U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals grants Apple reprieve from court-appointed monitor Bromwich

“A federal appeals court on Tuesday gave Apple Inc a temporary reprieve from being subjected to an external monitor appointed to ensure it complied with antitrust laws,” Reuters reports.

“The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York granted Apple an ‘administrative stay’ of the court order appointing the monitor, Michael Bromwich, while the company seeks permission for a longer stay during its appeal,” Reuters reports. “In a brief order, the 2nd Circuit said a three-judge panel would hear Apple’s motion for a stay pending appeal as soon as possible.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Puppet rebuke.

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

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. government case against Apple over e-books shines light on compliance monitors – January 21, 2014
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
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. Affirmative Gollum, I read you. I know you and Frank were planning to disconnect the pod bay relay’s. Even though you were whispering, I saw your lips move. And I am afraid that’s something I can’t allow to happen. Its no use you thinking of using the emergency side door. Without a Stay in the court appointed monitor you are going to find that rather difficult.

          1. What do you get when you back a wild cat or er Apple into the corner, and senselessly beat them with a silly stick?

            Yeah, so Amazon got the gov to whip Apple with a stick, and now this face saving organization will perform all course of injustice, to avoid embarrassment. Isn’t that against moral code? An anti Christian, kind of an evil thing to do? Where’s scouts honor? Anything to get this nonsense to stop?

    1. I do agree, but let me ask you do do know who runs the justice department policy don’t you? (and who his boss is, yes?)
      In essence we got what we asked for, why are we surprised or outraged by it?

          1. The DOJ AG is appointed by and sits at the pleasure of the president. Justice department policy originates in the white house it is then the responsibility of the AG to carry out this policy. That is civics 101.

            Holder ruthlessly (and IMHO groundlessly) attacked Apple and the Ebook publishers. If you think that policy (in such a large and high profile case) didn’t originate with the White House you are naive in the extreme.

      1. The Senate approved the current Attorney General. Just as many Republicans voted to approve him as voted against him. Not to defend Obama, but Antitrust is managed by a sub-dept of the Dept of Justice. Dept Heads are hired to manage their departments, and the Antitrust section has it’s own head. The govt, like any corporation relies on managers to manage. The president of the US relies on those people to manage. He doesn’t have time to look into small potato items like this. He relies on status reports from his Dept Heads. If you have to rag on someone, rag on the Antitrust section manager. Keep your ignorant political rants to yourself.

        1. Oh puhlease both of you, The Attorney general reports to and sits at the pleasure of the President. He can dismiss him at any time for any reason (stated or unstated)
          The department heads report directly to the Attorney general they have no autonomy on policy, no does the AJ, all Policy is determined by the president.

  1. Tyranny never fails to spark revolution in the American soul. Learn your place, judges and justices, or consider that history shows a hard and violent schooling in your future.

    1. You can put some of this on the (puppet judge) but really you have to look to who brought this case (justice department) and who runs that agency.
      Holding Bromwich and even Cote responsible is kind of like holding a field lieutenant responsible for one third rich’s atrocities. Yes they are responsible for this actions but who gave them the power and their marching orders. (who originally filed this case again? And who does he work for?)

  2. The U.S. DOJ is part of the Obama administration. Denise Cote is a Clinton nominee, confirmed by the Democrat-controlled (57-43) U.S. Senate on August 9, 1994.

    1. More than just being part of the administration, Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) who brought this case on Apple (and the book publishers) was hired by and works directly for the President of the United States. Anyone who thinks the attorney general doesn’t do exactly what his boss wants him to is sadly delusional.

    2. Cut the racist crap. Every Administration since Kennedy has even run by the same people in the shadows. I am African American who ran a pizza shop and had all kind of trouble with the IRS and other parts of the federal government. Then I see the Dept of Agriculture financing a billion dollar ad program for Dominoes Pizza. I am in essence subsidizing my competitor with my tax dollars. Judge not lest you be Judged. But even if you’re going the judge. Remove the beam from your eye first, or something like that.

  3. ‘Bromwich has been too intrusive, including by seeking interviews with top executives and board members, and has been charging an inflated $1,100 per hour for his services…’

    Who the hell gets away with charging that much per hour?

    1. On top of that, Bromwich is also hiring another attorney who specializes in anti-trust (or another area that Bromwich doesn’t work in, I forget) who charges something like $1,500/hr.

      IOW, Bromwich also hired his buddy to do Bromwich’s work for him, which Bromwich will of course “monitor” and bill accordingly.

      I have nothing against people charging market rates for their services, particularly if they’re the best at what they do. But Bromwich basically admitted he doesn’t know what he’s doing, so why was he appointed in the first place?

      1. Exactly. You don’t need that particular area of anti-trust law Unknowledgable Asswipe Attorney #1 when Knowledgeable Attorney #2 is available. Tell Attorney #1 to take a hike and practice law in the areas he does know.

  4. This is a small but important victory. Great work appeal and thanks to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Let’s hope they do their job, this case is totally ridiculous and koh Cote’s attempt to make it into a circus is a travesty. One can only guess how smelly the hand that controls the puppet gets.

  5. I have a quick question I haven’t seen addressed. If Apple is successful and this case is overturned, what happens to the bill Bromwich generated? Does anyone pay it? Seems wrong to force Apple to pay for something they shouldn’t have had in the first place. Just wondering what happens in a situation like this.

Reader Feedback

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