Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 389 posts

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#61

Post by hedora »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #32

> This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. ... > referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for a criminal contempt investigation. It's suddenly become a negotiation again.

You need two sides for a negotiation.

Based on the tariff carve-outs and the political appointments Trump's made, Apple leadership is definitely inside Trump's inner circle.

They've been smart enough not to parade Tim Cook around in a MAGA hat, but just barely:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/apple-ceo-tim-...

I expect there to be some performative lawyering by the Trump administration until the case blows over.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#62

Post by onionisafruit »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

John Gruber has a good summary of the ruling: https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app... . My favourite part: "Unlike Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman, Mr. Schiller sat through the entire underlying trial and actually read the entire 180-page decision. That Messrs. Maestri and Roman did neither, does not shield Apple of its knowledge (actual and constructive) of the Court’s findings."

Thanks for posting that. I came away from tfa wondering what the actual lie was. Gruber made that clear and was a good read otherwise.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#63

Post by [deleted] »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #43
afavour wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a culture war sideshow it's a "buying favor with the administration" sideshow. And it does matter, Trump is not exactly a man with a strong loyalty streak. Demonstrating fealty to him on a regular basis could absolutely result in preferable outcomes for Apple.

This is a state case. Referral for criminal charges goes to a district attorney in Northern California. Trump's DOJ could try to lean on California but no one in California has any taste for Trump and his people.

[deleted]

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#65

Post by weaksauce »

hedora wrote: post #48
post_break wrote: post #15

The top brass at Apple just think they are above everyone else. Remember when Tim Cook lied about Apple not giving anyone special terms in the app store and that everyone gets the same deal. And then it came out Netflix was one that got special terms? The sheer arrogance of Apple leaders is astounding. They think they are outright owed rent on anything that runs on an iPhone, iPad, etc. Apple thinks developers are no…

It's been under a month since Apple's lawyer took over the NLRB and immediately made a bunch of lawsuits over union suppression, employee rights and widespread employee harassment go away. https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/04/02/trump-admin-poach... I'm hoping this judge's ruling will actually be enforced by the executive branch, but I'm not holding my breath. I wonder if there are any mechanisms that allow state…

if it’s anything like wells fargo 8 million fine for opening up bank accounts in peoples names without their knowledge... after a 1 million donation to trump’s inauguration the fine will go down to 150,000 dollars.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#66

Post by mschuster91 »

jordanb wrote: post #4
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #3

Will the executive actually face an criminal charges? No they will not.

The upside is that executives are cowards (also there's no way in hell I'm going to prison for my employer and most people I know feel the same) so even one high profile successful prosecution will have enormous deterrance effect. There is this despondent feeling among most people that the law no longer applies to the powerful and we watch the behave with ever more brazenness. The saving grace is the amount of pushba…

> Once they see any consequences for their actions they will fall in line.

We're seeing this with just how fast and ruthless many executives were after Trump won the election, actually. The behavior of some of these people is best described as "swearing fealty": donations to Trump's circle, dismantling of anything remotely smelling as "DEI" instead of standing up for what was sold as "core values" over the last years, compliance instead of resistance (just recently Bezos in the Amazon tariff pricing issue, or the "resignation" of 60 Minutes producer Bill Owens so that the Trump admin doesn't impede a corporate merger).

We've been asking ourselves "wtf are the Russian oligarchs doing" after Putin invaded Ukraine, and now we're seeing just the same compliance from our own oligarchs.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#67

Post by mschuster91 »

chipsrafferty wrote: post #34
blooalien wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A relatively large whiplash must happen to course correct the general behavior, in my opinion." Indeed. Someone (or a couple few well-known someones) in positions of real "power" need to do some real prison time in a real prison for their massive lawbreaking and abuses of power before they'll take the situation somewhat seriously.

A LOT imo. If you make it clear that even a little slip up of fraud will be at least 1 year in prison and huge fines, I think it would work wonders. Tough on crime policies don't really work for petty crime, because people are desperate. But rich people have so much to lose that they wouldn't risk it.

> But rich people have so much to lose that they wouldn't risk it.

Ponzi schemes are still a regular thing despite Madoff being sentenced to 150 years behind bars. They're just relabeled as "cryptocurrencies" these days.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#68

Post by TechDebtDevin »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #45
intrasight wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not gonna happen. And for the reason that you just gave.

The only reason I have the smallest bit of hope is that this is a state case in California and not a federal one.

California is not going to punish Apple Execs lmao.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#69

Post by weaksauce »

grogenaut wrote: post #55
ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a state case. Referral for criminal charges goes to a district attorney in Northern California. Trump's DOJ could try to lean on California but no one in California has any taste for Trump and his people.

Have you been to the county of orange? San Francisco does not California make.

orange county is still pretty liberal just not quite as liberal as the other parts. huntington beach and newport beach is not all of orange.

Re: Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #43
afavour wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a culture war sideshow it's a "buying favor with the administration" sideshow. And it does matter, Trump is not exactly a man with a strong loyalty streak. Demonstrating fealty to him on a regular basis could absolutely result in preferable outcomes for Apple.

This is a state case. Referral for criminal charges goes to a district attorney in Northern California. Trump's DOJ could try to lean on California but no one in California has any taste for Trump and his people.

No, it is a federal case in the US District Court for the District of Northern California, and the referrals go to Pam Bondi’s DOJ.

You seem to have made the mistake of thinking that a news article saying “a judge in northern California" means “a State of California judge in the northern part of that state" rather than “a federal judge in the Northern California District Court”.

Post reply on HN