Apple's trouble with its anti-trust babysitter (errr... monitor)

Apple lost its case [WSJ, today] at the federal appeals court trying to oust the anti-trust monitor who was put in place forcibly by a bizarre, almost anti-democratic [WSJ via MacNN], Amazon influenced [SeattleTimes] ruling last year. The federal courts of appeal today ruled that Apple failed to provide enough evidence for having the anti-trust monitor (apparently a close friend of the Judge who ordered him to be placed in Apple in the first place) removed on grounds of him proving to be a hindrance to Apple's daily working and causing enough harm to the company both in terms of extravagent fees and top Apple executives' time.

The editorial, which comes from the paper’s board, accuses Cote of being ‘abusive’ towards Apple, and ‘shredding the separation of constitutional powers’ in her appointment of an antitrust monitor at all (an action normally reserved only for those with repeat offenses or a long history of monopoly abuse), as well as for granting the monitor, which the paper describes as a ‘friend’ of the judge... The editorial also took issue with the fees Bromwich was charging Apple. While an $1125-per-hour salary is not unusual among the nation’s top legal minds, Bromwich has no experience in antitrust compliance or monitoring — and he is billing Apple for full-time work (billing over $138,000 in the first two weeks)
— WSJ via MacNN

Apple did get some respite in the case when it was ruled that the anti-trust monitor has to abide by a stricter set of rules. This whole case has been weird right from day one and hope the truth survives and the honest party wins and not some (politically) influential company!

The panel of judges defined Mr. Bromwich’s duties in narrow terms: The former Justice Department inspector general is authorized to request interviews and documents from the company only to ensure that Apple has policies in place to prevent future antitrust violations and that senior executives and board members understand them.