The federal judge overseeing the ebook price-fixing case between Apple and the US Department of Justice has issued her remedy, and although it slaps Cook & Co. upside the head, the DoJ didn't get all it wanted. After winning the case in Judge Denise Cote's court this July, the DoJ proposed a sweeping set of suggested remedies, …
Cote ordered Apple to employ an "Antitrust Compliance Officer [ . . .] who will report to Apple's board on anything fishy they might uncover.
Not to the DoJ, but to Apple's board? And they will then stop that? Yeah, right.
And just to add a bit of icing to the compliance cake, Cote ordered Apple to annually inform its employees that if they come across any violation of either her Final Judgment or antitrust laws, they may bring such violations to the attention of the Antitrust Compliance Officer "without reprisal."
"It's not a punishment for telling on us, mate, really it isn't. But the restrooms do need cleaning now . . ."
I bet the Apple top management feels really whipped about all this.
Suspect if you look at the details you will find those officers will have an obligation to report jointly both to the DoJ and Apples board. I also suspect you dont know much about corporate governance.
Additionally you do know that any board has a legal obligation to respond to allegations of illegal activity right? Do you really think they are stupid enough to risk jail by ignoring said officer? Since their job essentially involves given Cook and Co their orders they dont have to actually do much to be seen as responding. It then becomes Cook's responsibility to resolve the issue, again potentially on the threat of jail time.
Re: Stop assuming
Given what's actually happened to Apple when found guilty of price fixing, I don't think there's much risk to them if it happens again.
Why the time limits?
I'm having trouble getting my head around the idea that the injunction should impose time limits (and different ones for different publishers at that) on prohibiting the price fixing agreements. Surely they'll be just as illegal in 30 months or whatever as they apparently are now?
Re: Why the time limits?
They're making sure Amazon recontributes to their reelection campaigns again next time!
Managed Law: Loosing Sight.
"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business," she said
So just how blurred is justice when the beginning is forgotten? Why don't they just drop the whole lawsuit, and then Apple will run it's business the way they want, the way of the tyrant.
@ MyBackDoor - Re: Managed Law: Loosing Sight.
"I want this injunction to rest as lightly as possible on how Apple runs its business," she said. . .<
, "because otherwise I'll have to buy all the iPads and iPhones for my family's Christmas presents all by myself."
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
"... if they come across any violation of either her Final Judgment or antitrust laws, they may bring such violations to the attention of the Antitrust Compliance Officer "without reprisal.""
Yeah... like "without reprisal" will be believed.
**huge** amount of evidence in public saying whistleblowers get shafted. So, basically this is screwed.
why do U.S. Judicial decisions, such as this example, bring to mind the notion of flaming monkeys pulled from one's butt? - that which was found to be illegal is now expressly prohibited for the next five years? WTF? have at it again in the sixth year?
I hate to question the decision of any judge, but this judgment looks less than impartial. Time limits, requirements to report internally "without reprisal"? Very odd.
Time for someone to remember the old maxim - "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done".
Re: Strange judgment
"Justice must not be done, but must be only seen to be done".