“A new opinion piece lambasts Judge Denise Cote, the federal judge in charge of the Justice Department’s antitrust suit against Apple, for being ‘abusive’ and ‘shredding the separation of constitutional powers’ by appointing and granting broad authority to antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich,” Shane Cole reports for AppleInsider.
“The Wall Street Journal‘s harsh critique mirrors many of the grievances outlined by Apple in the iPhone maker’s complaint to the court last week, taking issue with Bromwich’s fees — which exceeded $100,000 in just his first two weeks — and accusing Cote of granting Bromwich ‘carte blanche to act as the inquisitor of all things Cupertino,’ Cole reports. “Judge Cote ‘essentially ruled before hearing the evidence’ against Apple and her appointment of an external monitor at all, let alone Bromwich, whom the Journal calls ‘her friend,’ is viewed by the paper as a ‘flatly unconstitutional’ violation of her mandate in the case. ”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Feed the half-baked tart to the wolves.
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’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker – December 5, 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
Show this thieving asshole the door, and fight it in court when the judge accuses them of contempt. This is just wrong on so many levels.
I like that. Use a broom to sweep Bromwich out the door. A Bromwich is a crap sandwich.
you mean a shitwich
Yeah I hope this gets her kicked off the bench permanently. Maybe even serve some jail time. Such blatant corruption needs to be addressed harshly.
I agree. Most judges get too much leeway to rule as they please.
Just goes to show that some courts deserve to held in contempt. You have them in the US, and we do as well in the UK.
This certainly makes for an interesting case. I can’t wait to see how bad Christmas Cote gets raked over the coals.
Add the fact that Bromwell “has no experience in antitrust law” to the astronomical fees he is charging and it becomes truly farcical.
The arrogance exhibited by Judge Cote is simply stunning. I’ve often been told that there is no guarantee that the justice system will dispense justice, but over the last several years, in many more cases than the Apple ones, it seems that it is the very rare case in trial that results in justice.
WSJ makes it sound like they have a condo together (strange use of the word).
They both sound like shills working for the powers that be.
Maybe they really are boffing each other too.
I have said here many times before that fairness and justice in the United States is an illusion and myth. This whole antitrust case is a perfect example. While I will never vote for a Fascist Republican, I will be glad when Obama and his sorry excuse for an Attorney General, Holder, are gone.
But you would vote for a fascist democrat? Ha!
I’m betting he already has, twice!
Please get it right. “Fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left–right spectrum” (from Wikipedia). It also involves corporate control of the government. Fascist Republicans are a fact of life.
Please have at least some loose grasp of actual facts before spotting off nonsense.
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, the first fascist movements emerged in Italy around World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics, in opposition to communism, socialism, liberal democracy and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism. Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left–right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.
I didn’t use the full Wikipedia quote because of the risk of confusion and the never-ending need to go back to basic definitions. Guess that was a fail on my part. Believe what you will. We Democrats are lefties, no matter who is ranting.
“Fascist Republicans are a fact of life.”
Communist Democrats are the reason Republicans have moved further to the right.
Doesn’t say much for personal responsibility does it, if you justify your actions with “He made me do it.”
NAZI Hitler….
Natinal Socialist Workers Party
You dumb fsck!
Sigh.
Quiviran, I’ve been to Auschwitz/Berkenau, Triblinka, Chelmo, and Daccau death camps, camps run by the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. I’ve been behind the Iron Curtain for an extended time and personally know many families who had members disappear inside the USSR’s gulags. I could give a damn what Wikipedia states – I know from first hand experience, that the whole left-right spectrum is a crock. Far right is National Socialist and far left is the socialist utopia called communism. Answer a simple question, as a constitutional libertarian, where do I fit on this spectrum? Where does respecting free enterprise (vice corporatism – by the way look that on up on Wiki and see who are the big supporters here in the US). You are either naive, ignorant or have bought into socialist propaganda hook line and sinker.
