“A federal appellate court on Monday rejected Apple’s request to stay the monitor, Michael R. Bromwich, a Washington lawyer, from doing any more work pending the outcome of its challenge to a judge’s earlier order appointing the monitor in the first plac,” Matthew Goldstein reports for The New York Times.
“But a one-page ruling from the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did put some limits on how far Mr. Bromwich can go in demanding documents and interviews with Apple employees,” Goldstein reports. “The ruling said that the monitor’s job was to make sure the company was putting in place procedures to comply with federal antitrust laws and that Apple executives and board members ‘are being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they work.’ Yet, the order went on to say the monitor was not supposed to ‘investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws.'”
Goldstein reports, “Apple contends the appointment of a monitor is unwarranted and represents a major intrusion into its business practices. The company has argued there is no need for a monitor because it is already moving to enact a plan to bring its pricing policies for consumer goods into compliance with federal antitrust laws.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple’s appeal of the original verdict is pending.
