Why Is Apple Feuding With Court-Appointed Lawyer?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Apple faces opposition from the U.S. in its bid to block an antitrust monitor appointed in a electronic books price-fixing case from interviewing top executives and directors, including chief executive officer Tim Cook and board member Al Gore. Bloomberg Contributing Editor Nick Thompson reports on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West." (Source: Bloomberg)

And refused the claim that they were keeping keep personnel from being interviewed.

It has not been returned.

Nicholas thompson joins us for more.

This is fascinating complaint where the bromwich guy is pushing back in every possible way.

Apple is pushing back in every possible way.

Apple has anhe has overstepped what was done by every single monitor.

Apple has resisted.

They say that he is being paid too much money.

He has unreasonable requests left and right.

Apple's overall view is that they should not have lost this case and they are resentful that there is a guy who was monitoring how they are behaving afterwards.

They don't think they should have lost the suit.

They are giving to this guy who was supposed to be monitoring their business practices.

I was reminded of the 23 and me case where a silicon valley company that has government intrusion.

They are saying, oh, my gosh.

We have stuff to do.

Do you really have to be looking over our shoulder?

Do you have a meeting with tim cook, he has other stuff to think about.

Some say that this is misguided from the very beginning.

They think that a bunch of small book publishers conspire together.

Apple's opinion believes that this is five mice conspiring against a cat, perhaps against the law.

Overall, apple was not making the book market less competitive.

They are very frustrated.

A lot of people are frustrated that the original actions were misguided.

That began and that leads to the secondary fight which adds onto the fact that silicon valley does not like washington getting getting into their business and you can see where this is going.

It is interesting.

The big giant in the book, amazon is hardly mentioned.

The suit clear focuses on what steve jobs did.

You call them five small publishers.

Five of the six largest had secret meetings in manhattan restaurants and they rose the price of the e-books affecting millions of consumers, making them overpay for the folks.

Absolutely.

Is the case against them.

To go back to the fundamentals, the argument of the prosecution is that this was bad for consumers and there was clear conspiracy.

The argument for the other side which is pursuant to a lot of people, look, the look company was threatened.

This was a must the publishers got together and got another pricing options.

It was not a classic antitrust case.

It was not like there was a conspiracy of the big to crush the little.

There was a dispersive little to combat the big.

This is were comforted than most antitrust cases.

All of that said, there was a ruling, apple should comply with the ruling.

There is a monitor.

Exactly.

That is amazing to me.

The thing in the complaint that jumped out at me was apple's argument that an hour-long interview would give a "loss of market share, growth him and interference with making new products?" it shows they're trying to litigate this even though they have already lost.

They said, that is ridiculous.

I do not send you this e-mail to negotiate my prices.

This is what i charge.

This is the happy with the largest cash reserve of the world and they are bickering over the rate of the monitor.

Apple has decided to stumble.

He has done this.

He was inspector general of the justice department, he has been appointed in the same role before.

He said "i've never waited as long as a month to have such meetings and interviews.

Apple spokespersons said that they were very concerned about the interviews.

They were very busy.

This is quite evident.

Apple's litigation shut as he and we have seen this in their patent cases, we have seen this every time they go to court.

Their litigation shut as he is not one of compromise, it is fight, fight, fight.

They think they are fundamentally right here.

They think they're right in a larger sense and they are going to push back and then assist

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change