Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

DRM is not illegal.
Walled gardens and proprietary formats are not illegal.
Any single publisher choosing to sell books through agency agreements is not illegal.

I never said it was. The Apple/publisher apologists argue that they did this illegal action to counter the Amazon monopoly. I'm arguing that despite it being illegal, it did nothing to counter the Amazon monopoly (except allowing Apple to profitably set up the same sort of walled garden Amazon did with much lower risk to Apple), and that if the publishers wanted to counter Amazon's natural monopoly, there were legal alternatives that would do a better job of it than the illegal action that they took.

But you're correct, this is a side topic, and I will not discuss it any more on this thread.

On topic: I think the real reason why Apple is making a stink on this is because they're afraid that the DOJ will somehow use this case to get oversight for iTunes as well as the iBookstore. When IBM and Microsoft were fighting their antitrust suits with the DOJ, even though they finally prevailed, they ended up being forced to change their business practices for a long time. Since I don't think they're going to get this conviction overturned on appeal, they're running a big risk that their recalcitrance will end up with even more government oversight than what they've got now.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I think the real reason why Apple is making a stink on this is because they're afraid that the DOJ will somehow use this case to get oversight for iTunes as well as the iBookstore.

They should have thought of that before refusing to settle, especially with the smoking gun of emails detailing their abuse of app store market power.

They're likely stalling so they can carry on as is as long as possible.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To be honest... I don't think Apple's current "resistance to punishment" strategies have anything to do with the monitor or Judge Cote. They know the court's decision is unassailable. They know they illegally conspired. They're just pushing an agenda that would exempt future corporate behavior from any government oversight whatsoever. They lost this game... so they're looking to change the rules of future games.

I'm not sure I understand your logic. I would think that if Apple thought that they were doing something illegal that they would have settled just like the publishers. The monetary amount would have been coming out of petty cash and they wouldn't have had to admit wrong doing.

Most corporations have little to no government oversight. That occurs only in the regulated industries such as banking and utilities. I can't think of a reason why Apple, which had no government oversight, would play such a game.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If you remember posting this:


And to quote the article:


As you see, recalcitrant behavior is a reason for appointing a monitor, so the more Apple displays this behavior, the more obvious it becomes that this measure was absolutely necessary.

That's a bit like saying I'm going to whip you and if you complain, that just proves that you need to be whipped harder. As I said, circular logic. If Apple didn't complain and appeal, then the same people would say "See, that proves that Apple did it and the punishment was just." You can't have it both ways.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's a bit like saying I'm going to whip you and if you complain, that just proves that you need to be whipped harder. As I said, circular logic. If Apple didn't complain and appeal, then the same people would say "See, that proves that Apple did it and the punishment was just." You can't have it both ways.

They were found guilty of the crime, you seem to forget that.

[pwalker8]

That is not germane. You get pulled over for doing 46 in a 35. You mouth off to the cop, who then tickets you for 60 in a 35, thus triggering the super speeder fine. When you complain to the judge, who tells you that merely by complaining about the cop, you prove that you deserve the extra fine. I would say that even if you were doing 46 in a 35, you don't deserve the extra penalty. Certainly complaining about the extra penalty doesn't prove you deserve it, whether or not you were guilty of the original charge.

[bgalbrecht]

I read somewhere that perhaps the real reason why Apple is contesting Bromwich's activities is a ploy to get Cote to recuse herself from the rest of the cases around this, as she is the judge for several more cases concerning this still on the docket, including some class action lawsuits.

I personally consider Apple's complaining about the court ordered monitor (to which they originally agreed) a bit like someone complaining about their parole officer being too nosy.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That is not germane. You get pulled over for doing 46 in a 35. You mouth off to the cop, who then tickets you for 60 in a 35, thus triggering the super speeder fine. When you complain to the judge, who tells you that merely by complaining about the cop, you prove that you deserve the extra fine. I would say that even if you were doing 46 in a 35, you don't deserve the extra penalty. Certainly complaining about the extra penalty doesn't prove you deserve it, whether or not you were guilty of the original charge.

You don't get to choose the punishment for your crime, and in this particular case, Apple actually agreed to the monitoring - so what is all the fuss about? After 13 hours of interviews, really, what "irreparable harm" has the monitor done to apple?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I read somewhere that perhaps the real reason why Apple is contesting Bromwich's activities is a ploy to get Cote to recuse herself from the rest of the cases around this, as she is the judge for several more cases concerning this still on the docket, including some class action lawsuits.

I personally consider Apple's complaining about the court ordered monitor (to which they originally agreed) a bit like someone complaining about their parole officer being too nosy.

And I read somewhere that Cote and Bromwich are long time friends (since the mid 80's) and that Cote wrote Bromwich a nice letter of recommendation to get him a job with the Government. The difference is that Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich in 1994 is recorded in the Senate hearings for Bromwich's confirmation, ( http://www.archive.org/stream/confir...3unit_djvu.txt ) while you are discussing internet speculation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by afv011

You don't get to choose the punishment for your crime, and in this particular case, Apple actually agreed to the monitoring - so what is all the fuss about? After 13 hours of interviews, really, what "irreparable harm" has the monitor done to apple?

