“Apple Inc.’s efforts to restrain a court-appointed monitor — whom the company calls expensive and intrusive — have met with little sympathy in appellate court,” Joe Palazzolo reports for The Wall Street Journal. “The technology company has fought hard to shake off Michael Bromwich since a federal judge appointed him last year to keep tabs on Apple’s efforts to set up new policies to prevent antitrust violations. The appointment of Mr. Bromwich, who charges more than $1,000 an hour, came after a ruling that Apple colluded with five major U.S. publishers to drive up the prices of e-books.”
“In Tuesday’s hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Apple asked the court to keep Mr. Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, at bay while the company pursues its appeal of the e-books ruling. Mr. Bromwich’s methods are time-consuming, expensive and seemingly without bounds, Apple lawyer Theodore Boutrous Jr. said. If the monitor’s activities were later to be found improper by the federal appeals court, Apple would have to spend time and money that it can’t get back, he said,” Palazzolo reports. “Apple has complained that Mr. Bromwich has asked to interview the company’s executives and board of directors.”
Palazzolo reports, “Judge Gerard Lynch was unmoved. ‘If Apple’s executives had “spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn’t be in this position,”‘ he said.”
MacDailyNews Take: Apple did not violate antitrust laws. Hence the appeal, genius.
MacDailyNews Take: It doesn’t matter if Apple doesn’t have two nickels to rub together – you are making them pay for something that may be overturned on appeal, geniuses. Are you going to refund the money? What about the precedent being set for other companies facing similar overreaching, wrongheaded rulings that might not be financially secure?
“The judges did indicate they felt Judge Cote’s order placed too few limits on Mr. Bromwich’s ability to request documents and interviews,” Palazzolo reports. “Judge Lynch suggested the court could craft an order specifying that Mr. Bromwich can make such requests only in connection with his duty to ensure that Apple has strong antitrust policies and that they take root companywide. Even if the court crafted such an order, Apple would still oppose Mr. Bromwich’s appointment as an unwarranted intrusion, Mr. Boutrous said. He pointed out that the Justice Department could monitor the company itself without enlisting a private party who has a financial incentive to enlarge his role. ‘The government has other things to do,’ Judge Guido Calabresi said.”
MacDailyNews Take: We’ve got an idea for something the government can do.
“The appeals court next will rule on whether to halt Judge Cote’s order, pending Apple’s appeal. Then the court will hear the appeal of the e-book collusion case on the merits,” Palazzolo reports. “Mr. Boutrous said that Apple would show on appeal that it violated no antitrust laws, and that a monitor wasn’t necessary.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Not promising. So far, this smacks of judges attempting to protect one of their own, regardless of how wrong she is. This appeal may be doomed. Apple’s being railroaded.
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
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
Judge Gerard Lynch. Clinton appointee to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2000. Obama nominee for Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2009.
Judge Denise Cote. Clinton nominee to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Smart move supporting the Democrat party for all these years, Apple. 😉
Pick two judges and pass self-righteous wholesale judgment on an entire political party… Judge Cote may be a very poor judge, but I don’t think that you would make a good judge, either, Fwhatever.
No doubt, every GOP judge appointee in the history of this country has been a model of jurisprudence excellence.
No the judgement is not just about the two judges. But it is about the political party where apparently 100% of the elected officials and all the voters are totally OK with lying about the key details to get Obamacare. A party that is OK with creating a drought in California by diverting millions of gallons of water from farmers and small central CA towns putting thousand out of work so the water can be sent into San Francisco Bay so bait fish can thrive. All to make rich CA liberals feel good at no cost to themselves.
Tell it like it is brother. Amen hallelujah.
What do the purported decisions of a state Democratic Party have to do with the appointment of two judges?
