Court rejects Apple’s bid to rid itself of corporate monitor Bromwich

“A federal appeals court has rejected Apple Inc.’s efforts to rid itself of a corporate monitor appointed in the wake of a judge’s finding the company liable for conspiring to raise the price of e-books,” Joe Palazzolo reports for The Wall Street Journal.

Michael Bromwich
Michael Bromwich
“Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, was appointed to assess Apple’s antitrust compliance policies in October 2013,” Palazzolo reports. “He was appointed by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who held the company liable for a price-fixing conspiracy in a July 2013 decision.”

“Apple is appealing Judge Cote’s decision finding it liable for price-fixing,” Palazzolo reports. “A ruling could come any day.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: The fiasco continues. For now.


Court-appointed monitor Bromwich whines to U.S. Federal Puppet Cote: Apple’s cooperation has ‘sharply declined’ – April 16, 2015
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. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings and she’s nowhere near doing that. Justice loves bureaucracy and in the latest race molasses in February and snails far outpace the legal system. Stay tuned for updates in another 2-3 months, uh years, well maybe decades, certainly by the end of the century, maybe.

  2. Some governments/nations have “a way” to deal with the likes of Bromwich. I am being very vague… However vodka would most likely be included in the process, no matter how happy Bromwich may become.

    1. No, you’re wrong. You have to look at it how the Appeals Court has to: The trial court found Apple guilty, and thus the appointment of a corporate monitor was appropriate (even though Bromwich is an overpaid d-bag).

      Because the Appeals Court has not yet ruled on whether Judge Cote was correct in finding Apple liable for conspiring to fix prices, it has to evaluate Apple’s request to remove Bromwich in light of the current situation: That Apple was found liable/guilty.

      Now if the Appeals Court rules that Judge Cote was wrong and overturns her judgment, then it also should terminate the corporate monitor. But more likely is that the Appeals Court corrects some error(s) in Judge Cote’s decision and remands it to Judge Cote for reconsideration under orders to review it based on the Appeals Court’s findings. That may or may not change the judgment, and if Judge Cote again rules against Apple, then Apple would again appeal.

      Of course, the Appeals Court could simply rule that Judge Cote got it all wrong and reverse the judgment, thus ending the entire farce.

  3. I would not be surprised if our government would use pressure tactics like this, as a way to get Apple to cooperate with their desire to add back doors to Apple’s devices. Cooperate or we will make things difficult for you?

  4. This is destined to become a longer-running farce than Ray Cooney’s infamous “Run For Your Wife”, which ran for over nine years at various London theatres.

    At least Ray’s stuff was funny!


  5. No apple, No!
    How do you expect court members to pay for their mercedes and new house in the beach?
    Besides that, how does apple expect to have a spy for other companies legally in apple headquarters if they don’t allow this monitor guy?

  6. Those of you here who are of the liberal persuasion really have nothing to complain about. What has happened and is happening to Apple is the inevitable result of leftwing lunacy.

    Liberals strenuously advocate for overweening government – a government which lords itself over we who should be free – but whenever those very same liberals come up against the monster they created, there is a great wailing, weeping, and a gnashing of teeth, and they never have the intellectual honesty to make the connection between the antecedent and the consequent.

    Big government offers no quarter nor refuge. EVERYONE is subject to it. Okay?

    I’m an Apple investor, so from that point of view I am decidedly against this Bromwich scum sticking his intrusive nose where it decidedly does not belong. Frankly, I think he ought to be taken out back behind the Cupertino dumpsters and beaten till he begs for death, then load him up with all the other worthless refuse from the Apple campus.

    But – BUT – as someone whose head is not located in his rectum, I’ll say that Tim Cook has nothing at all to complain about. You cannot advocate for running Christian bakers out of business because they refuse to throw their rightful beliefs in the garbage and violate their Freedom of Association, their Freedom of Speech, their Freedom of Conscience, and their Freedom of Religion, and then complain about the Oligarchical tyranny of a Bromwich, a Lucy Koh, and a Denise Kote.


