Apple seeks to sack court-appointed monitor Bromwich

“The antitrust assault on [Apple Inc.] is showing cracks,” The Wall Street Journal editorializes. “Next month the Second Circuit Appeals Court hears a challenge to the special monitor who was imposed on Apple for its alleged price-fixing violations. In 2013 federal Judge Denise Cote ruled that allowing consumers to read e-books on the iPad was an antitrust conspiracy between Apple and the big publishers. She then commissioned lawyer Michael Bromwich to police Apple’s antitrust compliance.”

“Mr. Bromwich has since charged Apple in excess of $2.65 million for his services through January, conducted some 80 interviews with executives and staff, and made 10 fact-finding missions to California,” WSJ writes. “According to billing records and his semiannual reports to Judge Cote, which we reviewed, there are new reasons for the Second Circuit to sack Mr. Bromwich and end what is a major abuse even by the standards of modern antitrust.”

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right),or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right), or vice versa
“In March, Apple will argue that Mr. Bromwich’s appointment is illegal and unconstitutional, and rightly so,” WSJ writes. “Apple might have settled long ago as most corporations do, and that option might even have been cheaper than a protracted appeal. But the company is doing a public service by attempting to vindicate a legal principle and brake the growing abuse of court-appointed monitors and a crank theory of antitrust that will harm many more innovators if it is allowed to stand. If Apple prevails in the Second Circuit, it ought to sue Mr. Bromwich and attempt to disgorge the $2.65 million he has soaked from shareholders.”

Much more in the full article – very highly recommended – here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “wing thing” for the heads up.]

MacDailyNews Take: That Cote, the incompetent puppet, will remain ensconced on her bench regardless is a travesty.

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

Court rejects Apple request to stay monitor in e-book case; Bromwich to return – with limits – February 10, 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


  1. is there a version of the article beyond WSJ since you have to have a paid subscription to review?

    Please PLEASE please MDN, please note when your linked articles are subscriptions only. This is frustrating BS.

    1. Wah wah wah. Cry your eyes out ws. You clicked on a link and only got to read two paragraphs. Someone should have warned you!!!

      By the way, you crying homebody, you can put the WSJ link or the title of the story into Google and the result is paywall free.

      But now you’ll probably go on a rampage because I didn’t tell you that in the first paragraph and forced you to read two sentences before getting the answer you didn’t deserve.

        1. You are all right. You definitely have been wronged by MDN not telling you you’d have to pay to read a whole article through WSJ, which basically you’ve ALWAYS had to do if you wanted to read a WSJ article.

          How “This is frustrating BS” is an acceptable response is waaay beyond me.

          So pardon me for speaking truth in the face of your extraordinary sense of entitlement. I’m sure it’s actually appropriate and I’m the one off-base for suggesting that you take a step back and get some perspective.

          1. your incompetent attempt at sarcasm is almost as pathetic as your attempt to pass yourself off as a knowledgeable consumer of content. the fact that you use the concept of “entitlement” is ironic and hypocritical. you seem entitled to belittle another’s opinion you view as substandard by resorting to name calling.

            so let’s look at the issue and the facts. MDN highlights an article that links to a news source that requires a subscription. It does so without a fair warning. MDN used to – in practice – provide a disclaimer when this links directed you to an article that required a subscription to view. MDN failed in this particular instance to do so. When it comes to usability and user experience, MDN could do better.

            but no, in your haste to name call and feel “entitled” to put another reader down because you felt the expression was lacking and that you failed to see the actual crux of the argument, you exposed yourself as uneducated at worse, making callous assumptions at best.

            so no, i will not you from speaking the “truth” because you have not done so. you spoke your perspective. i pardon you your perspective, for that you are “entitled” to, just as i am “entitled” to mine. so before you decide to go on your soap box, i advise you better educate yourself and re-read the comment, otherwise you risk exposing yourself to foot-in-mouth disease.

