7 ms·

>Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luc

>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 2y 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 2y 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
      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. However, do you think politicians, investors, lawyers with controlling stake, The DOD with security integrations, would allow that to happen? Put another way, do you think the rule of law exists for the hyper rich when the current admin put.....Linda McMahon on the presidents cabinet?
      - benoau 1y ago
        What does any of this have to do with consumers being ripped off then reimbursed for software? It would only be “the greatest punishment” because it is a subset of what Apple was able to obtain with their illegal methods. They billed hundreds of billions in fees.
      - marcus_holmes 1y ago
        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.
Molitor5901 2y ago
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.
- mepian 1y ago
  >Maybe it's time to breakup Apple - separate the computer and phone divisions. Who gets the Apple brand?
  - Reubachi 1y ago
    easily no question, ios would get apple naming convention. 85 percent of their revenue is from ios and connected services. Which also means, "it's time to breakup apple" means nothing, not sure why OP suggested that as a method to punish a legally problematic CEO/board. they don't have a multisegment monopoly allowing them complete control over supply chains, or multi region monopoly on smartphones that would be effected by a breakup.
  - inopinatus 1y ago
    The heirs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntosh_(farmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntosh_(farmer)
  - josefx 1y ago
    The Beatles? With iTunes going to Apple Records.
- mike-the-mikado 1y ago
  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.
  - 1y ago
udev4096 2y ago
Cook is getting cooked
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crims0n 2y ago
> Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. On the other hand, it may have saved his company billions on tariffs.
- leptons 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - rad_gruchalski 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - intothemild 1y ago
      Lately he's been rather sour... Like a Granny Smith.
      - rad_gruchalski 1y ago
        [flagged]
- jwilber 1y ago
  Only 100 days on and we celebrate open crony capitalism as a smart business decision.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    It is a smart business decision. Don’t blame Apple for operating within the environment that the US voters voted for. The US knew exactly what it was getting - said as American citizen.
    - okanat 1y ago
      Oh yeah. Don't blame all the German companies that used slave labor in concentration camps either. Unhinged capitalism is a mind disease that only ends up in fascism.
test6554 2y ago
Apple might still appeal to a higher court and lean heavily on that donation to Trump for legal support. They as much as said they would appeal the decision.
- mrandish 1y ago
  Apple will certainly appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit and probably to SCOTUS but Apple already appealed the original order which the Ninth denied and SCOTUS denied by declining. That makes an appeal on getting busted for non-compliance of the already appealed ruling unlikely. If the Ninth doesn't issue an emergency stay of the order tomorrow, it'll go into effect while the appeals grind on. This is very likely a done deal except for Apple wasting a little more lawyer money theatrically "exhausting every appeal."
nova22033 2y ago
Tim Cook is an operation guy. With Trump's trade war, operations is going to be even more important.
Osiris 2y ago
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 charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. Hopefully that will make other executives think twice when put in the same situation.
- cogman10 1y ago
  > I really hope that criminal charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. I do as well, but I have little hope that it will. Prosecutors don't like prosecuting perjury. It's tricky to prosecute (particularly because of how close it is to the first amendment), takes a lot of time, and often it just ends up with a minor slap on the wrist. I've seen other cases with outrageous perjury that resulted in no criminal prosecution. This is a broken part of the justice system. Particularly because these apple execs have the money and lawyers to drag out any prosecution until everyone involved is dead. But also because it relies on government prosecutors caring in the first place.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    > particularly because of how close it is to the first amendment It is tricky to prosecute and prosecutors don't like it but perjury rarely has anything to do with the first amendment.
- wiktor-k 1y ago
  > 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.
  - bix6 1y ago
vkou 1y ago
> 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 happening for decades, generally to little fanfare.)
- floxy 1y ago
  >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?
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    I'm not surprised, but the thing here (as usual) is how unashamedly blatant it was this rime around. Mask off.
  - Cipater 1y ago
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/companies-should-follow-own-rules-scrap-inauguration-donations https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/companies-should-f...
    - floxy 1y ago
      That is great, thanks for the link!
janalsncm 1y ago
I generally like Apple but this is not ok. It wouldn’t bother me at all if they put Tim Cook in prison for this. If corporations are not bound by laws they don’t like, then why should they be protected by laws they do like? Should the US turn a blind eye to IP infringement against Apple?

