judge denise cote
Latest
Judge Denise Cote isn't happy with Apple's $450 million e-book settlement agreement
Apple agreed two weeks ago to a conditional $450 million settlement with plaintiffs over allegations that it colluded with book publishers to artificially raise the price of e-books. Under terms of the settlement, Apple will only have to pay the full amount if its appeal of U.S. District Judge Denise Cote's original ruling proves unsuccessful. The $450 million figure is of course much lower than the $840 million originally sought by plaintiffs, but hey, it's why it's called a settlement. But, surprise surprise, there's one person who seems to have a problem with the settlement agreement -- Judge Denise Cote. Last week, Cote explained during a teleconference that she found the settlement agreement troubling. Why? Because if her original decision is partially reversed or if a new trial is warranted, Apple will only have to fork over $70 million. If the decision is reversed outright, Apple won't be on the hook for anything at all. Cote also added that she's not too thrilled that Apple's potential $450 million settlement payout isn't subject to interest during the appeals process. Reuters reports: Speaking on a teleconference, Cote questioned if that would be fair and what might happen if the appeals court reversed her ruling on a minor issue. She also took issue with the lack of any requirement for Apple to pay interest while the appeals go forward. "I'm concerned about the terms of the settlement," she said. What really seems to be the issue here, I think, is that Cote seemingly has a personal vendetta against Apple. Cote's stance on Apple's alleged culpability is clear and her behavior during the e-book trial, I think, reflected an overwhelming amount of anti-Apple bias. So more than being worried about her ruling being overturned on a technicality, she seems troubled by the fact that Apple won't be punished to the extent she was hoping. If attorneys for 33 U.S. states deemed the settlement agreement to be fair, it shouldn't really matter if Cote herself is troubled by it. If Cote's decision is outright overturned, why then should Apple still be on the hook for damages? It's really a bizarre thing for Cote to be "troubled" by and hardly the response one would expect from a truly impartial adjudicator.
Daily Update for December 31, 2013
It's the TUAW Daily Update, your source for Apple news in a convenient audio format. You'll get some of the top Apple stories of the day in three to five minutes for a quick review of what's happening in the Apple world. You can listen to today's Apple stories by clicking the player at the top of the page. The Daily Update has been moved to a new podcast host in the past few days. Current listeners should delete the old podcast subscription and subscribe to the new feed in the iTunes Store here.
WSJ slams judge in Apple e-book trial
The Wall Street Journal today came to the very public defense of Apple in an editorial opinion piece titled "Apple's Star Chamber: An abusive judge and her prosecutor friend besiege the tech maker." The abuser in question is Clinton appointee Judge Denise Cote, who thrashed Apple back in July for allegedly conspiring with publishers to raise digital book prices. As part of her ruling, Cote appointed a friend -- Michael Bromwich (AP photo above) -- to monitor antitrust compliance and training procedures. Bromwich has since decided "to act as the inquisitor of all things Cupertino," to quote the WSJ. Cote's original injunction provided a period of time ending on January 14, 2014 for Apple to thoroughly examine and update its antitrust policies. But as the Journal notes, by late October, Bromwich had "demanded immediate interviews starting in November with every top Apple executive and board member, including CEO Tim Cook, lead designer Jony Ive and Al Gore," adding with no small amount of snark, "Does he want to disinter Steve Jobs too?" Things have gotten worse since then, with Bromwich asking for documentation outside of the clearly defined area of his appointment and ordering board members and executives to meet with him without lawyers present. Cote proposed making things even easier for Bromwich just before Thanksgiving, suggesting amending her injunction to give Bromwich more power and then have him report to her monthly, once again without Apple's participation. The Journal points out, "the arrangement is flatly unconstitutional. Special masters are typically imposed on a company to remedy a pattern of especially egregious conduct using a settlement consent decree in which litigants agree to the terms of the appointment." In this case, Apple objected to Bromwich's appointment to no avail. The WSJ article notes that, "Judges aren't supposed to appoint their own agents to annex ... activities reserved for the executive branch," and that Bromwich has "rewritten his job description to investigate Apple all over again." As TUAW has noted earlier and as reiterated in the WSJ editorial, Bromwich has no antitrust law experience, is billing Apple US$1,100 per hour and has brought in a "friendly" law firm -- Fried Frank -- to cover his lack of antitrust abilities at $1,025 per hour, once again billed to Apple. The Journal ends its piece with a flat-out suggestion that "the Second Circuit where her ruling is on appeal should remove her from the case," and that Cote's cozy agreement with Bromwich "is offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary." It's not often that we see a major news source like the Wall Street Journal come to the defense of a corporation, but it appears in this case that the harsh words in print are justified.
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."
