Apple gripes about antitrust monitoring

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I think it will be as effective as the MS antitrust case in the long run.

How effective was that case? What goals are you attributing to the government in that case that you're basing its effectiveness on?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Apple is supposed to put good training in place, the monitor is supposed to make sure good training is in place.

http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploa...st-Monitor.pdf

So you are just going to skip over the first main task and pretend that only the second one exists?

But I do want to thank you for the link. It is nice to know that the judge was against appointing a monitor, but was left with no choice when Apple gave no proof of trying to fix the problems themselves:

The Court explained that it

would have appreciated a presentation by Apple that a monitor is unnecessary. At this point, it has made no such showing. There is no admission of wrongdoing. There is no contrition. There is no showing of any awareness of illegality or the danger of collusion by publisher defendants to raise eBook prices. There is no showing of institutional reforms to ensure that its executives will never engage again in such willful and blatant violations of the law.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So you are just going to skip over the first main task and pretend that only the second one exists?

But I do want to thank you for the link. It is nice to know that the judge was against appointing a monitor, but was left with no choice when Apple gave no proof of trying to fix the problems themselves:

I think that number 2 follows number 1 in the judges mind.

A. Apple is to (#1) establish rigid antitrust policies and procedures and then (#2) train the staff on what those antitrust policies and procedures are and how to avoid violating them.

B. The monitor will report to the judge whether Apple has in fact established these policies and procedures and what they are, and how the staff is being trained and what if any corrective action the judge should take if those things are not taking place.


Also: Apple apparently welcomed the monitor and things started off smoothly.

On October 17, the day after the Monitor was appointed, Apple’s Kyle Andeer, a Senior Director for Competition Law & Policy and for Commercial & Retail Law (“Andeer”), seized the for initiative and wrote to the Monitor to suggest an early call or visit. He explained that he was committed to working with the Monitor to develop a “best of class” antitrust compliance program for iTunes, and that Apple was already hard at work developing that program in consultation with Keven Arquit (“Arquit”) and Matt Reilly (“Reilly”) , two Simpson Thacher partners.

The Monitor had his first meeting with Apple in New York on October 22.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

In practice, government never stays out of the picture, as part of the excess profits (the purpose of a monopoly is to set prices at the maximum profit point, which cannot be reached in a truly competitive marketplace) is used to purchase favorable practices from government. It is immaterial whether it is a bribe, campaign contributions, or business to a company that the government member(s) have ties to.

You could even argue that patent, trademark, and copyright are government involvement in creating a monopoly, and should be abolished by free market economic theory...

Well, the other part of that economic theory is to reduce the reach and power of the government. If you want a full explanation of the theory, then there are fair better sources than I. Bork wrote the definitive work on anti-trust and Sowell is a good source for the over all economic theory of limited government intervention and rent seeking (the practice that you describe).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I think that number 2 follows number 1 in the judges mind.

A. Apple is to (#1) establish rigid antitrust policies and procedures and then (#2) train the staff on what those antitrust policies and procedures are and how to avoid violating them.

B. The monitor will report to the judge whether Apple has in fact established these policies and procedures and what they are, and how the staff is being trained and what if any corrective action the judge should take if those things are not taking place.

And in your opinion who are the staff members that are going to be trained?

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And in your opinion who are the staff members that are going to be trained?

She suggested that Apple employees under the supervision of Eddy Cue, the company’s senior vice president for Internet software and services, would be expected to participate in the training program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/te...g-penalty.html

Working off the DoJ’s proposal with Apple’s red-lined version incorporated, the judge said her injunction was meant to address competition in the e-book market, not to be punitive, and said that she wanted to tread as lightly as possible on Apple’s business.

Toward that end, she struck many of the DoJ's more expansive proposals, and instead focused the injunction on compliance measures, and on ensuring relevant Apple employees across all its content markets received proper training...the external monitor Cote proposed will largely oversee Apple's internal antitrust monitoring, rather than its business affairs.

http://www.publishersweekly.com:8080...next-week.html

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/te...g-penalty.html

http://www.publishersweekly.com:8080...next-week.html

And who would be the "relevant Apple employees across all its content markets"?

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And who would be the "relevant Apple employees across all its content markets"?

It's self-explanatory?

The directors, the officers, and "each of Apple's employees engaged, in whole or in part, in activities relating to Apple's iBookstore."

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f300500/300510.pdf


The core part of the monitors job, with reference to the people above is below.

receives comprehensive and effective training annually on the meaning
and requirements of this Final Judgment and the antitrust laws, such training
to be delivered by an attorney with relevant experience in the field of antitrust
law;

conducting, in consultation with the External Compliance Monitor,
an annual antitrust compliance audit covering each person identified
in Sections V.A and V.B of this Final Judgment, and maintaining all records
pertaining to such audits;

providing to the United States and the Representative Plaintiff States annually a
written statement as to the fact and manner of Apple's compliance

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

It's self-explanatory?

