Home » Amazon, Apple, Big Publishing, Legal Stuff » U.S. judge wants external monitor for Apple in e-books case

U.S. judge wants external monitor for Apple in e-books case

30 August 2013

From Reuters:

A U.S. judge weighing remedies to assure that Apple Inc does not fix prices again in the e-books market said on Tuesday that she plans to require it to hire an external monitor, something the company considers unnecessary.

But U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan suggested a final injunction would be narrower than what the U.S. Department of Justice has been seeking, and would not restrict Apple’s agreements with suppliers of other types of content such as movies, music and TV shows.

. . . .

She said a monitor would be necessary, after Apple had failed to show it learned its lesson from its “blatant” violations of antitrust law.

The monitor, she said, would likely be installed to review Apple’s internal antitrust compliance program and procedures and recommend changes, and also required annual antitrust training for employees in Apple’s e-books and content businesses.

Apple had vigorously contested hiring of a monitor, saying in court papers it would be “extremely costly and burdensome.”

The Justice Department had earlier also sought to force Apple to hire an internal antitrust compliance officer, but has since backed off that demand.

Link to the rest at Reuters

Amazon, Apple, Big Publishing, Legal Stuff

14 Comments to “U.S. judge wants external monitor for Apple in e-books case”

  1. Apple’s stance on this sounds like a convicted felon telling the court that it should not incarcerate him because that will inhibit his freedom. Naturally, the court should trust him to confine himself to a cell of his own design, with no guards present, for whatever period of time he sees fit. Anything else is unfair.

    • A better analogy would be not wanting a probation officer.

      • I agree. That is a bit more apt.

      • I would like to add that my analogy represents my suspicion that Apple is trying to manufacture its own punishment, thereby effectively eliminating any serious responsibility for its infraction. Still, your analogy is appropriate (since it is your opinion and rightfully does not consider my suspicions).

    • I see it more like a kid saying that no, they will not agree to go to bed early for kicking the cat, but they will promise not to kick the cat any more. The dog, on the other hand…

  2. “Apple had vigorously contested hiring of a monitor, saying in court papers it would be “extremely costly and burdensome.””

    Hilarious. I think Apple is confused. This monitor will be a person, not an Apple device, so it needn’t be extremely costly.

    Maybe the judge should impose justice Old Testament-style and take an “i” for an “i”. Sorry, but this is a morning for poor puns.

    • They do seem to be over reacting. Installation of a monitor requires no software downloads, and he should work with their stuff, no problems…

  3. Hey Apple, you’re doing it wrong.

  4. Before I say anything else, let me state for the record that I am an Apple and Mac person, and have been since I saw my first Apple II.

    This excerpt was unintentionally funny. One of the things that my new Macbook Pro did not do well was to connect properly via HDMI to my 32″ (some other brand) external monitor.

    I had to search the webs until I located and executed (I am not a Mac programmer!) a Ruby patch on the Terminal app (ie, I had to dig deep into geek territory) which someone had figured out to make my wonderful monitor look the way it should. Apparently Apple thinks they shouldn’t bother with non-Apple external monitors – and just don’t provide the software to connect to them.

    So, making Apple do this is probably not going to go smoothly and work well. Ah, language!

  5. I don’t get Apple’s recalcitrant attitude.

    Apple has had the government bend over backwards to soften what was already a soft penalty. And for Apple, that still isn’t good enough.

    Tell you what – how about if the “penalty” is that the government agree to give Apple one trillion dollars, purchase Apple products with exclusivity for the next 50 years, and pass a Constitutional amendment providing Apple full protection from criminal or civil actions in perpetuity.

    Will *that* make Apple happy?

    Waving a red flag at a bull is not a good strategy. A lot of arrogant companies – and Apple has unfortunately grown arrogant – like to push things. And they always learn that someone is going to bite and that they are indeed bitable.

    Maybe someone should share some classic Greek and Shakespearean tragedies with Apple’s leadership team – introduce them to the basic word “hubris” and what it tends to entail.

    But I get the impression they’re still acting too arrogant to understand hubris.

  6. For Apple’s external monitor, I nominate Jeff Bezos.

  7. So, I believe Apple WANTED an external monitor. They kept refusing the set up an internal one, and they must have known that the judge would then require an outside person.

    The question is why. I suspect health insurance. If they don’t have to pay the outside monitor, they don’t have to give him health insurance.

    Health insurance is expensive. So is vacation pay. They were just looking at the BIG PICTURE here. Apple seems to be good at that – looking at the BIG PICTURE and thinking ahead.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.