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

301–310 of 389 posts

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

#301

Post by kn0where »

mike-the-mikado wrote: post #236
Molitor5901 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple has needed a change of leadership since day one of the Cook era. He may have been brilliant at logistics and putting products on shelves, but I think Apple innovation has flatlined under Cooke and if anything, the holier than thou arrogance of Apple in general has grown exponentially. Maybe it's time to breakup Apple - separate the computer and phone divisions.

A more user friendly option would be to separate them into a hardware and a software company. The hardware company would have to publish specs allowing anyone to offer operating systems running on Apple hardware.

The return of Claris!

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

#302

Post by cscurmudgeon »

manquer wrote: post #250
wiktor-k wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. Wait, isn't the board personally liable for their decisions? I'm not a lawyer, obviously.

Not even when their product kills thousands or more and they knowingly took action that resulted in those deaths. Perdue pharma is a high profile recent example of this , but there dozens of such events from big tobacco to baby formula

[dead]

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

#303

Post by [deleted] »

atoav wrote: post #251
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #248

I really, really, really hope this guy gets treated like very else under similar circumstances. Top execs are totally used to be able to buy their way out of problems with company money without any personal repercussions other than maybe a big severance package.

The argument for the high wages was always the "big responsibilty" the manegerial class has to bear. IMO to hold them personally liable is the absolite bare minimum, they already for the money for it. In reality CEO processes are often among the line: "You earned 10 Millions in boni for illegal behavior? Here is a 100K fine!" A simple tradesperson is also personally responsible when they fuck up their job despite bet…

[deleted]

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

#304

Post by jwlake »

Osiris wrote: post #166
torben-friis wrote: post #7

>Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly. The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. Judging by tech, apple is right now in deep water due to the failure of deli…

Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that 1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying 2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order. In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane. I really hope that criminal charg…

The judge should really fine apple in the form of a 100% refund of everyones fees for the duration of this behavior. That's the only way the pain is great enough to force forward compliance.

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

#305

Post by wyldfire »

mrandish wrote: post #282
chrisjj wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance Why not both?

Execs will continue to default to obfuscating and misleading in testimony as well as minimally complying with court orders until a high-profile exec spends time in jail for criminal contempt. I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need. While I'm sure he lied and obfuscated, I doubt a VP Finance was really the top decision-maker on "Despite the clear court order, we're going to kee…

> Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options

Unless they omitted (C) and the EVP suggested it, it seems like they should share the blame by proposing something that's not an actual option.

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

#306

Post by nielsbot »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #299

Where’s the coercive remedy? Judges always mess this up. They act like their words have power. They issue one injunction, the party violates it in a flagrant manner, then the judge issues a new injunction. You have to impose a coercive doubling fine, or something like that. Say $10 Million on day 1, $20 Million on day two, until compliance is secured.

Or jail time for those responsible.

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

#307

Post by pjmlp »

chongli wrote: post #287
gruturo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also proof that antitrust laws are beneficial, if only they were enforced (a lot) more seriously and frequently and uniformly.

The jury's still out on this case. When historians look back a hundred years from now, will they consider it beneficial that Apple survived? Or will they see it as an unfortunate reprieve for a company that wrought unfathomable destruction upon our society via the creation of the smartphone and the attention economy that soon followed? It's really hard to argue counterfactuals on this one. Perhaps the smartphone woul…

I would keep enjoying my Maemo or Symbian Belle probably, who knows.

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

#308

Post by pjmlp »

jasode wrote: post #192
semanticist wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP isn't talking about iPhone devs, they're talking about a decade before that when Apple was called 'Apple Computer' and had mad a series of bad business choices (confusing product line up, allowing other companies to make Mac clones, etc). Developers had started to abandon the Mac OS platform - or at least start making Windows versions of previously Mac-only software - and getting developer confidence back was…

>The OP isn't talking about iPhone devs, OP's wording was somewhat confusing because they were talking about the later iPhone devs with, >", now they think devs need them" by comparing them to the 1997 Mac OS devs. As though possibly implying that Apple incorrectly misjudged the later iPhone-era devs' leverage as if it's the opposition situation of "Apple is the one that needs the devs" and somehow Apple misunderstan…

In US maybe, we had plenty touch screen smartphones in Europe, between Nokia, Siemens-Ericson and PocketPC/Windows CE.

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

#310

Post by lmz »

wyldfire wrote: post #305
mrandish wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Execs will continue to default to obfuscating and misleading in testimony as well as minimally complying with court orders until a high-profile exec spends time in jail for criminal contempt. I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need. While I'm sure he lied and obfuscated, I doubt a VP Finance was really the top decision-maker on "Despite the clear court order, we're going to kee…

> Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options Unless they omitted (C) and the EVP suggested it, it seems like they should share the blame by proposing something that's not an actual option.

It's always an option, just not a risk-free one.
Post reply on HN