41 ms·

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

1036 points by connor11528 1y ago

slipperybeluga 1y ago
[dead]
perihelions 1y ago
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 ("Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds (wsj.com)" — 336 comments)
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
Will the executive actually face an criminal charges? No they will not.
- jordanb 1y ago
  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 pushback needed to put them back in line is very small. Once they see any consequences for their actions they will fall in line.
  - AlexandrB 1y ago
    I think cowards is the wrong word - more like opportunists. Like you said, almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus.
    - bluSCALE4 1y ago
      The coward part was to stress his later point that they'll all fall in line like a herd of animals.
    - chrisjj 1y ago
      > almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus. Almost no-one gets that choice. The choose a risk of going to jail for a more likely bonus.
      - californical 1y ago
        But they don’t, because there is no risk. If there was, many wouldn’t take it
        chrisjj 1y ago
        Many =/= all.
  - notyourwork 1y ago
    Generally I agree but I think the pushback needs to be a bit larger than you suggest. Over the last 25 years, we’ve become more tolerant to larger leeway for those of certain societal status. A relatively large whiplash must happen to course correct the general behavior, in my opinion.
    - blooalien 1y ago
      > "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.
      - chipsrafferty 1y ago
        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.
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > 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.
    - heroprotagonist 1y ago
      > we’ve become more tolerant We've become more powerless, you mean. The government has become more tolerant.
  - voakbasda 1y ago
    > Once they see any consequences for their actions they will fall in line. I would wager that idea crossed the mind of Luigi Mangione. It will take more than a slap on the hand from the court to change anything.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    > most people that the law no longer applies to the powerful gee, I wonder why! you now have POTUS openly defying the direct orders from the highest court. That's so much further past some corp executive committing a crime that hasn't even gone to trial yet.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > 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.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      >We've been asking ourselves "wtf are the Russian oligarchs doing" No, we have not. There is no oligarchs in Russia, money has no political subjectivity in Russia, and they are owned by those whom Putin put in charge for this.
  - autoexec 1y ago
    > There is this despondent feeling among most people that the law no longer applies to the powerful It's less of a feeling and more of a repeatedly demonstrated reality. It shouldn't be that way, but most of the time it is. I'd love for that to change, but I can't fault people for not expecting it to happen any time soon.
- Molitor5901 1y ago
  and the 9th Circuit is almost certain to overturn this. Apple is a major employer, donor, etc. that I can't see this going all the way. I hope, but I am so jaded on the courts doing anything to actually hold companies and their executives responsible that I can't help but be pessimistic.
- chrisjj 1y ago
  > Will the executive actually face an criminal charges? No they will not. How so?
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    Rich people in America rarely face consequences for anything, even flagrantly lying under oath. I would bet good money no one faces any jail time, but I would be happy to be wrong.
    - chrisjj 1y ago
      Rarely =/= never.
- leptons 1y ago
  All they have to do is pony up $2 million and they can buy a pardon from a criminal president. Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve if you're rich like Apple execs.
torben-friis 1y ago
>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 delivering apple intelligence and a major drop in software quality. Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. Now, it seems Cook is going for shady behavior against judges. Maybe it’s time for a major change of leadership. Financially they might be ok, but one can’t avoid the feeling they’re burning the furniture to heat the house.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  A change of leadership? This is clear, obvious, undenied evidence of Tim Cook committing a criminal act. This is a crime. A coordinated, intentional, well-informed crime made in malice! He should go to jail!
  - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
    100%. For any regular citizen this would obviously lead to jail time. Being Tim Cook shouldn't change that.
    - klipt 1y ago
      Cook just didn't aim high enough. Commit one felony, go to jail. Commit thirty felonies, become president!
    - benoau 1y ago
      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!
      - Reubachi 1y ago
blitzar 1y ago
[flagged]
ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
I hope he gets criminal charges. The amount of people who lie under oath and get away with it is unacceptable. Lets get all the politicians who lied under oath next as well.
- intrasight 1y ago
  It's not gonna happen. And for the reason that you just gave.
  - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
    The only reason I have the smallest bit of hope is that this is a state case in California and not a federal one.
    - TechDebtDevin 1y ago
      California is not going to punish Apple Execs lmao.
    - teraflop 1y ago
      No, it's a federal court case. The original claim that Epic won against Apple was based on California state law, but it was decided in a federal US District Court (N.D. Cal) because there were also claims under federal law (the Sherman Antitrust Act) and because Epic and Apple are headquartered in different states.
  - chrisjj 1y ago
    They didn't give a reason.
- aeurielesn 1y ago
