Apple is its ‘own worst enemy,’ U.S. antitrust monitor Bromwich claims

“Apple Inc’s antitrust compliance program has improved, but the company continues to impede a court-appointed monitor overseeing the program, acting as ‘its own worst enemy,’ the monitor told a federal judge in a report made public on Tuesday,” Joseph Ax reports for Reuters.

“Michael Bromwich, who was assigned to monitor Apple’s internal antitrust policies after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote found the company liable for conspiring to raise e-book prices, said Apple persisted in raising objections to his requests for information,” Ax reports. “‘In this respect, Apple has been its own worst enemy,’ he said. ‘This lack of cooperation has cast an unnecessary shadow over meaningful progress in developing a comprehensive and effective antitrust compliance program.'”

“Nevertheless, Bromwich said Apple’s program has become “substantially stronger,” commenting in what could be his final assessment unless Cote chooses to extend his two-year appointment,” Ax reports. “In his report, Bromwich said Apple had for the first time created a set of antitrust procedures, implemented training and improved engagement among its senior executives. However, the company still rejected many of Bromwich’s requests for information ‘for no good reason,’ he wrote.”

MacDailyNews Take: Aw, the puppet’s little over-billing troll can’t get his “access” to perpetuate this farce. Tough shit, Mikey.

SEE ALSO:
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

WSJ: U.S. Supreme Court should strike down the risible antitrust campaign against Apple – July 1, 2015
Apple is headed to the Supreme Court over e-book antitrust case? – June 30, 2015
Apple loses appeal in e-book price-fixing case – June 30, 2015
George Priest: Apple should win its e-book appeal – December 15, 2014
Obama’s DOJ brings in its big guns to Apple e-book appeal – December 11, 2014
U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote says she’s troubled by Apple $450 million e-books settlement deal – July 24, 2014
U.S. Federal Puppet Denise Cote: Apple cannot escape U.S. states’ e-book antitrust cases – April 15, 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
Apple takes aim not just at court-ordered e-books monitor, but also at U.S. District Judge Denise Cote herself – December 2, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote assigns DOJ monitor in Apple ebook price-fixing case – October 17, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge issues injunction against Apple in ebooks antitrust case; largely in line with what DOJ wanted – September 6, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: Judge Denise Cote says Apple needs third-party supervision after ‘blatant’ ebook price fixing – August 28, 2013

16 Comments

  1. “This lack of cooperation has cast an unnecessary shadow over meaningful progress in developing a comprehensive and effective antitrust compliance program.”

    Jeez, Louise. If any company in American does NOT need an effective antitrust compliance program, it is Apple. This whole court case was a circus and a travesty of justice.

    Bromwich believes Apple is a deceitful den of conspirators out to rip-off consumers, and in need of Court Supervision worthy of any police state. Sounds a lot like something Putin would do. Sorry, Cote-Bromwich-DOJ, you are barking up the wrong tree.

    “Increasing consumer prices” above predatory low prices set by Amazon does not constitute antitrust. The real antitrust case is the predatory low prices set by Amazon in the first case, which the DOJ has turned a blind eye to.

    Moreover, the conclusion that Apple acted “to increase consumer prices” was based on the relatively small subset of publishers’ “new and best-selling” titles, and did not even examine or consider the issue in the context of the entire book market overall. The DOJ’s conclusion was based on an incomplete analysis. Shame on the DOJ. Shame on Judge Denise Cote. Shame on Michael Bromwich.

    I am looking forward to the Supreme Court reversing this decision. And updating antiquated antitrust legal precedent based on obsolete case history.

Reader Feedback

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