U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote: Apple cannot escape U.S. states’ e-book antitrust cases

“Apple Inc on Tuesday lost an attempt to dismiss lawsuits by state attorneys general accusing it of conspiring with five major publishers to fix e-book prices,” Nate Raymond reports for Reuters. “U.S. District Judge Denise Cote’s ruling paves the way for attorneys general in 33 states and territories to move forward, along with attorneys for consumers, in pursuing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages at a July 14 trial.”

“Following a non-jury trial, Cote in July found that Apple from 2009 to 2010 conspired with the publishers to raise e-book prices and impede competitors such as Amazon.com Inc.,” Raymond reports. “The states had pursued the liability finding alongside the U.S. Justice Department without any objection by Apple and obtained a subsequent injunction against the iPad maker in September that called for the appointment of a compliance monitor. But as the case moved into a damages phase, Apple argued that the states lacked standing to maintain an action for damages, arguing they had not alleged they had suffered any injury.”

“Cote, though, said it was easy to conclude the states had standing to move forward with the case,” Raymond reports. “‘Apple has cited no authority to support the distinction it is advocating here between the standing to seek an end to an antitrust violation and the standing to seek damages for that violation,’ she wrote… The company has appealed the liability finding in the civil lawsuit and denies wrongdoing. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking $840 million in damages.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The farce continues.

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote (right),or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote (right), or vice versa

For the whole sordid story in concise form, please read: Apple’s Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” 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

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

36 Comments

    1. Our Christian virtue battles with our independent spirit and our political loyalty. Fighting an internal war on two fronts, the better angel of our natures stands little chance.

  1. Strikes me that the only people making a fortune out of this debacle and other cases are the Apple legal team and their seemingly inability to win anything. Why not try the South African Prosecutor in the current murder case there, he sounds as if he’ll get things sorted??

    1. Obama hopes to make a lot of money when Tim Cook realizes he needs to make lots of big cash donations to the Democrat machine in order to have better luck with judicial outcomes. Amazing how cash can change your fortunes in a banana republic, or Chicago or Moscow.

    2. Apple’s legal team expects the judge to follow the law, not to make it up as she goes along. Judge Cote has ignored established law and precedent in this case, appointed a legal monitor in a case that has no indication one is needed or is justified, gave the monitor powers far beyond her own to investigate (something the judicial branch DOES NOT POSSESS) other aspects of Apple’s business, and prejudged the case and even wrote much of her decision before even hearing the defense’s case. . . basing her judgement solely on the case presented pre-trial on the pleadings presented by the prosecution, a predilection this judge is infamous for in the circuit. The monitor she appointed was not even qualified for the position being uneducated in anti-trust law, price fixing, or even business and had to hire ANOTHER lawyer to concurrently school him on his own job. . . to say nothing of the fact that the monitor apparently is LIVING with the judge which raises at least the appearance of impermissible ex parté conversations—perhaps in bed?—if not the fact between the monitor and the judge, which may explain why the judge at first explicitly PERMITTED ex parté communications between herself and the monitor in her original order establishing the monitorship! Sounds a little too cozy to me… and what’s to stop them from having those conversations now that they’ve agreed they won’t happen without the presence of Apple’s legal counsel? Or are they now going to have a ménage à trois every night with the Apple lawyer? Frankly, the whole thing stinks.

Leave a Reply to hannahjs Cancel reply

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