If you figure that one out, go stand there. You will not be alone. You seem to think being a Democrat is against free enterprise, somehow, yet one of the greatest examples of free enterprise at work is Apple, generally thought to be leftish. One of the worst examples of free enterprise is Koch Industries, which has been repeatedly convicted of theft of oil from Indian lands, to quote testimony from one of their trials “We only want what’s ours, and it’s all ours.” Or the ethanol lobby, corn farmers who have managed to force the taxpayers to subsidize a product then force them to buy it, which reduces the fuel mileage in their cars (triple whammy). So much of what gets wrapped in the free enterprise flag is not that at all.
Good luck finding your political comrades. Don’t be surprised if we phrase things a little differently. Common ground is there, if you just listen. Remember that actions are always more important than labels. The National Socialist Labor Party wasn’t any of those things. Not actually national, after the people caught on what was happening in their name, not Socialist (wherein the government owns the means of production), not Labor, because labor is just us 99%ers, and definitely not a Party in any good way.
These political debates on MDN get tedious. I simply want to put in my 2¢ to state that using Koch Industries (or any specific company) to conflate illegal activities with the tenants of Free Enterprise is really weak cheese. Nothing about Free Enterprise promotes greed, anti-social behavior or criminal activity. Those are actions taken by corrupt people. And your example of ethanol is exactly why many of want to see a shrinking of Federal Government influence by reducing the monies they have to spend (which *is* a corrupting influence), and programs they wield to pile more and more control over our everyday actions. Neither major party has vested interest in shrinking their domain, but the Dems aggressively want to enlarge it. As Darrel Hall sings, “I can’t go with that!”
I happen to agree with most of what you say, but we seem to be powerless to stop wrong done with the flag of free enterprise wrapped around it. The late 1990s saw removal of the oppressive hand of government in the form of the repeal go Glass-Stegall, after 60 years of financial stability under the regulation. Then what, free enterprise efficiently allocated capital to the pockets of Wall Street and out of the pockets of US taxpayers, in less than ten years. So we can debate philosophy and become the greatest of chums, but reality is that free enterprise must happen in an environment that can’t let the few take advantage of the many. That’s called Government. It’s what the many do to level the field of enterprise. To lay its corruption at the feet of Democrats is to ignore the behavior of Republicans. Making government weaker is not the same as making it better.
Democrats are far more facist than any Republican could hope to be in their wild dreams. The term facist came from the idea that a bundle of sticks is stronger than one, and thus everyone should be united whether they liked it or didn’t. The idea of compulsory compliance is exactly why I hate liberalism even if I hold some view that could be considered liberal, and why I detest the Democratic Party.
Useful info! Thx.
Denise Cote was nominated by President Bill Clinton on April 26, 1994, to a seat vacated by Mary Johnson Lowe. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 9, 1994, received her commission on August 10, 1994, and took office on August 11, 1994.
And yet compulsory compliance is exactly what we have whether we’re Republicans or Democrats, isn’t it.
I’ll also be glad when Obama’s gone. Not because I dislike him as President, but because he will be getting a well deserved break from dealing with the troglodyte Republican party who have opposed him more fiercely than any foreign enemy since the day he took office. He will leave as another Democrat is sworn in, chin high, knowing his legacy is strong as the man who rescued us from another depression and finally delivered some semblance of universal health care.
You mean the depression caused by Clinton? You dumb ass
At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.
The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.
“The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,” the document warned financial institutions.
So this is where it all started. In 1994. When the government pressured lenders to qualify the unqualified. To put people into houses they couldn’t afford. Or else.
Re: the MDN take… in case you hadn’t noticed, the tart works for the wolves.
When did Obama appoint her? How did he get her past the Senate? How does one get an incompetent judge removed?
WSJ? Another paid piece by Apple. There is nothing wrong with this person overseeing Apple’s anti-trust stuff. It’s legal because Apple is a convicted colluder.
Suck it up Apple and get back to business.
What does it feel like to be the Nigerian Nigga’s biatch?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Enjoy you dumb idiots.
C is for corrupt….U is for unethical….N is for nutcase….T is for tyrant….put it all together and she is a major….
Can the Defense ask the judge to recuse herself or does that just happened on Perry Mason?
The robber barons are running the courts, if you know what I mean…
Please can’t we keep this inane quasi-political debate away from MDN? All it serves to do is highlight to the world how dumb Americans are.