Three days after rejecting Apple' request to remove the e-book antitrust monitor, New York judge has issued an opinion and order detailing the reasoning behind the denial.

In the 64-page document, Judge Cote offered a detailed explanation of why she denied Apple's motion to remove court-appointed antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich, saying the company's objection itself was a proof that the decision to appoint the monitor was appropriate.

"In brief, many of the arguments which Apple once made (and is no longer pursuing) have been waived or are moot. In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction. Finally, there has been no showing that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm. For these and all of the other reasons stated herein, Apple's request for a stay is denied," wrote District Judge Denise Cote.

Troubles started when Apple accused Bromwich of stepping beyond the scope of his appointment and overcharging the company. In support of its allegations, Apple cited a bill of $138,432.40 for Bromwich's two weeks of work. Bromwich, who is a partner at Goodwin Procter LLP and a former inspector general at the Justice Department, charges $1,100 per hour while his legal team's rate is $1,025 per hour. Subsequently, Bromwich alleged that Apple was not cooperating with his investigations and was making his task of monitoring very difficult.

Judge Cote said Bromwich had acted properly and if there was a dispute over fees, Apple could address it to the court.

"While Apple would prefer to have no Monitor, it has failed to show that it is in the public interest to stop his work. If anything, Apple's reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition. A monitorship is nothing less than "a necessary and . . . unavoidable consequence" of Apple's violation of the antitrust laws," Judge Cote wrote. 

"The deterioration of the relationship between Apple and the Monitor is unfortunate and disappointing. Hopefully, that relationship can be "reset" and placed on a productive course. But it is strongly in the public's interest for the Monitor to remain in place. A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple," the judge wrote.

Apple has said it would appeal the liability findings as well as the imposition of antitrust monitor by Judge Cote.