The tech giant has been found guilty of running a cartel with ebook publishers in order to push up the price of electronic books, and the court appointed an antitrust monitor to help educate Apple how to avoid screwing its own customers in future.

For some reason, the iPhone maker didn’t like this ruling.
Apple keeps insisting it hadn’t done anything wrong and therefore having someone telling it what to do is very annoying.
This is why Apple urged a federal appeals court to put Michael Bromwich (an antitrust monitor) on hold, claiming that his work was harming Apple business and apparently stopping it from screwing over customers again.
The tech giant asked the Court of Appeals to halt monitor’s work for a few months, while the court considers Apple’s request to remove him altogether.

Company’s lawyers explain why they would be harmed if Bromwich keeps working before the appeals court decides whether his appointment was appropriate in the first place.
In response, a US Department of Justice lawyer claimed that the monitor was essential to make sure Apple doesn’t violate the law, especially after a federal judge found it responsible for conspiring with 5 publishers to raise prices.
All this shows that Apple can’t be trusted to comply on its own. Indeed, the preliminary injunction demands that the company fully understands that it needs to comply with antitrust laws right away.

Apple is accusing the monitor of aggressively pursuing interviews with top execs, though that’s what he is supposed to do.
In addition, the company has complained that his fees would cost Apple millions of dollars, but it forgets that its lawyers hired to fight the monitor have also cost millions. So, the industry experts doubt that all Apple’s arguments are going to fly, and the court agrees, saying that Apple had a fair bit of cash to play with.
The judge added that if the tech giant had spent some time avoiding violating antitrust legislation, perhaps it wouldn’t have found itself in this position in the first place.

The company keeps insisting that it was perfectly justified in setting up a price cartel with publishers and believes that an Appeals court will support it.