The comment explains itself. But for you, the judges were appointed by Democrats. The current judicial system operates as an appendage of the Obama regime, not an independent branch. The current prosecutions and the incredible intensity of the attack on Apple are clearly because Obama does not like its current behavior. It is either making too much money which it is holding offshore to avoid paying Obama taxes, or it is refusing the Obama directive to do more spying on all it customers via built in NSA approved spyware. Take your pick. It doesn’t matter. The attacks will continue till Apple vows to be subservient to Obama.
Regarding the water, it is just another indication of the 100% idiocy of the Obama party. Same people another insane policy. Same with Obamacare. Same people, more destruction, job loss and lawlessness. That is the product of Democrat policy. It is everywhere now. Detroit provides a good visual of where Democrat policy leads if followed for a few years.
You think Obama personally made the decision to prosecute Apple? Does that sound reasonable to you?
The Executive Branch had nothing to do with calling Apple to *Congress* to testify about their taxes. That was, uh.. Congress. You know this whole separation of powers thing?
“The current judicial system operates as an appendage of the Obama regime.” Right, except the “regime” you refer to was democratically elected, and the balance of GOP-to-Democratic appointments on the federal judiciary is close to even (slight Democratic favor as of Nov. 2013), and the GOP controls the Supreme Court.
Right.
Who made the decision to send Federal agents into the offices of Gibson Guitar four years ago, with automatic weapons drawn and SWAT gear, all over a charge that their “finger boards for their guitars” were too thick according to Madagascar law, which was news to the authorities there who had no problem with Gibson? Who made the decision to have a military force attack this good business with a SWAT team over nothing and seize about 10 million in inventory, which only just was returned to them after they spent $10 million defending themselves against nothing? Who makes these Nazi decisions in the Obama regime? I don’t know it was Obama, but I do know he put the people in the key positions who assumed their boss would be OK with a military assault on a solid American company that had done nothing wrong, oh, except one thing. The company had conservative owners. I forgot.
The company had conservative owners; but Apple has a very liberal one. How is your analogy effective?
Apple has not performed fealty to Obama. It has not repatriated its $100 billion in off shore money and paid the associated US taxes. It has not spent huge amounts on lobbyists and political contributions, sucking up to Obama. And it may not have done what the NSA has requested in terms of enabling government spying on its customers. Apple makes a lot of money. Obama hates successful American capitalist companies that earn the old fashioned way – through the market place. He likes the new companies like Goldman Sachs, with bushel baskets of money given to his campaigns and with people who will do his Federal Reserve dirty work. He likes crony capitalist who can be bought cheaply.
Tyrants are not always logical. But smart liberals might start questioning their base assumptions as tens of millions of Americans start losing their health care and their jobs based on the policies of redistribution. And smart liberals might question what sort of leader sends armed goons in to a law abiding company to get initial information about possible minor trade violations? What type of leader gives untraceable guns to drug cartels to get some effect on legislation he wants? Is this the type of person you all want to defend?
Who, the President we have or the straw man you’ve crafted?
No straw man. He is the President and he does head up the entire executive branch. Though he does not appear to do anything, it is his job to have the executive branch run according to the law. And he is the one who has not indicated any problem with the lawless treatment of Gibson Guitar, or the conservative groups simply seeking normal 501C3 status for their groups like similar liberal groups get in a day or so. He is the President who has no problem saying he will bypass Congress and simply issue orders on big things, like legalizing illegals.
He is not a straw man. He is the one now known to have lied about every key aspect of Obamacare in order to pass it. If he had told the truth – you can’t keep your plan or doctors and it will cost you thousands more, would it have become law? He is a real President who lies about the big things. And idiots like you don’t mind his lies though they are destroying the country. How much of the country are you willing to see destroyed by this non-straw man tyrant before you get the slightest inkling of normal critical thinking? Are you willing to have Apple destroyed and its big decisions made by government bureaucrats and judges? That already happens in the auto and banking industries. I guess it would just be fair for Congress and the President to run Apple too.