  It's baffling putting together a C-suite of anti-competitive executives doesn't get anyone criminal charges.
  - hobs 1y ago
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
John Gruber has a good summary of the ruling: https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app_store_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."
- onionisafruit 1y ago
  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.
- cyral 1y ago
  Great summary. I will add to this: > Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Not only have they been asking for this, but the link to your external checkout could only be in once place in your app, and could not be part of the payment flow (where else would you put it??) They also want rights to audit your financials to determine compliance And this scary popup before going to the external payment page: https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a68862403700b14a148c085898ab7b8.png https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370... Not sure if such a large font is used anywhere else in iOS The whole thing was so obviously designed to prevent any developer from seriously considering it, maintaining their anti-competitive advantage. Glad the judge finally had enough.
  - chrisjj 1y ago
    > And this scary popup before going to the external payment page: https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370 https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370... My. They forgot "Apple cannot guarantee making payment elsewhere won't give you cancer."
dataflow 1y ago
Is there any reason to believe anyone will even get charged, let alone face trial, let alone convicted? And if so is there any reason to believe they won't be pardoned upon a conviction?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
  > 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?
  - coldpie 1y ago
    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.
    - afavour 1y ago
      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.
      - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
        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.
post_break 1y ago
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 nothing without Apple. Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. It was already a niche device, but it's a ghost town.
- pyronik19 1y ago
  Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.
  - xp84 1y ago
    I believe you -- though it's not surprising in the USA. Apple absolutely dominates the US market. I'd estimate of the top 75% of incomes Apple has at least an 80% market share. I live in a high-income area and the only Androids I ever see are carried by my house cleaners. And among young people it's only more intense because teens are so obsessed with brand cachet (as they always have been). Now, on HN we know some people, though plenty wealthy enough to afford Apple, are choosing Android for function. But I doubt most of the public even thinks about that choice through that lens. Green bubble is the same as arriving to pick up your date in a 2002 Civic. It projects "I'm probably broke." Statistically. In the US only.
- philistine 1y ago
  The Playdate, made by Panic, has a more active store than Vision Pro.
  - CharlesW 1y ago
    The Playdate store has ~300 games. Apple Vision Pro has ~3,000 native apps, plus millions more compatible iPhone/iPad apps.
philistine 1y ago
Tim Cook has overstayed his welcome. He should have left years ago at this point. That plus the fact that all his successors are built on the same nondescript mold he came out of, does not bode well for the strategic vision of Apple.
- sitkack 1y ago
  I know Tim does a better job, but he is the mirror image of his counterpart at Google. Made from the same mold. Great peace time substitutes, lousy leaders.
  - bitpush 1y ago
    The CEO of Google seems to be navigating the AI war pretty competently. A few months back everyone was writing the eulogies for Google and how they fumbled AI. Now Gemini is one of the top models (if not the best) and it is extremely capable and price competitive Meanwhile Apple is still trying to wrap the head around AI. (Didn't stop them from making a splashy marketing campaign though) So no, both companies are not the same.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      I didn’t say the companies were the same. Google has no idea how to survive in the new paradigm.
- behnamoh 1y ago
  > Tim Cook has overstayed his welcome. This isn't the first time an influential leader (like Jobs) chooses the next leader only for everyone to realize the next person isn't a "leader" type, but rather someone who was put in charge to maintain the status quo, not tarnish the previous leader's legacy, and not come up with crazy new ideas.
  - layer8 1y ago
    It doesn't look to have achieved those goals this time around.
AtlasBarfed 1y ago
My biggest takeaway out of this is Jim Jordan in the Senate trying to sneak through antitrust weakening. From the "free market" party from a senator with at least some shame on the red aisle. It really is open season for buying politicians.
- cynicalpeace 1y ago
  Correct, but as the article states, it was the MAGA side that laid into him and made him pull it. Steve Bannon has said many times he would've kept Lina Khan. The populists are socially conservative but economically liberal in many respects (not all, obviously)
- myko 1y ago
  Jim Jordan is in the House of Reps fyi He should be in jail for covering up a sexual abuse scandal, but alas
cosmicgadget 1y ago
> 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.
- hedora 1y ago
  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-cook-seen-behind-us-president-donald-trump-news-photo/2194374835 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.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Haha okay fair point, the negotiation already took place. Though the contempt referral may have not been part of the deal and might cost extra.
jobs_throwaway 1y ago
[flagged]
vessenes 1y ago
