Should Judge Cote's apointee, Michael Bromwich, be allowed to keep monitoring Apple?

  • Bromwich is Doing his Job

    Bromwich was hired as a compliance monitor and he is just trying to do his job. Apple is overreacting to his appointment and duties that are part of this. Bromwich, who was hired to make sure apple complies with anti trust laws, is there to do his job and is not trying to rock the boat at Apple.

  • A smart man

    Yes, Michael should be allowed to keep monitoring Apple, and is the right man for this job. What he is doing for Apple is his specialty, and he has studied and worked in these kinds of jobs for his entire life, so he knows what he is doing and will do good.

  • No, Apple should be able to monitor themselves.

    As a corporation Apple has many rights given to them by the United States. If they disobey those laws they are given fines and punishments. Since Michael Bromwich is being paid by Apple for his services I don't believe that it is fair it should be controlled by the government or another unbiased source not someone that has a direct connection with Jude Cote.

  • Appeals Court Agrees

    A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals agrees that Michael Bromwich overstepped his bounds when he monitored Apple's products. He is to be removed from his post as Apple's attorney with regards to compliance of antitrust laws. Instead of interviewing top executives regarding e-books, Bromwich subpoenaed documents having nothing to do with the case. He delved into areas of Apple that he shouldn't have and for that, he was removed from his role as monitor.

  • No Need To

    According to Wikipedia, in 2013, he was appointed by Judge Denise Cote to serve as Apple's antitrust compliance monitor in US vs Apple, Inc. The case involved price fixing regarding e-books, but I believe his presence was used to interfere with Apples daily activities. For this reason, I do not believe he should continue to monitor them.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.