Apple asks a court to stop telling it what to do -

Jobs' Mob has been channelling Amanda Knox and insisting that it does not have to be punished for breaking the law.

Apple has been found guilty of running a cartel with publishers which aimed to push up the price of ebooks. The judge ordered an antitrust monitor to be appointed to Apple to help educate it how to avoid screwing its customers by illegal means ever again.

However Apple whined to the court that since it never believed that it had done anything wrong in the first place, having an outsider telling it what to do was annoying.

Apple urged a federal appeals court on Tuesday to put a court-appointed antitrust monitor on hold, arguing that his efforts were harming the company's business and stopping it screwing over customers, er coming up with new ideas for products.

The iPhone maker asked the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to halt monitor Michael Bromwich's work while the court considers Apple's bid to remove him altogether, a process that could last several months.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Apple, in explaining why the company would suffer irreparable harm if the monitor is allowed to continue before the appeals court has a chance to decide whether his appointment was appropriate in the first place.

A US Department of Justice lawyer told the court that the monitor was essential to ensure that Apple complies with the law, after a federal judge last summer found the company liable for conspiring with five publishers to raise e-book prices. Apple cannot be trusted to comply on its own.

Finnuala Tessier said that the preliminary injunction demands that Apple fully understands why and how it needs to comply with antitrust laws, not a year from now ... but today.

Apple has accused Bromwich of aggressively and unnecessarily pursuing multiple interviews with top executives, including Jonathan Ive, the company's chief designer. We would have thought that was his job.

It has also complained that Bromwich's fees and duties would cost it millions of dollars, however the lawyers it has paid to make these ridiculous requests have also cost it millions so we cannot see why it is so upset.

We also do not think these arguments are going to fly. The judges seemed sceptical saying that the company had a fair bit of cash to play with.

"Maybe if they had spent some of their very valuable time keeping the company from violating antitrust laws, perhaps they wouldn't be in this position," Judge Gerard Lynch said.

Apple has long said that it was perfectly justified in setting up a price cartel with publishers and it is convinced that an Appeals court will agree with it.