In the words of a trial lawyer friend of mine, “Nobody in the history of the world has said, ‘You know what? The judge was right; I was an asshole.’ Definitely some of those vibes there. I’ve generally been on team apple for this case, and as Gruber notes, they largely won the case. Dunking on their power to set other contractual fees seems to have come back to bite them. That said, as a user, I strongly prefer to use Apple’s in-app payments — I was just buying a hearthstone purchase from Blizzard; on my laptop it popped up options like “Credit Card or PayPal?” I was like “nah” and loaded it up on my iPad to pay with Apple Pay. Do I hate PayPal? No. Do I appreciate a payment service that shows all my recurring payments in one place, lets me cancel them, and feels generally very safe? Yes. I’m happy to have Apple compete on fair playing field for payments. Summary: Oops.
- rideontime 1y ago
  I'm unable to find where Gruber says that Apple "largely won" (not that I would be surprised to see Gruber making such a claim). His latest headline literally begins with "Apple lost." Where are you seeing that?
  - wtallis 1y ago
    From https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app_store_ruling https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app... > Keep in mind this whole thing stems from an injunction from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games that Apple largely won. The result of that lawsuit was basically, “OK, Apple wins, Epic loses, but this whole thing where apps in the App Store aren’t allowed to inform users of offers available outside the App Store, or send them to such offers on the web (outside the app) via easily tappable links, is bullshit and needs to stop. If the App Store is not anticompetitive it should be able to compete with links to the web and offers from outside the App Store.” And there's a subsequent post elaborating on this point: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/01/apple-lost-but-did-epic-win https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/01/apple-lost-but-...
    - rideontime 1y ago
rdtsc 1y ago
Link to the court doc: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... > The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases. (May 2024 Tr. 266:22–267:11 (Roman).) > Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases: > Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct? A. The decision was made that day. > Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what -- what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? A. That is correct > (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).) Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance
- chrisjj 1y ago
  > So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance Why not both?
  - rdtsc 1y ago
    Well good point. I guess I was just trying to present it as he just lied because he thought it's not a big deal, as in he is incompetent enough to not understand in the kind of trouble he can be in. Or, he fully understood what deep shit he would be in, but it was a worthy risk to become Mr. Cook's personal favorite.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    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 keep fucking with Fortnite through aggressive non-compliance". I suspect that's an EVP on Tim Cook's staff. Having spent several years at the top levels of an F500 valley tech company, I'm certain a consistent, broad and aggressive posture like that doesn't happen by accident or any lower than EVP. There was a meeting at some point where the Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options: A) Give in and do what the court ordered, B) Do most of what the court ordered but drag our feet on all of it and 'accidentally' miss some of it where plausibly deniable, C) Make only token concessions to the order while ensuring the actual intent of the order is blocked, delayed or minimized wherever possible. 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.
yalogin 1y ago
Wow that is pretty damning. I understand that they want to protect their revenue, but looks like they screwed up here.
fencepost 1y ago
Ah, but will there be any actual financial penalties against Apple to address the revenue they received as a result of this? Or would developers have to start their own cases to attempt to recover anything?
- Osiris 1y ago
  The end of the order says that they are referring the issue to the DoJ for criminal charges, which is where a fine would be issued if found guilty.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
No Server Name Indication (SNI): https://web.archive.org/web/20250501083454if_/https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied https://web.archive.org/web/20250501083454if_/https://www.th...
- aylmao 1y ago
  Out of curiosity, what does SNI stand for?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  https://github.com/kontaxis/snidump https://github.com/kontaxis/snidump Try running snidump for a day while reading HN, including (With SNI) firefox https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied Have a look at the snidump output. Then restart snidump and try (Without SNI, i.e., "No SNI") { printf 'GET /web/20250501083454if_/https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied HTTP/1.0\r\n' printf 'Host: web.archive.org\r\n\r\n' } |openssl s_client -connect archive.org:443 -ign_eof -noservername > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm
asadm 1y ago
Is it a coincidence that this ruling comes near earnings (which is today)?
- pdabbadabba 1y ago
  It's probably a coincidence. Having worked for federal judges I can tell you that, by and large, they make a point of paying no attention to that kind of stuff.
MisterBastahrd 1y ago
This is nothing that a donation to a Trump PAC or shitcoin won't be able to fix.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
Can we go after Apple for the green bubble discrimination? It's responsible for the rise of incels... https://www.joe.co.uk/life/sex/owning-an-android-is-officially-the-uks-biggest-turn-off-for-2021-307627 https://www.joe.co.uk/life/sex/owning-an-android-is-official...
- saagarjha 1y ago
  No, it's not.
dang 1y ago
Related ongoing threads: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 - May 2025 (504 comments) A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 - May 2025 (58 comments)
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
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.
