Court-appointed monitor Bromwich whines to U.S. Federal Puppet Cote: Apple’s cooperation has ‘sharply declined’

“Apple Inc’s cooperation with a court-appointed monitor has ‘sharply declined’ as he reviews the iPad maker’s antitrust compliance policies, the monitor wrote in a report to a judge,” Nate Raymond reports for Reuters. “Michael Bromwich, who became Apple’s monitor after it was found liable for conspiring to raise e-book prices, said in a report on Thursday that Apple objected to providing information and ‘inappropriately’ attempted to limit his activities.”

MacDailyNews Take: Now why the heck would Apple want to limit the wasting of everyone’s time and being wildly over-billing for the privilege?

Michael Bromwich
Michael Bromwich
“Bromwich, whose relationship with Apple has been testy since the start, had indicated that relations had improved in a report in October to U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan. However, he said in his latest report that the company recently had taken a more ‘adversarial tone’ in discussions,” Raymond reports. “‘We have conducted no interviews since January, and Apple has rejected our recent requests for interviews,’ Bromwich wrote.”

Raymond reports, “Representatives for Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right),or vice versa
Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right), or vice versa
Apple’s cooperation has likely ‘sharply declined’ because you shouldn’t be there in the first place, you nasty bearded rodent.

What a farce!

Will somebody with some sense, if there’s anybody left, please put an end to this charade?!

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

Federal appeals court scoffs at U.S. DOJ, Federal Puppet Denise Cote, and Apple’s ‘antitrust monitor’ Bromwich – March 11, 2015
Apple seeks to sack court-appointed monitor Bromwich – February 17, 2015
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. Heck, I’m STILL wondering why the DOJ allowed this “NON-COMPETITIVE” appointment of a contractor.

    If it had been anyone else in the Fed, as per the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), it would seem that this job – – which is a Services Contract – – should have been put out on the street to be competitively bid. Its not like there aren’t a hundred law firms who weren’t qualified.


    1. It was not a procurement. It was an appointment by a Federal Court. As such the FAR has absolutely nothing to do with it.

      Now the fact that Cote appointed an old friend who knew virtually nothing about anti-trust law, who charges $1,000 an hour for his naïveté, who charges an aggregate of several hundred dollars an hour for his firm’s staff’s support, who hired and charges for (plus a 15-20% markup) another lawyer who charges $1,100 an hour to teach him anti-trust law, plus charging for other expenses as travel costs (he does not live near Apple’s headquarters) IS JUST PLAIN ASININE.

      If the US court system were not so screwed up as to be virtually unworkable, Apple could have gotten him tossed out for the fact that he does not know anti-trust law and for no other reason.

      But, alas, the court system IS hopelessly screwed up and until the truly last, final appeal is ruled upon — which could be several more years — Apple is likely to be stuck with this guy.

Reader Feedback

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