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. 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.

  2. 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.