- atoav 1y ago
  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 better knowledge. So if those can go to jail for the consequences of their dealings why shouldn't a CEO where the consequences are potentially of a scale several magnitudes higher? Wasn't personal responsibility in everybodies mouths, or is that only important when we talk about poor people?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 1y ago
    Singapore got this right with everything up to capital punishment for white collar crimes.
    - atoav 1y ago
      And fines as a percentage of income or with a point system, e.g. when they catch you speeding. The goal is to make it equally painful to break the law to a poor and a rich person as is only just. Otherwise what is painful punishment for a poor person is just a laughable fee for rich people.
    - jibcage 1y ago
      I agree with disincentivizing white collar crime with more severe punitive measures, but if you throw capital punishment into the mix you’re just trading one ethical dilemma for another.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
I am not sure but it does seem that apple's stock price has taken a hit. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/ Maybe somebody could enlighten me but the off hours part shows -2.3%, is that a correction because people are losing faith in apple or what exactly? and would these off hours loses get converted to on hour losses or what exactly? (Sorry I could ask AI but I might as well ask here as well) So I had done some calculations and please correct me if you think I am wrong but at 4:00 pm USA time (EDT?) the stock was selling at 213.5 open (I am not sure what the differences b/w open,close etc. are , I am not a finance guy) but it went from 213.5 open to 207.8 right now Taking the % lose from its peak just at 4 PM EDT & multiplying it by its market cap? 3.19Trillion(1- 207.5/213.5 ) is 89_648_711_944 , ie. 89 Billion $. So from my understanding Apple lost 89B $ in like a span of 2 hours (4PM EDT to 5:10-ish PM EDT which is the approx current time while writing this post) That sounds REALLY BIG. Like I used to think damn Trillion $ are a lot but if such a case can cause apple to lose 89B$ in span of 2 hours then either I am doing some calculation wrong or this case has a truly big gravity that its worth not to just skim over it I guess and truly read it at detail I suppose. Just my two cents..
- TeaBrain 1y ago
  Bloomberg reported that the shares fell because their sales in China under-performed estimates.
  - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
    By bloomberg, you mean bloomberg terminal or what exactly? Thanks for this information. I was genuinely confused after I had written this comment because well this information of epic games was already available 8 hours earlier so that had already been factored in the market 2 hours ago so I was confused as to why this change in 2 hours. Also, I would genuinely appreciate it if we could have a seperate HN thread just for this news itself. Sounds really interesting and I have quite an opinion on it
    - sgerenser 1y ago
jongjong 1y ago
I wish the government took more steps to fix the monopolizing forces in the system instead of focusing on antitrust. The way the monetary system is set up guarantees that market monopolies will occur. The monetary playing field is centralized and asymmetric. It's a basically a system of privilege and handicaps on a broad spectrum. Then people are surprised that those with more privileges keep winning predictably and form monopolies.
goodluckchuck 1y ago
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.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  Or jail time for those responsible.
  - goodluckchuck 1y ago
    Incarcerating someone until they comply is a tried and true approach, but it’s complicated with a company. Who do you jail? The CEO? What if he’s directed his subordinates to comply and they simply know he doesn’t really want them to? It’s hard to jail those lower down the food chain, because does Apple even care? I don’t know that would be effective. They might get indignant and use it as a rallying cry, because it doesn’t really cost the business anything. A more comparable analogy would be to enjoin Apple from selling the relevant products, e.g. they cannot collect any commissions until they comply. Jail is a good punishment, but not a very effective form of coercion when the wrongdoer is a business.
    - nielsbot 1y ago
      I just assume the threat of jail would be pretty coercive. And a trial would help figure out who is at fault and what penalty they pay? (IANAL)
physhster 1y ago
[flagged]
stahtops 1y ago
In the first few paragraphs the court states that it is anti-competitive for a company to set its profit margin to a factor that isn't linked to the value of its intellectual property. Isn't this business 101? Charge what the market will bear? Unclear to me why the court thinks profit margin needs to be a factor of the value of goods/services/ip, or that the court is even capable of determining what that value is?
offtotheraces 1y ago
App Store has been a cesspool of liars and thieves, criminals and sadists for years, from Phil Schiller to Bill Havlicek and many, many more.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  The judge actually complimented Schiller for wanting to follow the spirit of the ruling based on discussions that were had inside Apple and he was overruled by the CFO and Cook.
- shaunkoh 1y ago
  Phil Schiller came across well here in the report. He was overruled by Tim Cook.
ashoeafoot 1y ago
Could a approach of defeat by ablation be countered with parallizing interrogations under oath?
mark336 1y ago
-1 for Apple vs Epic -1 for Apple contempt of FTC Monopoly ruling +1 for Apples DEI stance -1 for Apple going to Trump over DMA rulings in Europe And GTFOH, now Apple is pulling the rug on China and moving most iPhone production to India? If you want to stay on top of the major happenings in Big Tech or chips see my news forum site: http://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads http://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads
heyaco 1y ago
the entire board and executive team needs to be gutted. become too rotten.

