Apple Requests Removal of Court-Appointed Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case

Posted January 8, 2014 at 5:41am by iClarified | Please help us and submit a translation by clicking here | 3551 views

Apple's ongoing feud with the court-appointed monitor keeps intensifying, as it is now seeking the removal of the monitor, reports Reuters.

An attorney for the consumer technology giant on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan to disqualify Michael Bromwich from serving as an external compliance monitor, arguing he had shown a personal bias against the company.

In a letter to Cote, Apple's lawyer cited a "wholly inappropriate declaration" filed by Bromwich last month.

In the declaration, Bromwich defended his work as a monitor against Apple's complaint that he had overstepped his mandate. He also detailed his unsuccessful efforts to gain Apple's cooperation for his assignment.

Cote appointed Bromwich in October following a ruling she made in July finding Apple liable for conspiring with five publishers to raise e-book prices above those established by the dominant retailer in the market, Amazon.com Inc.


Apple's feud with compliance monitor began when the monitor, Michael Bromwich, claimed he had been cut off from executives at Apple (Apple was not complying). Apple then argued Bromwich was interfering with the Company's day-to-day operations and objected to the $138,432 in legal fees that they had racked up. Bromwich quickly filed documents with the court to demonstrate that Apple was obstructing his work. The letter filed today by Apple's lawyer reiterates their complaints outlined above.

A spokeswoman for Bromwich declined to comment.

For those of you who don't remember, Apple was found guilty of fixing E-Book prices with publishers back in July.

Read More



Share
Add Comment
Wtf!!! - January 8, 2014 at 6:31am
Yup! That's what you get for conspiring to fix prices!!! Stop bitching about it apple, you got caught, you have plenty of money, deal with the consequences now!
Nat - January 8, 2014 at 9:15pm
And this is what you get for assuming such crap, what the hell is Apple being held for but mainly why is this still going on, how much can a whiny judge complain over tiny e-book pricing, that's like forcing Apple to lower iTunes costs.
DarkSide - January 9, 2014 at 8:16pm
@ N
DarkSide - January 9, 2014 at 8:27pm
@Nat: First of all there are no assumptions here, apple was in fact found guilty in a court of law. Most of your rant makes no sense, YOU are the one that's whining and a 50% increase is not that tiny.
Nat - January 9, 2014 at 9:47pm
Half of your shit you just blame. The judge is going on and on about this, exactly how long is he/she taking to fix a tiny price?
Follow iClarified