            1. The link doesn’t work. Furthermore, there was a time when you could read a WSJ article without a subscription. You do realize that the main value MDN provides is that it is an aggregator of Apple news content. As such it’s primary service is to gather and prioritize Apple news articles. As a service, it also provides links to detailed articles in addition to its condensed write-ups. When it provides a link which for most readers is unusable it has failed in part of its primary mission. MDN does need to be more careful about this. Otherwise it will lose readers, which in turn will cause it to lose advertising revenue. Have a nice day.

            2. (It works with the link, too.) If you look I didn’t say to follow the link, I said PUT THE LINK IN GOOGLE and then follow the result.

              Geez people. it’s so easy.

  2. The courts as crooks. $2.65 million to this worthless parasitic lawyer for accomplishing nothing-at-all.

    Go for it Apple! And thank you. This is blatant government abuse of its citizens. I’d personally enjoy seeing Judge Cote and Michael Bromwich disbarred.

    1. The Obama DOJ is the entity pushing this prosecution of Apple. Is it mere coincidence that Amazon was a huge financial and in-kind supporter of the Obama campaigns? Who is in charge of appointments to higher benches which would enhance Denise Cote’s career? Simply following the money leads you directly to the oval office, from which orders flow to the DOJ and the federal courts.

        1. Your non-sequitur (look it up) argument exposes your ignorance and lack of insight. I’m sure Amazon doesn’t care one way or another about Apple’s views on security. I’m sure Obama doesn’t hate Tim Cook or Apple. As they said in The Godfather, “It’s not personal. It’s just business.” Smart politicians cannot afford personal emotional responses. Most people over the age of 16 understand that.

  3. I sure hope Apple puts the screws to these parasites, the cogs of justice move ever so slowly, wow, check out that flood of molasses whizzing by…in February of all times.

  4. With all due respect to this site, I’d like to make several points concerning this article which is listed under the “News” heading:

    – I read MDN to quickly catch up on Apple news. I like the “headlines” format. After that, one can dig in deeper if they wish by reading the link to the full article, and then dig in even further by PAYING to read the full article… or not.

    – I do not read MDN to review personal attacks. I’d like just the facts please, and I can make up my own mind as to the person making the news after that.

    – I personally think it beneath any organization that disseminates news to attack someone personally (for their physical look as an example). Again, and with the utmost of respect, telling the story is what publishing the news should be all about.

  5. I agree in part with your comments, especially as sometimes reader comments turn into personal attacks on each other.

    But the case brought by DOJ against Apple and a number of publishers (and joined by a number of state attorneys general) was a mockery from beginning to end, and the judge’s biases were evident early on. Finally, the monitor appointed by the court had no experience in the relevant area of law and bumbled about charging a ridiculous amount of money to Apple.

    In a case such as this, lampooning the judge becomes legitimate news reporting. Indeed, that’s kinder than some other means of putting the facts into perspective.

    As a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal, I had already read the article. It’s less kind than MDN, and very much on point.

  6. BillD, thanks for your civil response.

    I ponder this question: if it is a given that lampooning like satire, boils down to stating an opinion in a humorous way (the writing is communicating that the reporter does not like something, for example, about the person that they are lampooning), since when is personal opinion a part of legitimate news reporting?

    Personal opinion is commentary. It is not the facts. For example, as a reporter you may not like a hate group marching though a town but if you are covering the story, then you cover the story and I can not guess your opinion. It’s the story that matters, not the reporter.

    When Walter Cronkite gave a commentary, as opposed to presenting the news, there used to be a line of text at the bottom of the screen that read “Commentary” because he was trusted to deliver the news, and no one wanted his personal opinion to appear to be apart of the presentation of the news.

    No need to answer. I’m just saying that I look for the facts/the news, then to make up my own mind, and I continue to believe that it is beneath any organization that disseminates news to attack someone personally (especially for the way they look).



Reader Feedback

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