1036 points by connor11528 1y ago

[dead]

Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 ("Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds (wsj.com)" — 336 comments)

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

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

jordanb 1y ago
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 pushback needed to put them back in line is very small. Once they see any consequences for their actions they will fall in line.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  I think cowards is the wrong word - more like opportunists. Like you said, almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus.
  - bluSCALE4 1y ago
    The coward part was to stress his later point that they'll all fall in line like a herd of animals.
  - chrisjj 1y ago
    > almost no one wants to go to jail for "shareholder value" or a 10% bonus. Almost no-one gets that choice. The choose a risk of going to jail for a more likely bonus.
    - californical 1y ago
      But they don’t, because there is no risk. If there was, many wouldn’t take it
      - chrisjj 1y ago
        Many =/= all.
- notyourwork 1y ago
  Generally I agree but I think the pushback needs to be a bit larger than you suggest. Over the last 25 years, we’ve become more tolerant to larger leeway for those of certain societal status. A relatively large whiplash must happen to course correct the general behavior, in my opinion.
  - blooalien 1y ago
    > "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.
    - chipsrafferty 1y ago
      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.
      - mschuster91 1y ago
        > 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.
  - heroprotagonist 1y ago
    > we’ve become more tolerant We've become more powerless, you mean. The government has become more tolerant.
- voakbasda 1y ago
  > Once they see any consequences for their actions they will fall in line. I would wager that idea crossed the mind of Luigi Mangione. It will take more than a slap on the hand from the court to change anything.
- dylan604 1y ago
  > most people that the law no longer applies to the powerful gee, I wonder why! you now have POTUS openly defying the direct orders from the highest court. That's so much further past some corp executive committing a crime that hasn't even gone to trial yet.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > 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.
  - Ray20 1y ago
    >We've been asking ourselves "wtf are the Russian oligarchs doing" No, we have not. There is no oligarchs in Russia, money has no political subjectivity in Russia, and they are owned by those whom Putin put in charge for this.
- autoexec 1y ago
  > There is this despondent feeling among most people that the law no longer applies to the powerful It's less of a feeling and more of a repeatedly demonstrated reality. It shouldn't be that way, but most of the time it is. I'd love for that to change, but I can't fault people for not expecting it to happen any time soon.
Molitor5901 1y ago
and the 9th Circuit is almost certain to overturn this. Apple is a major employer, donor, etc. that I can't see this going all the way. I hope, but I am so jaded on the courts doing anything to actually hold companies and their executives responsible that I can't help but be pessimistic.
chrisjj 1y ago
> Will the executive actually face an criminal charges? No they will not. How so?
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  Rich people in America rarely face consequences for anything, even flagrantly lying under oath. I would bet good money no one faces any jail time, but I would be happy to be wrong.
  - chrisjj 1y ago
    Rarely =/= never.
leptons 1y ago
All they have to do is pony up $2 million and they can buy a pardon from a criminal president. Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve if you're rich like Apple execs.

torben-friis 1y ago

>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 delivering apple intelligence and a major drop in software quality. Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. Now, it seems Cook is going for shady behavior against judges. Maybe it’s time for a major change of leadership. Financially they might be ok, but one can’t avoid the feeling they’re burning the furniture to heat the house.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
A change of leadership? This is clear, obvious, undenied evidence of Tim Cook committing a criminal act. This is a crime. A coordinated, intentional, well-informed crime made in malice! He should go to jail!
- jobs_throwaway 1y ago
  100%. For any regular citizen this would obviously lead to jail time. Being Tim Cook shouldn't change that.
  - klipt 1y ago
    Cook just didn't aim high enough. Commit one felony, go to jail. Commit thirty felonies, become president!
  - benoau 1y ago
    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!
    - Reubachi 1y ago

blitzar 1y ago

[flagged]

ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago

I hope he gets criminal charges. The amount of people who lie under oath and get away with it is unacceptable. Lets get all the politicians who lied under oath next as well.

intrasight 1y ago
It's not gonna happen. And for the reason that you just gave.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
  The only reason I have the smallest bit of hope is that this is a state case in California and not a federal one.
  - TechDebtDevin 1y ago
    California is not going to punish Apple Execs lmao.
  - teraflop 1y ago
    No, it's a federal court case. The original claim that Epic won against Apple was based on California state law, but it was decided in a federal US District Court (N.D. Cal) because there were also claims under federal law (the Sherman Antitrust Act) and because Epic and Apple are headquartered in different states.
- chrisjj 1y ago
  They didn't give a reason.
aeurielesn 1y ago
It's baffling putting together a C-suite of anti-competitive executives doesn't get anyone criminal charges.
- hobs 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

John Gruber has a good summary of the ruling: https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app_store_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."

