“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“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.”
MacDailyNews Take: Lady Elaine Fairchilde (left), Judge Denise Cote (right), or vice versaApple’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?!
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.
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.
Go Apple!
Just lock him in a broom closet and throw away the key!
Love it! Non-violent, non-cooperation. It’s worked before.
Locking someone up is technically violent.
Not letting them in is not violent. 🙂
Just wait till Apple wins their appeal and sues the mutha…
Ah when Apple wins their appeal, gosh seems forever to get these things resolved. I sure hope it goes well for Apple.
That’s because the appeals court is ready to shit all over Cote’s miscarriage of justice. Bromwich’s meal ticket is about to get revoked.
I wouldn’t let that guy anywhere near myemployees. He is likely a GOOG or AMZN plant ready to leak any tidbits to his buddies.
Nothing but a POS! 🙊
Take his stapler….
As I recall there was some sort of nepotism going on between him and Cote. He has no oversight experience. A goon…
Or is it that he didn’t get a free Apple Watch?
Hey that’s Dog On Joe!
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.
-hh
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.