Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know what the normal hourly fee for a monitor is, but I did find something.

In the Apple v. Samsung debate, both parties had at some point filed a motion for their lawyer fees to be paid by the other party. Because of this we have this information:

Apple:
Median Partner Rate $582
Median Associate Rate $398

Samsung:
Average partner rate $821
Average associate rate $448

Explains a lot, really.
Why they're whining and how they ended up with a monitor, too.

I wonder if they have a gentlemen's agreement with other SiliValley companies not to hire each other's lawyers.

[robko]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

My, Apple's a bit chintzy on paying their lawyers.

You can't really compare between those 2 sets of numbers. The median in Apple's numbers is the value at which 1/2 their lawyers got paid more and half got paid less. The Samsung number is the average rate so a couple of really expensive lawyers could drive it up.
Median and Average aren't the same thing.

EDIT TO ADD: the more I think about this, the more likely it seems that Apple is using median because they have a bunch of really high priced lawyers and using median allows them to put out a much lower number than averaging them in.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by robko

You can't really compare between those 2 sets of numbers. The median in Apple's numbers is the value at which 1/2 their lawyers got paid more and half got paid less. The Samsung number is the average rate so a couple of really expensive lawyers could drive it up.
Median and Average aren't the same thing.

EDIT TO ADD: the more I think about this, the more likely it seems that Apple is using median because they have a bunch of really high priced lawyers and using median allows them to put out a much lower number than averaging them in.

If you look at the links, both Apple and Samsung had a total of 4 lawyers each holding the position of partner.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If you look at the links, both Apple and Samsung had a total of 4 lawyers each holding the position of partner.

That does not eliminate the problem trying to compare median to average.

[fjtorres]

Does it really matter?
If generic partner-grade corporate trial lawyers run in the $600-800 range, an antitrust expert on monitor duty deep behind enemy lines charging $1000 (hazard pay included) seems well within bounds.
So either Apple chintzes their legal staff or they're going back to the judge as a (dangerous) legal tactic.

Either way, I'm looking forward to the Judge's (exasperated?) reply.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Either way, I'm looking forward to the Judge's (exasperated?) reply.

Didn't take long.

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...comment-230655

Apple’s filing got a lot of attention in the blogosphere over Thanksgiving weekend, but it appears that the Judge Cote wasn’t as impressed. She issued a ruling today that basically told Apple to follow procedure and stop grandstanding (my word, not hers).

The judge noted that there was an established process for complaints or conflicts, and that Apple should have directed their communications to the Dept of Justice. “Objections are to be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Plaintiff States within ten calendar days after the action giving rise to the objection,” Cote wrote. They should only have requested a conference with the judge if Apple and the DOJ were unable to resolve the issue.

Translation: "Go away and stop annoying me."

BTW:

... here is where I came to the conclusion that Apple’s complaints were ridiculous. $1,100 an hour might seem like a princely sum, but not when you compare it to what Apple’s outside law firm charges. According to Fortune:

Many of the top partners at Apple’s own outside counsel on the e-book matter, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, bill more than $1,000 an hour, and its appellate ace, Ted Olson, reportedly charged $1,800 per hour on one bankruptcy matter in 2012.

That puts Apple’s gripe in a different light, doesn’t it? It’s kinda silly to complain about a senior partner of a DC law firm charging about the same as what Apple’s own lawyers might charge, but that is Apple for you.

Nate nailed it.

More at the source.
Now to wait for the next episode in this farce.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

That does not eliminate the problem trying to compare median to average.

I didn't say that it eliminates the problem. It's just that robko's theory that doing the mean instead of the average is to cover for a bunch of really high priced lawyers can't be correct since there are only 4 lawyers with partner status.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I didn't say that it eliminates the problem. It's just that robko's theory that doing the mean instead of the average is to cover for a bunch of really high priced lawyers can't be correct since there are only 4 lawyers with partner status.

Fair enough.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know what the normal hourly fee for a monitor is, but I did find something.

In the Apple v. Samsung debate, both parties had at some point filed a motion for their lawyer fees to be paid by the other party. Because of this we have this information:

Apple:
Median Partner Rate $582
Median Associate Rate $398

Samsung:
Average partner rate $821
Average associate rate $448

Wow. Even tax attorneys in Chicago charge $1000 an hour. Litigators would make a lot more than that.

[pwalker8]

Looks like the national press is picking this up.

Headline - Apple's Star Chamber - An abusive judge and her prsecutor friend besiege the tech maker.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...pinion_LEADTop

Obviously the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd in this thread will dismiss such views since it doesn't fit their world view, but there really is, or should be a limit on what an individual judge can do. It will be interesting to watch the appeal process. Apparently, Cote is starting to back pedal a bit on her decree.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I didn't say that it eliminates the problem. It's just that robko's theory that doing the mean instead of the average is to cover for a bunch of really high priced lawyers can't be correct since there are only 4 lawyers with partner status.

4 lawyers charging $100 each -> median = $100, mean = $100
3 lawyers charging $100 each and 1 charging $1000 -> median = $100, mean = $325

You only need one outlier to greatly affect the mean, but not the median.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Obviously the "any stick to beat Apple" crowd in this thread will dismiss such views since it doesn't fit their world view, but there really is, or should be a limit on what an individual judge can do. It will be interesting to watch the appeal process. Apparently, Cote is starting to back pedal a bit on her decree.

I'm not a "any stick to beat Apple" commenter. I own both an iPad and and iPhone and like them both.

But, exactly how should a corporation who have been found guilty of price-fixing be treated?

It seems reasonable to me that their day-to-day activities be monitored. I'm sorry that they don't like the fact that they have to pay for that monitoring and they don't like the fact that the monitor is asking for things they don't like, but hey... They could have settled like the rest of the defendants. They didn't and now they pay the price for their gamble.

How do *you* think they should be treated?

[DiapDealer]

In July, Judge Cote of the New York federal district court convicted the iPad of being a conspiracy to increase digital book prices,

How can anyone possibly take that WSJ opinion piece seriously when it contains statements like that?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How can anyone possibly take that WSJ opinion piece seriously when it contains statements like that?

Come on... It's the Wall Street Journal. Give them a break. What's good for business is good for the United States.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How can anyone possibly take that WSJ opinion piece seriously when it contains statements like that?

Although I've never particularly cared for their slant on the news, they've become little more than a tabloid since the ironically named News Corp purchased them a few years ago.