Hacker News Reader

> 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.

  > I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need.

  >> Tim Cook ignored Schiller 
  >> Cook chose poorly.
  >> Cook, Schiller, and Maestri were the ultimate decision makers “about what they felt was [an] acceptable” level of risk to cabin the Injunction’s effect in terms of link placement and design.

It really seems like the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders. Tim Cook is as senior as you get. I think the usual problem is that they're not able to gather good enough evidence. IIRC the FTC went after Bezos last year because be was using disappearing messages with Signal to hide business records.

> the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders

Yes, I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence." While I'm certain an EVP-level exec had to sign off on the aggressive non-compliance posture, I'm also almost certain that EVP ran it by Tim Cook. The problem is that very likely happened in a one-on-one, in-person conversation. No notes, witnesses or recording.

It's the same age-old problem of convicting the mafia boss for ordering or approving the hit when it was a private conversation and he spoke euphemistically or even just nodded. So, I decided the EVP who communicated the strategy with the team in a wider meeting was probably the best we could do.

  > I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence."

What I was trying to point out is that it appears there is significant evidence. My interpretation of them is that the court is claiming Cook was knowingly in violation with the court's orders.

> Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options

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

It's always an option, just not a risk-free one.

I don’t agree with your broad characterization. Apple is a special case: their wealth tends to bend the rules. Every other company operates in risk mitigation mindset.

Something something AT&T might work as well.