JudgeDeniseCote
Latest
Judge appoints external monitor to ensure Apple complies with antitrust laws
This past July, US District Judge Denise Cote found Apple guilty of colluding with book publishers in an effort to raise the price of e-books across the industry. Following that, the Department of Justice proposed a wide array of remedies to ensure that Apple wouldn't run afoul of antitrust laws in the future. One of the proposed remedies called for the court to appoint an external monitor tasked with keeping an eye on Apple as to ensure that they comply with antitrust laws going forward. On Wednesday, Judge Cote appointed former Assistant US Attorney Michael Bromwich as that external monitor. CNET reports: Bromwich was one of two names picked by the Justice Department as well as plaintiff states as part of last month's injunction ruling. As monitor, he'll work from inside Apple to maintain the company's compliance with US antitrust laws. Bromwich filled a similar, independent monitor role within the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia a little more than a decade ago, and more recently served as part of US oversight on the oil industry. Apple previously argued that an external monitor was wholly unnecessary, but ultimately failed to persuade Cote. Bromwich will keep an eye on Apple's antitrust compliance for two years. Note that the two-year period is less than the five-year period initially proposed by the DOJ. Lastly, Apple earlier this month filed a motion indicating that it plans to appeal Cote's ruling. Formal arguments on the matter, however, won't be submitted until early 2014.
Judge to determine damages in Apple e-book case
The Mac Observer's Jeff Gamet has written a thoughtful analysis of the continuing Department of Justice legal battle against Apple regarding e-book pricing. As you'll remember, Judge Denise Cote found Apple guilty of conspiring with a group of book publishers to raise book prices. Now Judge Cote has said that she'll bring the company back to the courthouse in May 2014 to impose damages. The US Department of Justice, which brought the case against Apple in the first place, has asked Judge Cote to slap the company with a 10-year plan that would force oversight of Apple's contract negotiations and business activities. Apple's already responded to the plan, calling the proposal "draconian," "punitive" and "wildly out of proportion." The company has a good point -- the government is proposing to use injunction as a way to regulate Apple's businesses, and the 10-year plan goes well past the duration of the legal issues in the case. Apple has filed an appeal, noting that Judge Cote made errors in the trial by refusing to allow certain evidence and disregarding other evidence in her ruling. If Apple can win the appeal, the remedies imposed by the court would be dropped. Should the company lose the appeal and the Department of Justice has its way with imposing unprecedented government control on Apple's business dealings, the company stands to lose out on the e-book market. As Gamet notes in closing, Apple isn't going down without a fight, and the company has the resources to take the case all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary. In the meantime, Amazon continues to sell books at loss-leader pricing and driving competitors out of the market.
Judge denies Apple request in e-book case
The first of the many Apple legal rulings and requests expected today came out poorly for the company. Judge Denise Cote refused a request by Apple for a temporary suspension of her ruling last month stating that Apple had conspired with publishers to raise e-book prices and violated antitrust laws. Just yesterday, the e-book publishers the company allegedly conspired with came to Apple's defense, asking the increasingly hostile Department of Justice to do away with a proposal to "remedy" the allegedly "illegal" activities Apple engaged in. As our sister site Engadget notes, "It appears that Apple is fighting a losing battle. We're sure that there are still tricks in its legal arsenal, but there is little indication that Cupertino will be able to avoid terminating its existing agreements and will be barred from engaging in agency pricing before the end of the DoJ's five-year ban."
