judge Denise Cote some news in Apple’s eBook case – the Janitorial Department were the primary perpetrators and instigators of the eBook case, it is they that infected and thus controlled the minds of Jobs, the directors and others in Apple to enact a monopolistic idea. As Judge Denise Cote is continuing to search for evidence of guilt after her verdict she must leave no stone unturned and check if my allegation is true!

    I will further suggest that she exhume Steve Jobs and continue cross examining him!

    * There is a delicious irony that make the eBook case so ground breaking – “If Apple is found not guilty in the Supreme Court, what does that show of the self defined “Guilt” of the 6 co-conspirator publishers?
    Will the Supreme Court reexamine the 6 publishers as perjurers because by saying they were guilty when they were not they lied under oath?
    What does that show about legal advice in USA?

    1. Accepting a plea bargain is not perjury, per se. It is a decision by the defendant to choose between fighting what may turn out to be the good fight, and cutting your losses. If the defendant perjures themselves by accepting a plea, doesn’t the prosecution warrant examination for not doing their job by offering the plea? What if the defendants were mis-led by the prosecution or felt pressured (coerced) to accept the plea by the threat of even more serious charges?

    2. The “co-conspirators” did not plead guilty. They entered no contest pleas, while maintaining their innocence, purely for economic reasons. By doing so, no possible charges of perjury can be brought. These were civil cases, not criminal. . . liability only. Not guilt.

  5. Let’s see – any hints of incompetence or corruption in Bromwich? Special BP “fixer” for Obama, counsel to Democrat rogue special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh who pursued Reagan, and a Clinton Inspector General. What chance is there that a Democrat hack lawyer would be corrupt? More interesting, why is this now Obama hack targeting Apple? The Apple execs and all the Apple faithful are Pavlovian Democrat supporters. Why is Obama intentionally bringing the full force of the Federal Government against Apple? Make no mistake – this is an Obama attack on Apple. Probably Eric Schmidt bought Obama’s soul. Not much of value there

    1. Look no further than Amazon buying favours. Obama publicly praised the destroyer of jobs Amazon shortly after a setback in the ebook case.

      Amazon still increased its US employee count, which helps dems show improvements to the job situation. Apple should bring back more jobs, hire more or pay better.

    1. Agreed Litlle,

      But all the little sheep here need to wake up and smell the Tyranny brought to you by lawless ape King Obongo turning the USA into a Banana Republic, or shall we say a Kenyan Communist Paradise.

      HEIL King Obongo… FORWARD COMRADS u dumb assholes!

      Bananas for all!

  6. Cote and Bromwich are the ones who should be on trial for conspiracy! It is absolutely ridiculous that this woman continues to sit on the bench. Obama’s “Justice” Department is a f’ing joke.

    1. King Obongo has put all his little fascist brown shirts in every gobmint department.

      His fav is the IRS. Check it out… Anyone who publicly speaks out against the ape king get a free audit from the IRS.

      Now he is making new rules for non profit organizations, so he can do legally for the next election what he he did illegally for the last.

      Now isn’t that special!

      HEIL DEM FUEHRER Obutthole!

  7. Congratulations to all the people posting on this article. Although it is highly charged and has a woman at its centre, you have all stayed the high path and focused on the issues (more or less)!

    1. If you are referring to no one has made any attempts to censor people’s freedom of expression then congratulations are in order. Keep up the good work, I left you a reward down below.

    1. It has not been a “US Justice” system for several decades.

      It is a U.S. Adversarial System. It is not about right or wrong. It is not about good or bad. It is not about what is better for the public or worse for society.

      It is about who has the most capable legal team. It is about who can mount the biggest and loudest and most consistent *STORY*. It does not matter in the least whether that story is fact or fiction.

      The two adversaries go at it with a referee (judge) on hand. Sometimes a group of citizens votes as to who won the fight (e.g., who told the best story). Sometimes the referee names the winner. In neither case is the winner chosen because of anything even close to the concept of upholding “JUSTICE”.

Reader Feedback

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