Here’s where Apple’s antitrust monitor crossed the line


My colleague Jeff John Roberts reported the news: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday scolded but did not remove Michael Bromwich, the former U.S. inspector general who has been monitoring Apple’s antitrust compliance in the wake of the e-books price-fixing case.

« Scold » is the right word. Reading the decision, I’m struck by how many ways the Court found to say that Bromwich had crossed the line. Excerpts:

  • “Bromwich’s submission in conjunction with a litigant’s brief was the opposite of best practice for a court-appointed monitor.”
  • “The manner in which the declaration was filed, and the fact that it was preceded by at least some ex parte communications with the plaintiffs… may raise ‘an appearance of partiality’ and ‘an appearance of impropriety.’”
  • “Bromwich coordinated with the plaintiffs in their opposition to Apple’s stay motion in the district court, and submitted an affidavit as an integral part of the opposition…

View original post 213 mots de plus


Laisser un commentaire

Choisissez une méthode de connexion pour poster votre commentaire:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s