onionisafruit 1y ago
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.
cyral 1y ago
Great summary. I will add to this: > Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Not only have they been asking for this, but the link to your external checkout could only be in once place in your app, and could not be part of the payment flow (where else would you put it??) They also want rights to audit your financials to determine compliance And this scary popup before going to the external payment page: https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a68862403700b14a148c085898ab7b8.png https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370... Not sure if such a large font is used anywhere else in iOS The whole thing was so obviously designed to prevent any developer from seriously considering it, maintaining their anti-competitive advantage. Glad the judge finally had enough.
- chrisjj 1y ago
  > And this scary popup before going to the external payment page: https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370 https://d7ych6cwyfyiba.archive.is/AZrEz/0c8d40ed4a6886240370... My. They forgot "Apple cannot guarantee making payment elsewhere won't give you cancer."

dataflow 1y ago

Is there any reason to believe anyone will even get charged, let alone face trial, let alone convicted? And if so is there any reason to believe they won't be pardoned upon a conviction?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
DaiPlusPlus 1y ago
> 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?
- coldpie 1y ago
  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.
  - afavour 1y ago
    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.
    - ujkhsjkdhf234 1y ago
      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.

post_break 1y ago

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 nothing without Apple. Look at how snubbing developers has worked out for the Apple Vision Pro. It was already a niche device, but it's a ghost town.

pyronik19 1y ago
Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.
- xp84 1y ago
  I believe you -- though it's not surprising in the USA. Apple absolutely dominates the US market. I'd estimate of the top 75% of incomes Apple has at least an 80% market share. I live in a high-income area and the only Androids I ever see are carried by my house cleaners. And among young people it's only more intense because teens are so obsessed with brand cachet (as they always have been). Now, on HN we know some people, though plenty wealthy enough to afford Apple, are choosing Android for function. But I doubt most of the public even thinks about that choice through that lens. Green bubble is the same as arriving to pick up your date in a 2002 Civic. It projects "I'm probably broke." Statistically. In the US only.
philistine 1y ago
The Playdate, made by Panic, has a more active store than Vision Pro.
- CharlesW 1y ago
  The Playdate store has ~300 games. Apple Vision Pro has ~3,000 native apps, plus millions more compatible iPhone/iPad apps.

philistine 1y ago

Tim Cook has overstayed his welcome. He should have left years ago at this point. That plus the fact that all his successors are built on the same nondescript mold he came out of, does not bode well for the strategic vision of Apple.

sitkack 1y ago
I know Tim does a better job, but he is the mirror image of his counterpart at Google. Made from the same mold. Great peace time substitutes, lousy leaders.
- bitpush 1y ago
  The CEO of Google seems to be navigating the AI war pretty competently. A few months back everyone was writing the eulogies for Google and how they fumbled AI. Now Gemini is one of the top models (if not the best) and it is extremely capable and price competitive Meanwhile Apple is still trying to wrap the head around AI. (Didn't stop them from making a splashy marketing campaign though) So no, both companies are not the same.
  - sitkack 1y ago
    I didn’t say the companies were the same. Google has no idea how to survive in the new paradigm.
behnamoh 1y ago
> Tim Cook has overstayed his welcome. This isn't the first time an influential leader (like Jobs) chooses the next leader only for everyone to realize the next person isn't a "leader" type, but rather someone who was put in charge to maintain the status quo, not tarnish the previous leader's legacy, and not come up with crazy new ideas.
- layer8 1y ago
  It doesn't look to have achieved those goals this time around.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

My biggest takeaway out of this is Jim Jordan in the Senate trying to sneak through antitrust weakening. From the "free market" party from a senator with at least some shame on the red aisle. It really is open season for buying politicians.

cynicalpeace 1y ago
Correct, but as the article states, it was the MAGA side that laid into him and made him pull it. Steve Bannon has said many times he would've kept Lina Khan. The populists are socially conservative but economically liberal in many respects (not all, obviously)
myko 1y ago
Jim Jordan is in the House of Reps fyi He should be in jail for covering up a sexual abuse scandal, but alas

cosmicgadget 1y ago

> 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.

hedora 1y ago
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-cook-seen-behind-us-president-donald-trump-news-photo/2194374835 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.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Haha okay fair point, the negotiation already took place. Though the contempt referral may have not been part of the deal and might cost extra.

jobs_throwaway 1y ago

[flagged]

vessenes 1y ago

In the words of a trial lawyer friend of mine, “Nobody in the history of the world has said, ‘You know what? The judge was right; I was an asshole.’ Definitely some of those vibes there. I’ve generally been on team apple for this case, and as Gruber notes, they largely won the case. Dunking on their power to set other contractual fees seems to have come back to bite them. That said, as a user, I strongly prefer to use Apple’s in-app payments — I was just buying a hearthstone purchase from Blizzard; on my laptop it popped up options like “Credit Card or PayPal?” I was like “nah” and loaded it up on my iPad to pay with Apple Pay. Do I hate PayPal? No. Do I appreciate a payment service that shows all my recurring payments in one place, lets me cancel them, and feels generally very safe? Yes. I’m happy to have Apple compete on fair playing field for payments. Summary: Oops.

