U.S. federal puppet Denise Cote says Apple e-books antitrust monitor’s term to end

“A U.S. judge on Tuesday agreed to not extend the term of a court-appointed monitor assigned to review Apple Inc’s antitrust compliance program despite the difficult environment the monitor faced in dealing with the iPad maker,” Nate Raymond reports for Reuters.

“The decision from U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan came a day after the U.S. Justice Department recommended not extending the appointment of Michael Bromwich, who was named monitor after Apple was found liable for conspiring to raise e-book prices,” Raymond reports. “Cote said Bromwich had “persevered and made numerous recommendations to Apple for the improvement of its antitrust compliance program,” the vast majority of which Apple implemented. ‘The monitor has ably performed a significant public service in a difficult environment,’ Cote wrote. The decision means that Bromwich’s two-year term will end on Friday.”

Raymond reports, “Apple is considering whether to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take:

Michael Bromwich
Michael Bromwich
Cote is a vacant-eyed D.O.J. puppet, Bromwich is a nasty little troll, and the whole travesty won’t be set right until the U.S. Supreme Court voids it completely.

The D.O.J. should be required to pay Apple back in full for the wasted time and overpayments to the meddlesome, needless PITA.

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

U.S. DOJ says Apple e-books antitrust monitor no longer necessary – October 13, 2015
Apple is its ‘own worst enemy,’ U.S. antitrust monitor Bromwich claims – October 6, 2015
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


  1. The so called “monitor” was appointed to steal apple’s secrets. The accusations and the trial were way to weird mostly because Amazon was a lot worse in fixing prices against the general public, but the judge didn’t see any interesting information to stole from Amazon that is why they just went against Apple to have an excuse to have an spy legally in apple’s headquarters.

  2. Maybe Cote is just trying to come off as a not-so-bad judge. So she doesn’t look as evil when the verdict is overturned and the DOJ has to make good to Apple for damages…

  3. I really hope Apple does take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Regardless of the outcome, a national discussion needs to take place regarding the intent of anti-trust law and how it plays with new business models of the 21st century.

    I am no legal expert. But while what the DoJ did was clearly wrong in any business or ethical sense, many lawyers appear to agree that Apple did in fact break the law. If that is true (and I’m not saying it is) then the law is wrong. I’m hopeful that a Supreme Court ruling will prompt a national discussion that will drive congressional action to change the law.

Reader Feedback

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