What on earth are you talking about? Apple agreed to the monitoring? Heck, they announced that they were going to appeal the decision right off the bat. I see nothing that indicates that they agreed to the monitoring. They had no choice in the matter. Everything I see says they disagreed with the monitoring. Do you have a link?

[afv011]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What on earth are you talking about? Apple agreed to the monitoring? Heck, they announced that they were going to appeal the decision right off the bat. I see nothing that indicates that they agreed to the monitoring. They had no choice in the matter. Everything I see says they disagreed with the monitoring. Do you have a link?

Right, I got that wrong, apple wanted to self-monitor, that's where I got it mixed up. Anyway, the rest stands - what "irreparable harm" have those 13 hours caused?

[pwalker8]

Well, for one thing they won't get the time and money that they waste on him back. There is also the distraction that he is causing by insisting on interviewing everyone in upper management, including the entire board of directors, most of whom have never been involved in the slightest with ebooks. BTW, it's been a lot more than 13 hours, in his first two weeks he's charged $138,432. Of course, part of the problem is that he has zero experience in anti-trust or publishing, so he's having to hire someone else who has experience in anti-trust. One might ask why Judge Cote would appoint someone who has zero experience in anti-trust to monitor anti-trust compliance, certainly Apple is raising that question. It's not terribly surprising that Bromwich is acting like a special prosecutor on a fishing expedition given that _is_ what he's most experienced in.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And I read somewhere that Cote and Bromwich are long time friends (since the mid 80's) and that Cote wrote Bromwich a nice letter of recommendation to get him a job with the Government. The difference is that Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich in 1994 is recorded in the Senate hearings for Bromwich's confirmation, ( http://www.archive.org/stream/confir...3unit_djvu.txt ) while you are discussing internet speculation.

So you think it's wrong for her to appoint someone who she has gone on record to say

Soon after Michael joined the United States Attorney's Office,
I supervised one of his first trials. It was immediately apparent
that Michael was going to be an exceptional Assistant. As I got to
know him better over the next few years, this view was confirmed.
He is intelligent, hard working, organized, analytical,
responsible, and ethical. He also uses extremely good judgment to
resolve difficult problems. And not least of all, he is a
thoroughly decent human being.

...

I realize that the position of Inspector General requires a
person of absolute independence and integrity. Michael is such a
person. All of his colleagues from over the years share the same
view of him. He is an honest, ethical, decent human being. He
always understood that the only obligation of a prosecutor is to
do justice — to do the right thing. I am confident that he would
bring the same high standards to bear on his job as an IG.

While he hasn't been a monitor for a company convicted of an anti-trust case, this wasn't his first time as a monitor for a company.


Everything we say about Apple's motivations for appealing this monitoring is internet speculation, and for the most part, it's based on our opinions of Apple, the DOJ, the court system, and various internet or news commentators. Everything Apple does here has both stated motivations and unstated ones, and it's quite possible that the primary motivations are the unstated ones.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's a bit like saying I'm going to whip you and if you complain, that just proves that you need to be whipped harder. As I said, circular logic. If Apple didn't complain and appeal, then the same people would say "See, that proves that Apple did it and the punishment was just." You can't have it both ways.

That analogy doesn't work. The monitor isn't a punishment. It is supposed to help Apple be in line with the law. The people that Apple hired to ensure antitrust compliance didn't do their job.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And I read somewhere that Cote and Bromwich are long time friends (since the mid 80's) and that Cote wrote Bromwich a nice letter of recommendation to get him a job with the Government. The difference is that Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich in 1994 is recorded in the Senate hearings for Bromwich's confirmation, ( http://www.archive.org/stream/confir...3unit_djvu.txt ) while you are discussing internet speculation.

Person A recommending person B means that person A has confidence in person B's ability to perform the job that they are recommended for and puts their reputation on the line.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, part of the problem is that he has zero experience in anti-trust or publishing, so he's having to hire someone else who has experience in anti-trust. One might ask why Judge Cote would appoint someone who has zero experience in anti-trust to monitor anti-trust compliance, certainly Apple is raising that question. It's not terribly surprising that Bromwich is acting like a special prosecutor on a fishing expedition given that _is_ what he's most experienced in.

How many people have experience in antitrust monitoring?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What on earth are you talking about? Apple agreed to the monitoring? Heck, they announced that they were going to appeal the decision right off the bat. I see nothing that indicates that they agreed to the monitoring. They had no choice in the matter. Everything I see says they disagreed with the monitoring. Do you have a link?

It doesn't really matter if they accepted a plea bargain on the punishment phase or not (what I have heard is that they did - but I haven't tracked down the those details). Monitoring is within the scope of the punishments that the judge could prescribe, punishment was agreed to be the judge's duty. There was no stay on the sentence (which often happens pending appeal, but does not have to happen).

So what's the beef? Both parties waived a jury trial, which might have led to truly enormous penalties. Apple doesn't like the verdict or the punishment? They can (and are) appealing. But until the appeal is decided, Apple is legally bound to follow the punishment prescribed. So is anybody else under US law. Despite Job's "reality distortion field" Apple is no different that any other being under US law. They are not above it, no matter how much they think so...