Tadpole9181 2y 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 2y 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
    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. However, do you think politicians, investors, lawyers with controlling stake, The DOD with security integrations, would allow that to happen? Put another way, do you think the rule of law exists for the hyper rich when the current admin put.....Linda McMahon on the presidents cabinet?
    - benoau 1y ago
      What does any of this have to do with consumers being ripped off then reimbursed for software? It would only be “the greatest punishment” because it is a subset of what Apple was able to obtain with their illegal methods. They billed hundreds of billions in fees.
    - marcus_holmes 1y ago
      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.

Molitor5901 2y ago

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.

mepian 1y ago
>Maybe it's time to breakup Apple - separate the computer and phone divisions. Who gets the Apple brand?
- Reubachi 1y ago
  easily no question, ios would get apple naming convention. 85 percent of their revenue is from ios and connected services. Which also means, "it's time to breakup apple" means nothing, not sure why OP suggested that as a method to punish a legally problematic CEO/board. they don't have a multisegment monopoly allowing them complete control over supply chains, or multi region monopoly on smartphones that would be effected by a breakup.
- inopinatus 1y ago
  The heirs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntosh_(farmer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntosh_(farmer)
- josefx 1y ago
  The Beatles? With iTunes going to Apple Records.
mike-the-mikado 1y ago
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.
- 1y ago

udev4096 2y ago

Cook is getting cooked

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

crims0n 2y ago

> Judging by political positioning, cook’s donation to trump’s inauguration didn’t sit well with the fanbase. On the other hand, it may have saved his company billions on tariffs.

leptons 1y ago
[flagged]
- rad_gruchalski 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - intothemild 1y ago
    Lately he's been rather sour... Like a Granny Smith.
    - rad_gruchalski 1y ago
      [flagged]
jwilber 1y ago
Only 100 days on and we celebrate open crony capitalism as a smart business decision.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  It is a smart business decision. Don’t blame Apple for operating within the environment that the US voters voted for. The US knew exactly what it was getting - said as American citizen.
  - okanat 1y ago
    Oh yeah. Don't blame all the German companies that used slave labor in concentration camps either. Unhinged capitalism is a mind disease that only ends up in fascism.

test6554 2y ago

Apple might still appeal to a higher court and lean heavily on that donation to Trump for legal support. They as much as said they would appeal the decision.

mrandish 1y ago
Apple will certainly appeal this ruling to the Ninth Circuit and probably to SCOTUS but Apple already appealed the original order which the Ninth denied and SCOTUS denied by declining. That makes an appeal on getting busted for non-compliance of the already appealed ruling unlikely. If the Ninth doesn't issue an emergency stay of the order tomorrow, it'll go into effect while the appeals grind on. This is very likely a done deal except for Apple wasting a little more lawyer money theatrically "exhausting every appeal."

nova22033 2y ago

Tim Cook is an operation guy. With Trump's trade war, operations is going to be even more important.

Osiris 2y ago

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 charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. Hopefully that will make other executives think twice when put in the same situation.

cogman10 1y ago
> I really hope that criminal charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. I do as well, but I have little hope that it will. Prosecutors don't like prosecuting perjury. It's tricky to prosecute (particularly because of how close it is to the first amendment), takes a lot of time, and often it just ends up with a minor slap on the wrist. I've seen other cases with outrageous perjury that resulted in no criminal prosecution. This is a broken part of the justice system. Particularly because these apple execs have the money and lawyers to drag out any prosecution until everyone involved is dead. But also because it relies on government prosecutors caring in the first place.
- mrandish 1y ago
  > particularly because of how close it is to the first amendment It is tricky to prosecute and prosecutors don't like it but perjury rarely has anything to do with the first amendment.
wiktor-k 1y ago
> 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.
- bix6 1y ago

vkou 1y ago

> 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 happening for decades, generally to little fanfare.)

floxy 1y ago
>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?
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  I'm not surprised, but the thing here (as usual) is how unashamedly blatant it was this rime around. Mask off.
- Cipater 1y ago
  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/companies-should-follow-own-rules-scrap-inauguration-donations https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/companies-should-f...
  - floxy 1y ago
    That is great, thanks for the link!

janalsncm 1y ago

I generally like Apple but this is not ok. It wouldn’t bother me at all if they put Tim Cook in prison for this. If corporations are not bound by laws they don’t like, then why should they be protected by laws they do like? Should the US turn a blind eye to IP infringement against Apple?