No, the straw man is your argument. The idea that the President has nothing to do with 100 million able bodied people not in the work force now – roughly 1/3 of our population. That the President has nothing to do with the lower take home pay that everyone has now versus 5 years ago, with his policies 100% implemented. You elected this “superman/god” who said he could lower the level of the oceans (he really did) and now you act like he has nothing to do with the awful situation we are all in.
And I’ll remind you, again, that this “tyrant” was uh…
re-elected.
So was Putin elected. So was Stalin.
And a big part of the reason Obama was “re-elected” was the delay in implementing Obamacare until late 2013, after the election. This was roughly four years after the law was passed. That is a lot of time to implement a system that is totally fucked up beyond all recognition. Of course, we do have Democrat implementers. Now, what if the implementation had been in 2011-2012 as would have been the case with a normal law that a President was proud to have passed? Would Obama have been re-elected if people were living under Obamacare in November 2012? And why is the next phase, the big phase of private employer coverage now delayed till after the 2014 elections? I know you are not very smart based on your comment so I will tell you. It was a crass political move to put the damage out past the election. Of course they know people will hate it. Why do you think all of Congress and the Executive branch sought exemptions from it? You don’t have to answer that because it will tax your brain.
Your starting point is that America’s election system is just as corrupt as Russia’s?
Are voters required to provide ID in order to vote? Or can anyone vote without ID enabling massive fraud?
You all are bunch of closed minded racists hiding behind a idea call Conservatism. President Obama is not the best President, but every President before him has played the same games. But it seems to me it’s easier to be a racist than a levelheaded thinking human being. Which is what it’s going to take to get this Country back on track. We were in trouble long as a Country long before President Obama was elected.
“Closed minded racists”? Your party is the party that called Tim Scott, duly elected black senator from South Carolina, “a ventriloquist dummy” because you don’t like his views. Your party did the “high tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas, because he does not have the proper views. I voted for Ken Blackwell, fully black candidate for governor of Ohio abut 6 years ago. Your party called him “an oreo cookie” because black people are only allowed only have certain opinions.
Obama is white, not black, versus the black men I listed above. There is a racist party in America. The Democrat Party. You can visit their plantations in every state. Go to the nearest big city run for decades by the one party Democrat machine and see what the Democrats produce when given free rein. Detroit.
No doubt, KingMel. GOP Judges have made up, out of thin air, more consequential law than any other time in our nation’s history. See Citizens United (striking down campaign laws that have been on the books for decades—and impliedly, as confirmed recently, state laws on the same subject); NFIB v. Sebellius (abrogating decades of Commerce Clause precedent by making up “non-activity” distinction into the Commerce Clause that is *no where to be found* in the Constitution); City of Boerne v. Flores (making up a “proportionality” requirement in the 14th Amendment, which specifically says *Congress* shall enforce).
Hardly a model of jurisprudential excellence. All of these opinions were authored by conservative judges. I can go on and on.
(What, not relevant to the discussion? Fwhatever, Kent, and BLN don’t seem to mind with any of their comments).
Boy, talk about making things up out of thin air. The Citizens United decision was in 2010. It dealt with the McCain Feingold law of 2002, which for the first time prevented companies from exercising free speech rights through political donations. There was eight years between the two dates, not decades.
The law was struck down because it was an obvious restriction of free speech. The restrictions it placed on corporations did not, for some reason, apply to labor unions. I wonder why.
Democrats are the smartest people who know absolutely nothing. That is how they achieve natural disaster level destruction via their policies – like Obamacare, like the moronic “carbon tax” saving us from Global Warming (another blizzard in Cleveland today), a banking industry where little old ladies get 0% interest on their life savings while the Fed shovels money with bulldozers at rich Democrat hedge fund traders like there is no tomorrow. And of course, the California drought, worst ever, where in the middle of it vast amounts of water are poured from the reservoirs into the ocean to keep the bait fish alive. Amazing but true stories of what happens when you let Democrats run things.
