Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Apple Remedy

Apple Remedy

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 17|Likes:
Published by Keith Pearson
motion
motion

More info:

Published by: Keith Pearson on Aug 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 __________________________________________ )UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 12-cv-2826 (DLC))APPLE, INC.,
et al.
, ))Defendants. ) __________________________________________) __________________________________________ )THE STATE OF TEXAS,
et al.
, ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 12-cv-03394 (DLC))PENGUIN GROUP (USA) INC.,
et al.
, ))Defendants. ) __________________________________________)
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INJUNCTION
Case 1:12-cv-02826-DLC Document 329 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 22
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
I.
 
LEGAL STANDARD FOR EFFECTIVE SHERMAN ACT REMEDY .......................... 3
 
II.
 
THE RESTRICTIONS ON APPLE’S CONDUCT SET FORTH IN SECTION III OFTHE PFJ ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ....................................................... 5
 
III.
 
CONDUCT REQUIRED OF APPLE BY SECTION IV OF THE PFJ IS NECESSARYAND APPROPRIATE ...................................................................................................... 10
 
IV.
 
THE ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE AND OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENTS OFSECTIONS V AND VI OF THE PFJ ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ........ 12
 
A.
 
External Monitor ....................................................................................................... 12
 
B.
 
Internal Antitrust Compliance Officer ...................................................................... 15
 
V.
 
CUSTOMARY ACCESS AND JURISDICTION PROVISIONS ARE NECESSARYAND APPROPRIATE ...................................................................................................... 16
 
EXHIBIT 1 (Proposed Final Judgment in
United States v. Apple, Inc.
)EXHIBIT 2 (Judgment in a Criminal Case in
United States v. AU Optronics Corp.
, No. 3:09-cr-00110-SI (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012))EXHIBIT 3 (Final Judgment in
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
, No. 98-1232 (Docket No. 746)(D.D.C. Nov. 12, 2002))EXHIBIT 4 (Excerpt from Deposition of Kevin Saul, Feb. 22, 2013)
Case 1:12-cv-02826-DLC Document 329 Filed 08/02/13 Page 2 of 22
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 
 Alberti v. Klevenhagen
, 46 F.3d 1347 (5th Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 14
Cronin v. Browner 
, 90 F. Supp. 2d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ............................................................ 12
 Erie Ry. v. Heath
, 8 F. Cas. 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1871) ........................................................................ 13
Ford Motor Co. v. United States
, 405 U.S. 562 (1972) .............................................................. 3, 4
FTC v. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists
, 476 U.S. 447 (1986)....................................................................... 9
FTC v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC 
, No. 2:09-CV-4719, 2009 WL 7844076 (C.D. Cal. Nov.17, 2009) ................................................................................................................................... 13
 In re The Reserve Fund Sec. & Derivative Litig.
, 673 F. Supp. 2d 182 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ............ 13
 Nat’l Soc’y of Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States
, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) ........................................... 3, 4
 NLRB v. Express Pub. Co.
, 312 U.S. 426 (1941) ....................................................................... 3, 8
 Ruiz v. Estelle
, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982) ............................................................................... 13
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y.
, 519 U.S. 357 (1997) ................................................. 8
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Kim
, No. 11-CV-1013 (DLC), 2011 WL 1642772(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011) .......................................................................................................... 13
United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.
, 321 U.S. 707 (1944) .............................................. 4
United States v. Capitol Service, Inc.
, 756 F.2d 502 (7th Cir. 1985) ............................................. 8
United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
, 366 U.S. 316 (1961) .................................... 3, 4
United States v. Glaxo Grp. Ltd.
, 410 U.S. 52 (1973) .................................................................. 12
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
, 384 U.S. 563 (1966) .................................................................. 16
United States v. H & R Block, Inc.
, 833 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2011) ......................................... 9
United States v. Int’l Salt Co.
, 332 U.S. 392 (1947) ................................................................... 3, 4
United States v. Keyspan Corp.
, 763 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ...................................... 13
United States v. Local 295 of Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters
, 784 F. Supp. 15 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) ........... 13
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
, 231 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2002) ........................................ 14
United States v. Microsoft Corp.
, No. 1:98-cv-01232-CKK (Docket No. 746) (D.D.C. Nov. 12,2002) ......................................................................................................................................... 13
United States v. Rockford Mem’l Corp.
, 898 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1990) ........................................ 9
United States v. Sasso
, 215 F.3d 283 (2d Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 13
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
, 340 U.S. 76 (1950) .................................................. 3, 8, 12, 16
Case 1:12-cv-02826-DLC Document 329 Filed 08/02/13 Page 3 of 22

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->