Michael Bromwich was in court with the most powerful company and the top government law agency in the country when he seemed to get antsy. Apple and the United States Department of Justice had, after all, been exchanging jabs about him. “I’d like to be heard, your Honor, if I can,†he told the judge, who said they’d need to “exhaust the arguments of the main combatants†first.
Wanting to interject would be understandable, considering how long Bromwich and Apple had been putting up their dukes inside and outside of court in a bloody fight over cash and corporate power. In July 2013, Apple was found guilty of conspiring to fix market prices for ebooks. The judge in the case, Denise Cote, said there was “a clear portrait of a conscious commitment to cross a line and engage in illegal behavior.” The prosecution’s case was so clear-cut, and Apple showed such little contrition, according to Cote, that it wasn’t enough to take the company’s word that it would change. To make sure Apple fell in line, she called in help.
That would turn out to be Bromwich, a bearded, bespectacled attorney appointed by the court to be Apple’s corporate monitor for two years, a job made to ensure Apple complied with court rulings.
You rarely hear much about this kind of stuff. It seems like it’s not a wise move by Apple to go against the grain of the courts this much, but then again, what do I know.
I don’t have anything to say about the topic itself yet, but why is “bearded and bespectacled” even worth a mention? Or did I miss some pop-culture reference?
It’s not strictly relevant, but it adds texture to the story, and makes it more interesting to read.
1100 $/hour + 1025 $/hour + extra… is this reasonable?
Sure. These aren’t fees that get paid to one person – they support his whole firm, and when you’re monitoring a company as large as Apple in their dealings with a large number or publishers, that is a lot of work, and a lot of people are needed to properly do it.
Drumhellar,
These are fair arguments, except the article does explicitly say 1.1k/hr is “for himself” and the other 1k/hr is for “Nigro’s assistance”…nothing about lawyers is ever reasonable! If only I could charge a 15% “administrative fee” on top of all invoices I send out! But on the other hand this is apple we’re talking about, it is nothing to them.
Edited 2015-05-25 02:31 UTC
The question is – is he alone?
Apple may have learned from their past mistakes on the technical side, but they seem to have a terminal learning disability when it comes to their legal shenanigans. First there were the games Apple played, trying to evade a legal judgement in the UK:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fi…
Then, of course, there’s the e-book price fixing conviction, followed by (as detailed in the linked article) Apple playing more games to avoid doing what a court ordered them to.
And just a few weeks ago, we get news of Apple pulling more anti-competitive shenanigans in advance of launching their music streaming service. I wonder how long it will take for Apple to get hit with an anti-trust investigation (again) – and then get slapped even harder when they try to play games (again).