Citizens United is an extension of a 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo. That case struck down expenditure limits by Congress, but ***upheld*** contribution laws. States have been relying on this case for their own laws. Citizens United now says contribution restrictions are problematic.
Yes, dude, the specific law at issue was a 2002 law. That doesn’t mean everything *before* then isn’t called into question and is now challengeable. It’s called abandoning stare decisis.
There was no issue until McCain-Feingold. The earlier law did not prevent what McCain-Feingold did. That is why is was decreed. And why it was found unconstitutional.
Also, note the party that deplores the effect of “money in politics” and their leader, Obama, opted out of the Federal funding of his 2008 campaign though he promised he would use it. He did this so he could maximize his contributions from big fat cat donors at Goldman Sachs, MF Global (now defunct and defrauded its accountholders), Bank of America, Bank of Soros, etc. etc. The evil power of money seems to be perfectly OK for use in the Democrat campaigns.
You do realize that the Court struck down a 1912 REFERENDUM by Montana’s people on the basis of Citizens United, right? See
Click to access 11-1179h9j3.pdf
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-montana-ban-on-corporate-donations/article_ddb5f485-1c06-5a33-8f06-846134e11a75.html
Simply put, what are you talking about? The Supreme Court even overruled 2 cases in Citizens United to get the result it wanted.
As soon as you insert that NSA code into iOS, Apple, you’ll start winning all kinds of U.S. rulings and court cases.
(Brought to you by Carl’s Jr.)
winning? there won’t even BE any federal rulings or cases…they will magically “go away.”
Dear Judge Gerard Lynch, Apple has been finED (PAST) for doing what you think they do. There is no reason for an antitrust monitor. Di you appointed a monitor to microsoft when it was accused of monopoly? No, US federal court just keep fining them again and again.
So, either fine apple or put a REAL MONITOR but you can’t of both.
You raise a good point. Why didn’t Microsoft, who was MUCH more deserving and egregious, get a court appointed antitrust monitor? Inconsistent judicial oversight.
I don’t comment often but I’ve (so very very easily) found a word:
twat.
now, I feel like fkking twat or stupid fkking twat or corrupted power-hungry twat would be more accurate choices but brevity rules the day.
Can Apple take this all the way to the Supreme Court?
Can they argue that if this verdict held up on appeal, can harm future companies that are required to pay for a monitor at such high rates?
Just because Apple has the money, it doesn’t mean that they should have to pay whatever anyone wants.
Yes, Apple can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
‘As more than one of the three judges pointed out, losing money isn’t an irreparable harm—particularly at one of the richest companies in the world’
-losing a few (more than three) useless clueless dumb inept judges isn’t very harmful either, particularly at courts where those come abundant.
Isn’t this where Al Gore is supposed to come in and ruffle some feathers?
Yeah fat lotta good the Gore Board connection has helped Apple after being judicially gored. Thanks a LOT Al!
He’s too busy dreaming up the reason why CA is in such a drought while the rest of the country is up to their butts in snow and cold.
California has a drought because changing climate patterns are leading to less snowfall in the state’s mountain ranges. The state already had a propensity for dryness; that’s why the Mojave Desert and Death Valley exist in California, and have been here for millions of years while there have been forests and “fruited plains” over most of the US. The current drought doesn’t have anything to do with Al Gore or bait fish in SF Bay.
Where the hell did guys like silverhawk1 and Kent go to school? Did you not learn anything about geography and climate?
The California drought might have something to do with the elite political class in the fancy cities on the coast ordering the water authorities to divert millions of acres of water from reservoirs to the ocean, so baitfish (the delta smelt) can lead happier lives. Of course the liberal warm feelings produced in Hollywood and San Fran by this odd channeling of good water into the ocean means denying water to farmers and small towns in the central valley – those idiot peasants who simply try to grow food for the whole country. I do believe this idiot channeling of good water is still going on – pouring it into the ocean during a drought. Only the geniuses who brought us Obamacare could come up with this. And they still think it is a good idea.