rideontime 1y ago
I'm unable to find where Gruber says that Apple "largely won" (not that I would be surprised to see Gruber making such a claim). His latest headline literally begins with "Apple lost." Where are you seeing that?
- wtallis 1y ago
  From https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app_store_ruling https://daringfireball.net/2025/04/gonzales_rogers_apple_app... > Keep in mind this whole thing stems from an injunction from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games that Apple largely won. The result of that lawsuit was basically, “OK, Apple wins, Epic loses, but this whole thing where apps in the App Store aren’t allowed to inform users of offers available outside the App Store, or send them to such offers on the web (outside the app) via easily tappable links, is bullshit and needs to stop. If the App Store is not anticompetitive it should be able to compete with links to the web and offers from outside the App Store.” And there's a subsequent post elaborating on this point: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/01/apple-lost-but-did-epic-win https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/05/01/apple-lost-but-...
  - rideontime 1y ago

rdtsc 1y ago

Link to the court doc: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1508.0_2.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... > The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases. (May 2024 Tr. 266:22–267:11 (Roman).) > Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases: > Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct? A. The decision was made that day. > Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what -- what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? A. That is correct > (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).) Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance

chrisjj 1y ago
> So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance Why not both?
- rdtsc 1y ago
  Well good point. I guess I was just trying to present it as he just lied because he thought it's not a big deal, as in he is incompetent enough to not understand in the kind of trouble he can be in. Or, he fully understood what deep shit he would be in, but it was a worthy risk to become Mr. Cook's personal favorite.
- mrandish 1y ago
  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 keep fucking with Fortnite through aggressive non-compliance". I suspect that's an EVP on Tim Cook's staff. Having spent several years at the top levels of an F500 valley tech company, I'm certain a consistent, broad and aggressive posture like that doesn't happen by accident or any lower than EVP. There was a meeting at some point where the Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options: A) Give in and do what the court ordered, B) Do most of what the court ordered but drag our feet on all of it and 'accidentally' miss some of it where plausibly deniable, C) Make only token concessions to the order while ensuring the actual intent of the order is blocked, delayed or minimized wherever possible. 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.

yalogin 1y ago

Wow that is pretty damning. I understand that they want to protect their revenue, but looks like they screwed up here.

fencepost 1y ago

Ah, but will there be any actual financial penalties against Apple to address the revenue they received as a result of this? Or would developers have to start their own cases to attempt to recover anything?

Osiris 1y ago
The end of the order says that they are referring the issue to the DoJ for criminal charges, which is where a fine would be issued if found guilty.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

No Server Name Indication (SNI): https://web.archive.org/web/20250501083454if_/https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied https://web.archive.org/web/20250501083454if_/https://www.th...

aylmao 1y ago
Out of curiosity, what does SNI stand for?
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
https://github.com/kontaxis/snidump https://github.com/kontaxis/snidump Try running snidump for a day while reading HN, including (With SNI) firefox https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied Have a look at the snidump output. Then restart snidump and try (Without SNI, i.e., "No SNI") { printf 'GET /web/20250501083454if_/https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judge-rules-apple-executive-lied HTTP/1.0\r\n' printf 'Host: web.archive.org\r\n\r\n' } |openssl s_client -connect archive.org:443 -ign_eof -noservername > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm

asadm 1y ago

Is it a coincidence that this ruling comes near earnings (which is today)?

pdabbadabba 1y ago
It's probably a coincidence. Having worked for federal judges I can tell you that, by and large, they make a point of paying no attention to that kind of stuff.

MisterBastahrd 1y ago

This is nothing that a donation to a Trump PAC or shitcoin won't be able to fix.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

Can we go after Apple for the green bubble discrimination? It's responsible for the rise of incels... https://www.joe.co.uk/life/sex/owning-an-android-is-officially-the-uks-biggest-turn-off-for-2021-307627 https://www.joe.co.uk/life/sex/owning-an-android-is-official...

saagarjha 1y ago
No, it's not.

dang 1y ago

Related ongoing threads: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 - May 2025 (504 comments) A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 - May 2025 (58 comments)

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

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.

atoav 1y ago
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 better knowledge. So if those can go to jail for the consequences of their dealings why shouldn't a CEO where the consequences are potentially of a scale several magnitudes higher? Wasn't personal responsibility in everybodies mouths, or is that only important when we talk about poor people?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 1y ago
  Singapore got this right with everything up to capital punishment for white collar crimes.
  - atoav 1y ago
    And fines as a percentage of income or with a point system, e.g. when they catch you speeding. The goal is to make it equally painful to break the law to a poor and a rich person as is only just. Otherwise what is painful punishment for a poor person is just a laughable fee for rich people.
  - jibcage 1y ago
    I agree with disincentivizing white collar crime with more severe punitive measures, but if you throw capital punishment into the mix you’re just trading one ethical dilemma for another.

