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

291–300 of 389 posts

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

#291

Post by inopinatus »

mepian wrote: post #188
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.

>Maybe it's time to breakup Apple - separate the computer and phone divisions. Who gets the Apple brand?

The heirs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntosh_(farmer)

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

#292

Post by marcus_holmes »

Reubachi wrote: post #240
benoau wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is they have 2x consumer class actions (US + UK) alleging these 30% fees were always a ripoff, they just became a slam dunk so that’ll be tens of billions they have to pay back!

Genuine question as I'm seeing this sentiment a lot in these threads, and I must be missing something. What you've just described would be the single greatest punishment to an entity in the (admittently recently established) history of case-law, would upend the tech sector (maybe justly), lay off 10s of thousands and effectively stop work at downstream supply chains. I get that this is the point of the punishment. Ho…

Well, theoretically, Apple would have to reimburse the people it stole from, if the fees were found to be illegal. Presumably this would mean every app developer getting reimbursed some of that 30% Apple Tax, or every Apple customer getting refunded some of their Apple purchases, depending on which way the court goes. This could be a very, very large number.

Not so much about punishment, as repayment. However, it's not unusual for courts to also add a punishment element, especially if the offending party knew it was offending (as in this case).

And yes, I think the politicians would let this go through, because "every Apple customer" is a lot of voters.

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

#293

Post by wtallis »

rideontime wrote: post #254
wtallis wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly what he said. The fact the they agreed to a contract prohibiting them from using an outside payment method and then willfully violated that contract is a detail that courts may not be so willing to overlook.

Even though the court found that particular provision to be illegal?

Contract law allows you to sign away many rights you would otherwise retain. I'm not sure that a contract provision being found illegal under antitrust law has the effect of it being retroactively considered unconscionable or excuses agreeing to the contract in bad faith.

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

#294

Post by johnnyanmac »

floxy wrote: post #252
vkou wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. Objectively and ethically, it's reprehensible, but subjectively, we're now living in a blatantly pay-to-play world and everyone else is doing it , and there are clear, easily quantifiable gains of billions to be made from that bribe. (The best part of all this was learning that inauguration bribes have been h…

>The best part of all this was learning that inauguration bribes have been happening for decades, generally to little fanfare. Where can I read more about this?

I'm not surprised, but the thing here (as usual) is how unashamedly blatant it was this rime around. Mask off.

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

#295

Post by fsckboy »

bix6 wrote: post #244
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.

Corps are separate legal entities so individuals are generally protected from personal liability. There can be exceptions in criminal and civil liability instances but even then there things like D&O. Until we stop giving corporations so much legal cover we’re hosed.

>Corps are separate legal entities so individuals are generally protected from personal liability.

not really.

corps have the defining feature that their passive shareholders are protected from personal liability, but not their officers, directors, nor employees.

they are "entities" so they can sign contracts and you can sue them and bring them to court. they are entities so the entire body of preexisting laws about suing and bringing to court would not need to be rewritten from scratch for corporations, it slots them into the rights and responsibilities that individuals have.

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

#296

Post by johnnyanmac »

coldpie wrote: post #23
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if so is there any reason to believe they won't be pardoned upon a conviction? Given Apple's direct pushback against Trump's anti-"DEI" campaign, it's less likely than I might have thought - or maybe that's leverage? e.g. what if Trump promises to pardon Apple's executives if they remove the giant rainbow thingie from Apple Park and stop selling pride-related Apple watch straps?

You are being distracted by the culture war sideshow. No war but the class war, and Apple's execs are definitely powerful enough players in that war to protect themselves from consequences.

>No war but the class war,

You're normally right. But Trump is also a very petty narcissist. His "culture war" is pretty much "anyone who makes him feel bad".

>Apple's execs are definitely powerful enough players in that war to protect themselves from consequences.

That's why I hope courts do start throwing contempt around. Execs need to remember they aren't above the law to the point where they can blatantly lie to a judge.

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

#297

Post by 6510 »

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…

That would suggest the fine should be in the hundreds of billions?

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

#298

Post by Brian_K_White »

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…

We all hope a lot of things. Come on.

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

#299

Post by goodluckchuck »

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.

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

#300

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> Someone with an EVP title picked "C" and until that person spends a couple months in jail on criminal contempt, senior execs will never pick "A". The VP Finance going down isn't enough. Until Tim Cook's staff meeting has an empty EVP chair for several months, none of this is serious. They'll just accelerate this VP Finance's options, bonus the shit out of him and consider his "sacrifice" to be collateral damage.

Agree. They'd have to feel some personal threat of going to prison or at least losing their fortune. As long as they feel protected behind the corporate veil, it's not a big deal to them.

Post reply on HN