Kent – your ignorance is, once again, astonishing. The California drought is not caused by authorities deciding that fish are as important to the food chain as farming is. It’s caused by a lack of rain. That lack of rain is caused by a highly unusual ridge of high pressure that has been parked of the California coast for 13 months that has stopped low pressure storms getting through to California, and has instead diverted them north, only for them to come south in the mid-west.
Additionally, the water authorities are not diverting water directly into the ocean – it’s going to rivers so that salmon run can survive – salmon that provides millions of meals of healthy fish for humans. The debate between fish farming and crop farming has gone on for decades and has caused both sides to become more water efficient and deal with realities. But your views are so extreme that they are laughable. You complain that farmers and small central valley towns have no water; your “cure” for this is to put fishermen and fishing towns out of business instead.
If you really think that Obama or liberal controlled water authorities can cause drought, you need to a) up your meds; b) put a double lay of tin foil under your hat; and c) get professional help.
So how do you explain the water allocations from the reservoirs to the delta smelt? They are still going on.
Delta smelt are part of the food chain and are eaten by larger fish, which are then caught for human consumption. The reason why they are a protected species is because the population declined precipitously in the early 1990s when large quantities of water were diverted from the delta for farming in the central valley. They were given protected status in 1993 by both the conservative state governor of the time (Wilson) and by the Feds. Clinton was President then, but the research and reports that lead to that decision were done under Bush Sr.’s administration.
So, I am right. While experiencing the worst drought ever according to news reports, California is taking valuable reservoir water, denied to productive farmers, and sending this valuable fresh water into the San Francisco Bay and then the Pacific Ocean, to feed the poor delta smelt that did not even know it needed this water. It is of course a bait fish like a minnow. Dumping water into the ocean during a drought. And, please note, JoeBloggs thinks this is a good idea.
Kent – your last is simply not worth responding to.
Joe – your comments are devoid of content. They are as sensible as a state dumping vast amounts of fresh water into the ocean during a drought to do something for to save baitfish which are in no way endangered, but actual human beings and their livelihoods are endangered by the drought. You are a complete fool.
Kent – my responses are “devoid of content” simply because I am not going to lower myself to your level of drivel and it has become clear that you either have no interest in knowing the truth or else you are very interested in spreading what you know are lies and FUD. Like so many extreme right wingers you either misconstrue what other people say, or simply make it up in the hope of convincing someone somewhere that the other side is bad.
Until the GOP figures out that divisive extremists like you are doing so much harm it will not win national elections.
No, you include no content because the fact I stated, that California doofuses in the middle of a real terrible drought are actually diverting large quantities of fresh water to the ocean, which is not short of water, all to do something for a worthless bait fish. It is a fact.
A second fact is that while the population of California has increased by tens of millions over the past 40 years, almost no new reservoirs have been built by the geniuses there. Now, California does include a lot of desert and has a lot of dry spells so reservoirs would be a good idea. But California environmentalist radicals block their construction and nowadays the idea of more reservoirs is not even discussed. More reservoirs are particularly important when you have people who think it is smart to dump stored water into the ocean in the middle of a drought.
So, California deserves what it gets here. People like Joe may die, but he will be smiling knowing there are at least 3 delta smelt in the San Francisco bay who got a splash of fresh water every morning this week.
Judge Gerard Lynch is just as verbally grating as a typical Android fan and just as disingenuous. ‘If Apple’s executives had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn’t be in this position” presupposes Apple didn’t. Hopefully Apple can prove this under appeal. Frankly I don’t see the rush until all appeals are exhausted. It isn’t as though Apple in the meantime won’t be watched by those of a suspicious agenda-driven nature.
How many people “company wide” actually set competitive policies? You could probably count those people on 1 or 2 hands.
Not looking good so far. The DOJ is salivating looking at that 150B pot of money. They want it, want it bad.