Imustaskforhelp 1y ago

I am not sure but it does seem that apple's stock price has taken a hit. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/ Maybe somebody could enlighten me but the off hours part shows -2.3%, is that a correction because people are losing faith in apple or what exactly? and would these off hours loses get converted to on hour losses or what exactly? (Sorry I could ask AI but I might as well ask here as well) So I had done some calculations and please correct me if you think I am wrong but at 4:00 pm USA time (EDT?) the stock was selling at 213.5 open (I am not sure what the differences b/w open,close etc. are , I am not a finance guy) but it went from 213.5 open to 207.8 right now Taking the % lose from its peak just at 4 PM EDT & multiplying it by its market cap? 3.19Trillion(1- 207.5/213.5 ) is 89_648_711_944 , ie. 89 Billion $. So from my understanding Apple lost 89B $ in like a span of 2 hours (4PM EDT to 5:10-ish PM EDT which is the approx current time while writing this post) That sounds REALLY BIG. Like I used to think damn Trillion $ are a lot but if such a case can cause apple to lose 89B$ in span of 2 hours then either I am doing some calculation wrong or this case has a truly big gravity that its worth not to just skim over it I guess and truly read it at detail I suppose. Just my two cents..

TeaBrain 1y ago
Bloomberg reported that the shares fell because their sales in China under-performed estimates.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  By bloomberg, you mean bloomberg terminal or what exactly? Thanks for this information. I was genuinely confused after I had written this comment because well this information of epic games was already available 8 hours earlier so that had already been factored in the market 2 hours ago so I was confused as to why this change in 2 hours. Also, I would genuinely appreciate it if we could have a seperate HN thread just for this news itself. Sounds really interesting and I have quite an opinion on it
  - sgerenser 1y ago

jongjong 1y ago

I wish the government took more steps to fix the monopolizing forces in the system instead of focusing on antitrust. The way the monetary system is set up guarantees that market monopolies will occur. The monetary playing field is centralized and asymmetric. It's a basically a system of privilege and handicaps on a broad spectrum. Then people are surprised that those with more privileges keep winning predictably and form monopolies.

goodluckchuck 1y ago

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.

nielsbot 1y ago
Or jail time for those responsible.
- goodluckchuck 1y ago
  Incarcerating someone until they comply is a tried and true approach, but it’s complicated with a company. Who do you jail? The CEO? What if he’s directed his subordinates to comply and they simply know he doesn’t really want them to? It’s hard to jail those lower down the food chain, because does Apple even care? I don’t know that would be effective. They might get indignant and use it as a rallying cry, because it doesn’t really cost the business anything. A more comparable analogy would be to enjoin Apple from selling the relevant products, e.g. they cannot collect any commissions until they comply. Jail is a good punishment, but not a very effective form of coercion when the wrongdoer is a business.
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    I just assume the threat of jail would be pretty coercive. And a trial would help figure out who is at fault and what penalty they pay? (IANAL)

physhster 1y ago

[flagged]

stahtops 1y ago

In the first few paragraphs the court states that it is anti-competitive for a company to set its profit margin to a factor that isn't linked to the value of its intellectual property. Isn't this business 101? Charge what the market will bear? Unclear to me why the court thinks profit margin needs to be a factor of the value of goods/services/ip, or that the court is even capable of determining what that value is?

offtotheraces 1y ago

App Store has been a cesspool of liars and thieves, criminals and sadists for years, from Phil Schiller to Bill Havlicek and many, many more.

scarface_74 1y ago
The judge actually complimented Schiller for wanting to follow the spirit of the ruling based on discussions that were had inside Apple and he was overruled by the CFO and Cook.
shaunkoh 1y ago
Phil Schiller came across well here in the report. He was overruled by Tim Cook.

ashoeafoot 1y ago

Could a approach of defeat by ablation be countered with parallizing interrogations under oath?

mark336 1y ago

-1 for Apple vs Epic -1 for Apple contempt of FTC Monopoly ruling +1 for Apples DEI stance -1 for Apple going to Trump over DMA rulings in Europe And GTFOH, now Apple is pulling the rug on China and moving most iPhone production to India? If you want to stay on top of the major happenings in Big Tech or chips see my news forum site: http://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads http://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads

heyaco 1y ago

the entire board and executive team needs to be gutted. become too rotten.