Skip to main content

Apple’s request to remove court-appointed ebooks antitrust monitor rejected

apple-ipad-event-ibooks

A motion by Apple to halt the operations of a court-appointed antitrust monitor has been rejected, the Wall Street Journal reports. The lawyer, Michael Bromwich, was appointed by the court to ensure the compliance Apple’s iBook platform with antitrust laws. Apple previously petitioned the court to have Bromwich removed from his post, believing that his $1,100/hour legal fees were leading him to take undue investigative steps solely for the purpose of overcharging the Cupertino company.

Bromwich was temporarily taken off of Apple’s case, but subsequently returned to continue his duties. Apple then accused Bromwich of going beyond his legal authority and requested once again that he be removed from the company’s case. Today the court ruled that Apple’s request would have resulted in Bromwich being unable to execute his legal duties, and thus rejected the injunction.

The full ruling is embedded below:

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. sardonick - 10 years ago

    Lawyers. The reason “Fraud, waste, and abuse” was coined in a government setting.

  2. André Hedegaard Petersen - 10 years ago

    You know Apple, if you guys didn’t breach fair-trade laws in the first place, none of this would have happened. So glad the courts of law adhere to the law and not pockets of money :)

  3. Robert Gray - 10 years ago

    This is crazy

  4. gusgazzler - 10 years ago

    In North Korea, when you run afoul of the government, you’re sentenced to being attacked by wild dogs. In America, we’re rather more civilized. And we make you pay for the “dogs.”