Feeds

Apple's STILL trying to shake off court-imposed antitrust monitor

Fruity firm takes supervision whinge to federal appeals court

SANS - Survey on application security programs

Apple hasn't given up the fight to get its court-appointed antitrust monitor thrown out as it takes its case to the US Appeals Court.

The fruity firm has been trying to persuade the courts to put off the monitor's appointment until it has appealed against the guilty verdict imposed on it last year for conspiring to fix ebook prices.

Although Apple lost out at the district court, it has pleaded with the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals to put a stop to Michael Bromwich's oversight duties while the court considers the company's request to get rid of him altogether.

Apple is using the same arguments that were already rejected by the original court.

"The monitorship the district court imposed on Apple is unprecedented, impermissible and unconstitutional," it complained in a court filing. "The court authorised the monitor to exercise authority that is not "judicial", to engage in ex parte discussions with plaintiffs even while the state plaintiffs are seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Apple in another proceeding, to incur significant and unrecoverable fees that Apple is supposed to pay and to interview anyone at Apple and demand any Apple documents,” whined the fruity firm's court filing.

It added: "The monitor, for his part, has abandoned any semblance of objectivity."

Apple has asked the court to put a stay on the monitorship while it appeals both the decision that it should have a monitor and the original guilty verdict that got it into this position.

In the appeals court yesterday Apple's attorney Theodore Boutrous said that the firm would suffer irreparable harm if the monitor was allowed to keep working while the court decides if his job is even legal in the first place, Reuters reported.

But the lawyer for the Department of Justice said that the monitor was essential to make sure that Apple obeys antitrust laws.

"The preliminary injunction demands that Apple fully understands why and how it needs to comply with antitrust laws, not a year from now … but today," Finnuala Tessier said.

Apple tried to convince the three-judge panel, as it had previously tried to convince District Judge Denise Cote, that Bromwich was acting too aggressively and overcharging for his services. It also said that Bromwich's powers were too liberal, allowing him too much access to the firm.

The judges seemed inclined to stick with Cote's reading of things, however. Judge Gerard Lynch remarked that maybe if top execs "had spent some of their valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, they wouldn't be in this position". He also suggested that if Browich's remit was too broad, than maybe just outlining his limitations would be enough for Apple.

Bromwich's work is on hold for now while the judges decide whether to put a longer stay on the position or not. ®

3 Big data security analytics techniques

More from The Register

next story
Lavabit loses contempt of court appeal over protecting Snowden, customers
Judges rule complaints about government power are too little, too late
Don't let no-hire pact suit witnesses call Steve Jobs a bullyboy, plead Apple and Google
'Irrelevant' character evidence should be excluded – lawyers
Record labels sue Pandora over vintage song royalties
Companies want payout on recordings made before 1972
EFF: Feds plan to put 52 MILLION FACES into recognition database
System would identify faces as part of biometrics collection
Edward Snowden on his Putin TV appearance: 'Why all the criticism?'
Denies Q&A cameo was meant to slam US, big-up Russia
Ex-Tony Blair adviser is new top boss at UK spy-hive GCHQ
Robert Hannigan to replace Sir Iain Lobban in the autumn
Judge halts spread of zombie Nortel patents to Texas in Google trial
Epic Rockstar patent war to be waged in California
German space centre endures cyber attack
Chinese code retrieved but NSA hack not ruled out
APPLE FAILS to ditch class action suit over ebook PRICE-FIX fiasco
Do not pass go, do cough (up to) $840m in damages
Whoever you vote for, Google gets in
Report uncovers giant octopus squid of lobbying influence
prev story

Whitepapers

Mainstay ROI - Does application security pay?
In this whitepaper learn how you and your enterprise might benefit from better software security.
Combat fraud and increase customer satisfaction
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Top three mobile application threats
Learn about three of the top mobile application security threats facing businesses today and recommendations on how to mitigate the risk.
3 Big data security analytics techniques
Applying these Big Data security analytics techniques can help you make your business safer by detecting attacks early, before significant damage is done.