Apple seeks removal of court-appointed antitrust monitor Bromwich

“Apple Inc is seeking the removal of a lawyer appointed by a court to monitor its antitrust compliance following a ruling last year that the company had conspired to fix e-book prices,” Andrew Longstreth reports for Reuters.

“An attorney for the consumer technology giant on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan to disqualify Michael Bromwich from serving as an external compliance monitor, arguing he had shown a personal bias against the company,” Longstreth reports. “In a letter to Cote, Apple’s lawyer cited a ‘wholly inappropriate declaration’ filed by Bromwich last month.”

Longstreth reports, “In the declaration, Bromwich defended his work as a monitor against Apple’s complaint that he had overstepped his mandate. He also detailed his unsuccessful efforts to gain Apple’s cooperation for his assignment.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: All of this rigmarole could have been avoided if Denise Cote wasn’t a pompous puppet.

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right),or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right),or vice versa

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “John C.” for the heads up.]

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. No company should have to accept a private appointee into its company. Either there is agreement on the external appointee or the judge should have used a Government Employee and made the company pay their standard wages plus legitimate expenses. No Judge should be able to foist a private lawyer who can set his own fees and expenses. The system is completely screwed up. If the government is so concerned they should have an employee with the requisite knowledge to do the work

      1. There are many good government employees. There are also a few bad ones, much the same as anywhere else. You do your country and your fellow citizens a disservice when you contribute to spreading the idea that most government employees are incompetent, lazy, and corrupt. That is simply not true. I know and have worked with quite a few government employees and many of them work much harder than you believe, contributing many hours of personal time to get the job done. I don’t know you personally but, given your attitude, I would hire them ahead of you any day of the week.

        You are looking for a scapegoat – someone to blame because you are unhappy with “government.” Abraham Lincoln once expounded upon a “Government of the people, by the people, for the people…” You are one of those people – take responsibility for your portion of “government” and accept that, if a problem exists, then you are part of it.

        The biggest problem that I see in government right now is the failure of Congress to do its job. In addition, Congress increasingly micromanages every aspect of government, placing onerous burdens and roadblocks on various government agencies when it cannot even adequately govern itself. The appropriations whip is used widely and frequently and appropriations language often spells out in excruciating detail what is allowed and prohibited. This is not to the advantage of the American people, since appropriations are often driven far more by political agendas and power/money arrangements than by solid technical, scientific, and practical considerations. It is very difficult for government agencies to develop and efficiently execute long term plans because Congressional agendas and budgets change from year to year, and Congress, itself, is often at a loss regarding strategic plans and priorities.

        Believe what you will, but this is the unvarnished truth as I have experienced it for about twenty-five years. If you don’t like it, then work to change it. But don’t sit back and place blanket blame on the many hardworking government employees who do their best to fulfill their duties every day.

        1. I didn’t see where Max was disrespectful of government employees.

          He said the fees of the government appointee would be more appropriate.

          He said there would be one more competent than the appointed private lawyer.

          He said they would be bound to protecting Apple’s privacy – by nature is how I interpreted that, as opposed to the private lawyer with no privacy concerns.

          His only complaint was “if the government is so concerned”, meaning that Cote should have appointed said government appointee. Cote is really the only one he was disparaging.

          1. The e- book case against Apple was brought by Government. Which one hopes implies that they had government employees working on the case and not just taking lobbiests’ testimony and dressing it up. Therefore the same investigators could be appointed if necessary – but the first course of action would be to negotiate with the company to agree the appointment of someone mutually acceptable who is diligent and impartial that both parties could trust.

        2. I think you have got the wrong end of the stick.
          I said government employees would be bound to respect commercial secrets. Implying that no such respect of confidentiality could necessarily be forthcoming from a money grabbing private individual.
          My 35 years of government service has demonstrated time and time again that Government employees in general are impartial and conciencious at carrying out their assignments. Clearly that depends on the Country / Government we are talking about.
          Shysters motivated by money alone are not.

          1. Alright, I give up! I am no longer able to accurately judge the sarcasm intended (or not) in MDN posts. I apologize for my misunderstanding. I have just seen so many snide comments made against government employees on this forum, including in MDN Takes, that I interpreted scorn for government employees where none was intended.

    1. Good idea. Plus, a government employee wouldn’t bill $1,100 an hour. What the hell can anybody do that’s worth $1,100 an hour. That means this guy makes over a $100 for taking a bathroom break. Lawyers suck.

    2. This sort of oversight appears to me to potentially be an activity which meets the legal definition of an “Inherently Governmental” function.

      Granted, “IGF” is only the law for Federal Acqusition…

      …but the principle should be generalizable, even if there’s not a literal Statute that mandates its application in Law.


Reader Feedback

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