“Late on Thursday, Apple filed papers in federal court in Manhattan seeking to halt a court-appointed antitrust monitor, Michael Bromwich, from engaging in any further oversight over the company, pending the outcome of its appeal of the ebooks antitrust judgment entered against it last July,” Roger Parloff reports for Fortune.
“Its papers allege that Bromwich ‘is conducting a roving investigation that is interfering with Apple’s business operations, risking the public disclosure of privileged and confidential information, and imposing substantial and rapidly escalating costs on Apple that it will never be able to recover,’ even if it wins its appeal,” Parloff reports. “It also alleges that the monitorship, ‘as it is being interpreted and implemented by Mr. Bromwich as the Court’s agent, is flatly unconstitutional, and will be reversed on appeal.'”
Parloff reports, “In Apple’s papers, written by appellate counsel Ted Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Boutrous makes clear that if Judge Cote denies the stay, Apple will seek an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where Apple’s appeals of Judge Cote’s verdict and judgment in the case are already pending.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This entire farcical saga could’ve been avoided if only Denise Cote wasn’t a dimwitted pawn.
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
The persecution of Apple: Is the U.S. government’s ebook investigation out of control? – December 10, 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
I think “dimwitted pawn” is the wrong term to use. She’s clearly a manipulative, conniving piece of garbage using her influence and connections to the best of her abilities.
But no matter which way you slice it, she’s a stain on our entire justice system.
More likely, she’s being bribed by Samsung. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have used Bromwich in an unconstitutional manner. Those Ex Parte sessions were what broke the metaphorical camel’s back. Apple realized that Bromwich is working with the judge to crucify Apple. This is a big PR move for Samsung.
“She has no ethics, no scruples and no reflection”(Frasier Crane)
FCK The System
. . . and you too.
There is nothing writing with the system. Is the Olympic Games system wrong if it doesn’t catch dopers and cheaters?
It’s the players, not the game that is at fault.
Scratch “writing” and replace with “wrong”
Note to self: read before send…
Freeze him and his nuts and all nuts around him including the corrupted biased cote(x)!
I’m watching this closely and can’t wait to see this blow up on Cotes Face.
I’m starting to see that Bezos = Madoff + Capone with his wild Amazon Ponzi scheme. This is the only way the Apple verdict, or even the case in the first place, ever made sense. What would happen if the public were to get upset with Amazon and boycotted the service for 3 days? Would they run out of cash?
Interesting. I expect it would take much longer. But at interesting point. On the other hand, what would happen if they were determined: “too big to fail”. 🙂
How much you want to bet we find out the lawyer is someone Judge Cote knows, and was colluding with and is getting kickbacks from said lawyer
Likely you haven’t been following the details but it’s been publicly acknowledged of their prior relationship in judicial and legal issues and her support of him. Check out December posts above. Ahh, our system of jurisprudence. Makes you wonder what “prudent” really means.
Looks like the Christmas Cote saga is proceeding nicely. Keep giving them rope.
This and f#($ing affluenza!!!
Crapy judges, need to be disbarred.
The Nanny State. Monitored, eavesdropped, manipulated, tyranny. Yes, we can.
Except James, Coyote is clearly biased against Apple and judged Apple as guilty before the trial even began. Then she hires a personal friend who knows nothing about monitoring to do this job and then gives him free rain to charge astronomical fees for work he doesn’t do correctly. Also he is supposed to be there to ONLY see over book deals and nothing else. As it is most legal people think that Apple was actually doing nothing wrong and did prove that in court yet biased Coyote ignored all evidence and flatly judged Apple as guilty when it was pretty clear Apple did it’s business just like Amazon. If Apple is really guilty then Amazon should be in this as well. Coyote needs to be removed as a judge because she has broken all the rules as an impartial judge.
Having read most of the documents I believe Apple was guilty under the exact letter of the law, and I think that is how Judge Cote saw it. It isn’t her place to make new law, or send messages via the law. Her prejudging before hearing the facts of the case was fairly inexcusable though.
That said, I believe the marketplace Apple is working in is different than the law could have perceived when it was enacted. In the spirit of the law, I believe Apple was in the right, just wrong by the letter of the law.
Bromwich is a mole. Cote is ruling the way she is & implementing ‘remedies’ for the purpose of the government keeping a closer eye on Apple Inc.
The ‘pre-judgement’ by Cote and her assigning this personal friend as the overseer could – I stress, could – simply be her way of throwing wooden shoes into the machinery. They are pretty blatant judicial transgressions, and they’re not being overturned on appeal would raise many eyebrows. It may be she doesn’t agree with what she’s being told she should do, and this is her way of derailing it passively. Of course she could be playing it this way simply because she has no fear of repercussions & she’s totally on board (i.e. there will be no remedy for Apple upon appeal & her future career is guaranteed). It’s too hard to know which, yet.
Either way, the aim here is to keep Apple ‘on the reservation’ preemptively. Bromwich is a ham-handed attempt to get eyes on the inside. To get as much info on future moves as possible, and also to monitor whether the company might go all ‘Jobsian’ again (vis a vis keeping NSA & other government-type agendas out of Apple products & software), so they’ll have some advance warning.
The Zeitgeist is shifting. It’s now clear to many in Silicon Valley (what should have been clear in the first place) that their collaboration with Wall St./DC was the worst Faustian Bargain ever made. To many, it’s accepted that Jobs was right to hold the line, to the extent that he could, and Cook was wrong to think he could keep himself clean once he knelt & kissed the TarBaby’s hand. He may be realizing that now, slowly, or the Apple board, or principals with in management, or some combination of all of the above.
If so, it would go a long way toward explaining what’s coming out of Cote’s courtroom. It’s a forced, desperate attempt to keep Apple at heel.