Department of Justice files objection to temporary Apple antitrust monitor stay

The filing doesn’t seem to be on PACER yet, and I haven’t been able to find any other link to the filing, but in keeping with the declared deadline of close of business Friday, the Department of Justice has filed its opposition to Apple getting a temporary stay of the anti-trust monitor. CNET and the Wall Street Journal have the coverage and some quotes from the filing.


"In any event, the district court did not exceed its authority in ordering an external monitor for Apple or abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify the selected monitor," the government said. "Nor can Apple establish that it will be irreparably harmed by the monitorship. Finally, the public interest weighs firmly against any delay in the monitor’s work."

Wall Street Journal:

"Apple’s true complaint is that it ‘does not control the monitorship’," the lawyers wrote in a 21-page motion. "Of course not—a ‘monitor’ controlled by the party to be monitored is no monitor at all."

The Wall Street Journal also notes the Appeals Court will hear arguments on February 4th as to whether to keep the stay in place until the full appeal can be heard.

When the filing does show up, I’ll probably just link it here…unless it seems substantial enough to get a whole new story out of it; you never know.

Update: Thanks to Bob W for providing a link (PDF) in the comments. Essentially, the DoJ is recapitulating a lot of Cote’s decision as its arguments as to why Apple shouldn’t get a stay. The monitor was acting within his brief, Apple waived its chances to object, and the salary is being discussed elsewhere and isn’t the kind of thing that deserves a stay regardless.

I imagine Apple will probably file a reply sometime before the February 4th hearing. We’ll see what it says.

5 Comments on Department of Justice files objection to temporary Apple antitrust monitor stay

  1. Your tax $$s at work, while they aren’t being used by the same folks to chase whistleblowers.
    To the DOJ, Amazon is a friend in need, a friend indeed!

    $60 billion in sales and NO PROFITS. I bet the Harvard Business School is already teaching the “Amazon Way”.

  2. Seriously? If they don’t have any profits, how did they ever get big enough to make $60 billion in sales? You have to make money to grow the business.

    Most businesses that don’t make profits fizzle out after a year or two.

  3. Please read the financials yourself:

    For the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 Amazon had total accumulated sales of:
    $135 billion

    And total accumulated profits of:
    $2.75 billion.

    That’s a net profit on gross sales of 2%.

  4. Jeff Bezos has already articulated his long game strategy and, apparently, Amazon stockholders are OK with it. Perhaps Jeff has re-invented Steve Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field. See: and note the link to Bezos’ manifesto if you want to get this all in his own words.
    As I re-read this piece, I could not help but replace “the long game” with “the long con.” The long con makes for some really good stories, BTW. The 36th episode of “Lost” comes immediately to mind but readers here will be able to point to many others.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


wordpress analytics