    And what’s worse about doing that in Tim Cook’s case is that he makes more in one day than most of those Christian bakers (and photographers, and wedding singers, etc.) will see in a lifetime. Tim Cook’s position is repulsive, arrogant, and hypocritical, and if you can’t see that then you at least ought to never complain about what’s being done to Apple. Comprendé?

    And yes, I know, I know, everything I just said will go WAY over the head of every liberal on the face of the planet. Liberals are incapable of taking ownership of their failures.

    1. My my my, aren’t you… special.

      This kind of twisted logic and poor comparative thinking is a great example of what happens when all you can hear are the echoes of your own hypocrisy. Next time I need to demonstrate to someone how feeble the mind of a right-winger is, I can point them directly here.

      And, I realize – based on what you’ve posted here – that you may have a difficult time comprehending how profoundly flawed your ‘logic’ here is. That’s ok. People with special needs are still people. You’ll do just fine.

      1. Your ad hominem attack is very impressive. And yet you didn’t refute a single solitary one of my points.


        You say that my logic is flawed and yet failed to support that assertion.


        Typical liberal: Caught like a deer in the headlights and don’t know what to do about it.

        If you have an actual rebuttal, let’s hear it, hotshot!

        Good luck!

    2. No one has run any Christian bakers out of business. And in those states where it has been ruled that the bakery had to service gay couples. And in those jurisdictions, there usually also was a law requiring any business open to the public to serve ALL public, not just those with whom they agreed with politically, religiously, morally, etc.

      Your pseudo-conservative rant is advocating discrimination in the name of religion. “I won’t serve you because I don’t believe in your beliefs” can quickly become “I’ll only service you if you sit in the back of the restaurant” or “We don’t serve your kind here.” Just another version of Jim Crow laws, all in the name of “You’re trampling my religious freedom!”, which, of course, no one is violating the shop owner’s freedom to practice his or her religion at all. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you can’t service a non-believer, and besides, most Christians eat pork and some (even the supposed devout ones) get divorced, have affairs, steal things, and even occasionally molest children (even priests!), cover up crimes (Catholic Church), or kill people, so they’re in violation of the Bible anyway.

      So spare me your religious righteousness garbage. And this is from a conservative-libertarian person.

      1. 1) You are a liar. Yes, Christians have been harmed and run out of business, and will continue to be.

        2) You are a liar again; You are neither a libertarian nor a conservative. Libertarians do not believe in coercion and the violating of a person’s Constitutional rights. And a conservative is not cool with redefinition or marriage to include sexual perversion.

        3) Whether or not you like it, the U.S. Constitution DOES in fact protect Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Speech. Coercing people to support and participate in a faqqot wedding DOES in fact violate all of the above.

        4) The “Jim Crow Laws” canard is an old liberal cliché. When liberals are losing an argument they always play the race card, not realizing that it’s a losing hand.

        5) Your comment regarding priests and the Catholic church should be directed to Catholics; I am not one, so I’m afraid THAT attempt to play Gotcha fell flat on its face.

        6) As for Christians eating pork, I cannot imagine what your point is supposed to be there. Bizarre!

        7) As for some Christians getting divorced, having affairs, etc., again, that has no relevancy to the ACTUAL issue under discussion. You are really not an intellectually rigorous person at all, are you.

        8) As for what the Bible does and does not say, you don’t seem to understand that Christians do not have to run their beliefs and how they practice them by you for approval. YOU’RE NOT THE ARBITER!

        9) Liberals – of which you are one – are mindbogglingly dumb and wretched heathen.

  7. Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general…

    …Is nothing but a highly questionable court appointed pest who charges Apple LOT$ of $MONEY$ for his pestilence. This is thoroughly inane and comes off as blackmail to force Apple to play shite-ball with the rest of the parasitic shite-ball players of rotting Wall Street. No thank you. Apple has proven what it takes to lead the capitalist world culture, as opposed to the cranky, decrepit old shiteheads who hate being shown up be Apple.

    Or so I imagine. It’s not a pretty picture. So I’ll stop imagining it now. Just think about Apple. Mmm.

Reader Feedback

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