Apple to appeal ruling rejecting bid to block monitor Bromwich

“Apple Inc. will appeal a ruling by a U.S. judge rejecting the company’s bid to block a monitor she appointed in an electronic-books price-fixing case, according to a court filing,” Patricia Hurtado reports for Bloomberg.

“U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan this week denied Apple’s request to stop the court-appointed monitor, Michael Bromwich, from questioning executives,” Hurtado reports. “In a written opinion yesterday, she said Apple failed to show that it was in the public interest to delay her ruling.”

“Apple, based in Cupertino, California, said in a court filing yesterday that it intends to appeal ‘all of the court’s rulings adverse to Apple in its Jan. 16, 2014, order,'” Hurtado reports. “Cote appointed Bromwich, a former U.S. Justice Department inspector general, in October to oversee Apple’s compliance with terms of her ruling in a price-fixing case brought by the U.S. government.”

Read more in the full article here.

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

U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote: ‘Apple’s reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition’ – January 16, 2014
Judge Denise Cote denies Apple request block her friend as ‘antitrust compliance monitor’ – January 13, 2014
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


  1. The sad thing about this, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of Apple’s case, Judge Cote will have more friends in the appeal court than Apple does and in certain circles, friends can be very influential.

  2. You appeal Apple, stand up to this bully. Keep your head up, the moral high ground is yours, the ethics are yours. This isn’t about winning, it’s about showing the world the spirit that was once America. That is something worth bringing back to the light.

    1. When Her Appointee has zero experience in this area then because He has no experience hires another person to do what He should be doing speaks to the Judges competence. She already prejudiced herself by saying Apple was guilty before the trial. Keep riding the High ground Apple!

      1. I don’t fault Judge Cote for the pre-ruling. Why not? Because Apple and the district attorney *ASKED* for the pre-ruling – “Which way are you leaning, and why? If you’re leaning towards guilty, tell us why so we can show you where you’re wrong”.

      2. Yeah two things – she was already predisposed to find Apple guilty (hardly blind justice) and then she hired a lawyer friend who was not competent in that area of law instead of a lawyer who already knew what was relevant. So they had to hire this other lawyer (DOUBLING the lawyer fee’s) to help the first lawyer. Huh?! Why not just hire the second knowledgable experienced attorney in the first place unless you are forcing the process to get a friend hired?

        Pretty blatant waste of Apple’s money and should not be in her realm of wasteful discretion to hire two attorneys instead of just one. I think it is enough to show judicial incompetence it seems to me.

  3. As Apple should do since this judge is a paid puppet and basically ignores Apple’s side no matter how obvious the situation is. Can’t wait to see how an appeals court handles this case. Hopefully they will rip judge Coyote’s rulings to shreds!

  4. Judge Cote’s assertion “this just goes to show why Apple needs a monitor” is sophomoric. It is an emotional statement, not one based on reason. Any objective person can identify legitimate legal reasons for Apple ‘s request. (Especially as Apple explained them in writing.) To respond emotionally to a reasoned request “poisons the well of discourse” and denies Apple the right to a considered response by this judge. Apple deserves better. “Shut up, you are wrong” does not cut it in my book. The substantive issues raised by Apple warrant address.

    On a separate but related issue, I have been impressed overall with the quality of Appeals Court decisions that I have read on a variety of topics in the past 18 months. I believe — and hope — that the e-book case against Apple will be overturned by the country’s wise Appeals Court system.

Reader Feedback

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