Antitrust monitor Bromwich rebuts Apple accusations of ‘unconstitutional’ investigation

“Court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich filed a declaration on Monday saying Apple has been very uncooperative compared to his past monitorships, rebuking the company’s actions thus far and denying claims of ‘a broad and amorphous inquisition,'” Mikey Campbell reports for AppleInsider.

“In an 11-page document filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bromwich, who is tasked with overseeing Apple’s e-book pricing activities as a result of a Department of Justice price-fixing trial, detailed his experience with Apple’s legal team, executives, board members and even the public,” Campbell reports. “Describing the preceding two months, Bromwich offers multiple examples of what he considers to be an unwillingness on Apple’s part to facilitate a smooth operation.”

“Apple has been at odds with Bromwich since the former Justice Department Inspector General’s assignment, saying the monitor is overstepping his bounds by making unreasonable requests while requiring $138,000 for two-weeks’ worth of work,” Campbell reports. “As for the future of the e-book price fixing case, Apple is appealing the ruling and Judge Cote is scheduled to hear oral arguments regarding the injunction stay on Jan. 13, 2014.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: How much did he charge for these 11 pages?

This could have all been avoided if only Denise Cote wasn’t a vacant-eyed pawn.

And, why are these Amazon monopoly strengtheners, er… “remedies,” being applied before the appeals have concluded? What if Apple is found innocent and this idiot has already ransacked his way through the entire company? How much is the information Bromwich seeks to collect from the likes of Tim Cook and Al Gore worth? How secure is this inside information that Bromwich is collecting, under guise of a verdict that very well could be overturned?

In United States v. Microsoft Corp., Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999. Microsoft immediately appealed the decision. On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its “remedy.” Microsoft didn’t proceed to break up the company as ordered as their appeal was ongoing. As a result of appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson’s rulings against Microsoft. The DOJ announced on September 6, 2001 that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft.

So, again, why does Apple have to apply any “remedies,” before the appeals process has concluded? What if dummy Denise’s “findings” are overturned?

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

Antitrust monitor Bromwich rebuts Apple accusations of ‘unconstitutional’ investigation – December 31, 2013
Apple seeks to freeze its U.S. e-books ‘antitrust monitor’ – December 15, 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


  1. We live in a nation where our U.S. Attorney General said it was okay to sell presidential pardons to criminal fugitives in exchange for donations to the presidential library. Someone should file an ethics complaint against Bromwich with the New York Bar, and the USDOJ should be investigated for racketeering.

    1. How’s if Apple calls it even and allow the gov’t to proceed with this e-book accusation… And allow a ban on samsung smartphones/tablets before that appeal has ended.

      That’s a good deal.

  2. Why is it that the justice system gets to move swiftly for action when it’s convenient for them? Isn’t it justice for all? If only the dishonorable Koh were to move into action as swiftly as Michael Bribewich.

  3. I think this guy is trying to collect as much stuff as he can so he can write a book after this is over.
    Not that lawyers don’t charge a boatload anyway, but I’m sure his “fees” suddenly went way up the day before he went to Apple.

  4. This guys is the reason so many people dislike lawyers. What a disgusting individual. If he is incapable of getting the job done, why doesn’t he just quit. And about the profane e-mails he got, I am sure some of the four letter words were beyond his comprehension.

  5. Bromwich should be locked out until the 90 day period granted to Apple to get their compliance plan set up has arrived.

    Bromwich should not be allowed to interview Board members who have nothing to do with iBooks.

    Bromwich should be video taped when he interviews anyone.

    Apple is right to not allow someone to poke their nose into all corners of their business, interview people who had no iBooks connection, and want to have ex parte meetings with the Judge.

    ” Gee your Honor, they have some neat shit!’

    ” Dish it up Brommie, you lapdog you”

  6. From the Article:
    “Bromwich, who is tasked with overseeing Apple’s e-book pricing activities as a result of a Department of Justice price-fixing trial, detailed his experience with Apple’s legal team, executives, board members and even the public,” Campbell reports. “Describing the preceding two months, Bromwich offers multiple examples of what he considers to be an unwillingness on Apple’s part to facilitate a smooth operation.”
    Apparently, Bromwich is not familiar with the legal term “Appealed.” He also complains about his treatment from “the public.” Mr. Bromwich, until the appeal is settled, there is no reason for Apple to submit to your presence. Until Apple has a significant presence in the book publishing business, there is no price fixing, and the public has every right to disrespect you and your activities. Incidentally, your pricing of your services to Apple looks like price fixing to me. Did her majesty the Judge put your service out for public competitive bid?

    1. … worthy of a higher-level discussion.
      No childish name calling or petty insults.
      Facts stated. End of story. OK, that last sentence maybe could have been more moderate – without losing its bite. This one comment could be shopped to Apple’s legal team! 😀

  7. This is only the beginning, even if the whole situation gets rectified to Apples satisfaction, they will not stop.

    Apple of the ’20s is soon to be the ATT of the ’70s. At that point, their phone division will be required to split from the entertainment division which will be removed from the ‘computing’ branch (whatever that amalgamation of Pad, Pod and Mac will look like).

    So much for success…..

  8. Mr. Bromwich is not supposed to start his work until the middle of January. Apple has zero obligation to even talk to him until then. Why does he feel he can act like this? A cozy relationship with the judge, of course!

Reader Feedback

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