The directors, the officers, and "each of Apple's employees engaged, in whole or in part, in activities relating to Apple's iBookstore."

http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f300500/300510.pdf


The core part of the monitors job, with reference to the people above is below.

It is self-explanatory, which is why it is clear that the interviews that Bromwich requested were within the narrow scope of the judge's decision. So your earlier post when you said:

Originally Posted by Shane R

What Judge Cote wrote in her judgement against Apple and what she instructed the monitor to do were at odds.

makes no sense. The instructions were clear from the beginning, were in perfect agreement with the decision, and were followed correctly by the monitor.

[Shane R]

I disagree.

But everyone will be examining his conduct going forward now that this court has ruled the way they did, so maybe we'll get some clarity on it that way.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I disagree.

But everyone will be examining his conduct going forward now that this court has ruled the way they did, so maybe we'll get some clarity on it that way.

And the court ruled that:

As the government explaned at oral argument, the injunction "ensur[es] not just that [Apple] ha[s] an anti-trust compliance program in place but [that Apple's] employess particularly, senior executives and board members are being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they work" The government conceded that the injunction would not allow the monitor to investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws.

The judge made it clear, the monitor did as instructed, and the Second Court of Appeals reiterated that Apple employees that have to be instructed are particularly senior executives and board members.

What exactly do you disagree with?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by PatNY

In case this has not yet been noted in this thread, The Wall Street Journal is the sister company of HarperCollins, one of the publisher defendants who conspired with Apple. The two companies are both owned by the News Corporation, who has been closely and directly linked to the shenanigans of the defendants. Steve Jobs once sent an email to James Murdoch of the News Corporation pleading for him to get HarperCollinns to “Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.” This is as about as “horizontal” as it can get when it comes to price fixing, and solid evidence such as this is why I think Cote’s judgment will in all likelihood stand unscathed. . . . But back to the WSJ -- Given their relationship to some entities in the case, one can't really expect them to be objective at all.

I don't believe that a conflict of interests alone resulted in WSJ journalists spinning the Apple/HC story. The WSJ's views on antitrust cases always tend to skew in corporations' favor. They haven't been especially objective in their opinion pieces about climate change either.

I point this out not to say you're wrong about apparent bias but because I wouldn't assume that any news publication with similar conflicts of interest would be unreliable as a matter of course.

I do think it's possible for the editors of a publication to strive to cover the news fairly despite the interests of the parent company. I think it's important to allow for that possibility.

I just haven't seen evidence that the ideal of fairness matters to the WSJ. They publish useful information on investments and the stock market, but their reporters aren't winning prizes for principled tenacity w/r/t covering backroom corporate conspiracies (not the ones I've read, at least).

[PatNY]

Certainly, a conflict of interest doesn’t mean one can’t remain objective, but the potential for that conflict to color opinions should never be discounted. This is why judges recuse themselves from cases when they have a potential personal interest in the outcome. Obviously, reporters don’t normally avoid covering topics when a conflict of interest occurs, but readers should always be aware when such a conflict exists.

The WSJ has a clear conflict of interest in this case. Whether that impacted their reporting is not known, but their coverage has been hilariously over-the-top and at the extreme end of the spectrum, using words like “inquisition” to describe what is happening to Apple. As such, one should approach their coverage with a dose of healthy skepticism. Obviously, those who support Apple in this case will eat up those words, extreme hyperbole or not. But no matter where you stand, you should at the very least be aware the conflict of interest is there so you can better judge yourself whether there are other motives driving the coverage.

--Pat

[mrscoach]

So we have had screaming of 'conflict of interest' and cronyism in the naming of the monitor, but quoting of WSJ, who has a true conflict of interest, even if they MIGHT not be influenced by it.

Darn, I ran out of popcorn for this thread.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Whether that impacted their reporting is not known, but their coverage has been hilariously over-the-top and at the extreme end of the spectrum, using words like “inquisition” to describe what is happening to Apple. As such, one should approach their coverage with a dose of healthy skepticism.

This is exactly the sort of language I expect from that publication, which is my point: While it's always good to be skeptical about conflicts of interest, the WSJ is perfectly capable of resorting to brow-slapping hyperbole without any.

Obviously, those who support Apple in this case will eat up those words, extreme hyperbole or not.

I get your point, but I might agree with you more if the above statement read, "Obviously, those who are willing to believe that everything Apple does is right and fair might eat up those words, hyperbolic or otherwise." Again, I hope that a given person who chooses to support Apple will not accept skewered reporting and misleading interpretation. There's a lot of spin in the world, and every faction on every side of every question ought to be thinking analytically.

But no matter where you stand, you should at the very least be aware the conflict of interest is there so you can better judge yourself whether there are other motives driving the coverage.

I've been saying that about the inherent conflicts of interest in mainstream coverage ever since encountering Lee and Solomon's Unreliable Sources in the late '80s. But I'm still hopeful that persevering reporters and principled editors can sometimes push accurate coverage even when their parent companies would rather they didn't. That was my own experience, at least, in writing (very occasionally) for newspapers.