When Obama hates you you will pay the price. Ask the Gibson Guitar Company. Ask the Chrysler bond holders. Ask the conservative groups applying for non-profit 501 C 3 status. Ask the now dead Ambassador to Libya who requested basic security. Ask the 200 dead Mexican killed by weapons Obama had Eric Holder hand over to drug cartel goons. Ask the MF Global small customers whose money was stolen by Jon Corzine, big Obama donor and CEO of MF Global. Corzine, the CEO, was found to have done nothing wrong when he permitted the private accounts to be looted to cover his bad trades. Ask the Americans who believed Obama’s lies about his brilliant health care program – you can keep your doctor and your plan and it will all cost $2500 less than you currently pay. Now, millions have lost their policies, millions have lost their jobs due to Obamacare, and the jackasses who voted for him only want to cover their ears when someone suggests maybe it is not right to lie to the American people on such an important thing.
Apple – Obama wants to bring you down. He wants your money. He will keep the DoJ harassment going until you bow down to whatever he wants and give him everything.
tellin’ it like it is.
Kent – paranoid and extremist views like yours are one of the main reasons the GOP can’t win elections. You spread lies and FUD as though they were fact while completely ignoring the truth. But please continue – the bile you spew creates more democrat voters all the time. US voters are sick and tired of the divisive hate mongering of the type you espouse.
So, you did nothing to refute the abuse of Gibson Guitar or MF Global account holders. Or the five million who have so far, just 3 months into Obamacare have lost their policies. This is all fact not FUD. You are the FUD master. You make statement devoid of facts. That is what qualifies you as a Democrat. You are OK with Obama passing Obamacare on a constant repetition of lies. You don’t dispute the lies. Are you here to argue that we can all keep our plans and our doctors and save $2500 a year as Obama PROMISED? Or, are you full of something that smells worse than FUD?
Thank you for, once again, proving my point.
You are welcome Joe. I think it is time for you now to say Koch Brothers five times and then blame all the unemployed and new millions with no insurance on Bush. He did it. Obamacare was Bush’s fault.
You are such a sage. I bet you watch Comedy Central twice every night so you are doubly informed. And visit TMZ.
The judges are idiots in that they think a T model Ford from Amazon and a Rolls Royce from Apple need to cost the same even though the T model is sold at a loss.
If USA is the home of capatalism what are the judges and DoJ — nothing but idiot socalists who what as all socialists do a piece of the money.
I’ll repeat my self here: USA won’t make 2025 to celibrate because they are rabide ideologues and can’t destinguish crap from gold.
“we the people” can suffer provided the rich are supported by the Feds in the Wall St illusion of growth.
Take LSD Feds, judges you need a dose of reality now not when it hits you in 2026.
If USA believes in printing money and that the Arabs & Chinese will pay for all USA’s excesses forever then Fcuk Apple otherwize your dead repeat dead. You word and your bond will be nothing — white trash!
2000 — $0.7T debt
2013 — $18T and counting
AND THE IDIOTS THINK GOD IS ON THEIR SIDE!
MONEY TALKS and its leaving USA!
Injustice isn’t forgotten.
It Is time for Apple to move out if the US!
You people need to learn something about the law. Losing money is not “irreparable harm”, which is the biggest problem with Apple’s argument. Money can be recovered in a later lawsuit, along with attorneys’ fees, if Apple later proves Bromwich way overstepped his bounds. The problem Apple will have with that argument lies in the orders from Judge Cote, which are so broad and overreaching that Bromwich seems to have a carte blanche license to do what he wants.
Apple really has to convince the Appeals Court to rein in Bromwich until its appeal can be heard. Remember, this hearing was strictly regarding Bromwich’s actions and was an attempt to stop his overreaching. This hearing has nothing to do with Apple’s appeal of Cote’s judgment as entered; that will be a later full appeal at the Appeals Court.