carnegie

AppleInsider said:

Apple CEO Tim Cook has sold shares in his company worth about $33 million, and received just under half that after tax.

As detailed in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Cook sold 196,410 shares, and did so in multiple batches. Based on stated prices received per share, Cook earned between $33.04 million and $33.23 million before taxes.

The sums are a fraction of the estimated $355 million he made selling five million shares in 2021. It's also not as much as the last time he sold shares, when he got around $41.5 million in October 2023.

That 2023 sale came at time when Apple's stock was trading lower than usual, and that's also what is happening now. Apple's stock has dropped sufficiently since its all-time high in December 2023 that firms such as Loop Capital have been advising against buying Apple shares lately.

Few analysts, though, have recommended actively selling them, because there are positive signs of recovery.

However, as first spotted by MacRumors, the SEC filing notes that the sale "was made pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the reporting person on November 28, 2022."

So Cook has a trading plan. While the details Cook has decided on are not known, this means that his shares will automatically be put up for sale when certain conditions are met.

There are insider trading laws governing how company executives can or can't sell shares in their firms, but Cook still has the option to sell outside of his predetermined plan. This is what he did in 2021, when he received five million shares as the last part of his original 2011 contract for taking on the role of CEO.

Aside from that major sale, and smaller ones that appear to have been triggered automatically by his trading plan, Cook has generally held on to his Apple shares. He did so throughout 2022, for instance, when many other Apple executives cashed some in.



Read on AppleInsider

Mr. Cook only sold around $16-1/2 million worth of shares - about 97.2 million of the 196.4 million which just vested. The rest of the vesting shares were withheld by Apple. In these circumstances Apple doesn’t anctually issue those shares. Rather, it submits their value based on the vesting share price to various tax authorities to meet withholding requirements.

I’d also point out that the main reason Mr. Cook didn’t sell shares in 2022 is that he didn’t have any shares vest in 2022. He generally, though not always, sells new shares when they vest. The general timing of his share sales are fairly predictable.

foregoneconclusion said:

gatorguy said: The book case concerned illegal collusion that resulted in price fixing between Apple and the major publishers. 65% market share is absolutely a relevant statistic when it comes to a company's exposure to antitrust claims. 

No it isn't.

U.S. antitrust law is primarily based on demonstrating harm to consumers. That's why a multi-company conspiracy TO RAISE PRICES ON CONSUMERS is a violation even though it was limited to NYT bestsellers and not the entire ebook market. Like I noted, Amazon had nearly 90% control of the ebook market and was not subject to any antitrust lawsuits regarding ebooks. And still aren't today despite having a commission structure that makes Apple's look positively timid. How do you explain that if you think 65% market share is important in regards to U.S. antitrust law? Amazon would be a slam dunk for lawsuits if that was important. 

Amazon is subject to an antitrust lawsuit relating to its eBook business. There's one going on now in a federal district court in the Southern District of New York - In Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation. In that case a magistrate judge recommended that Section 2 claims against Amazon shouldn't be dismissed based in part on findings that the plaintiffs adequately pled that Amazon has monopoly power based on its high market share. Amazon's eBook market share is definitely relevant in that antitrust action.

That said, an antitrust allegation wouldn't necessarily be a slam dunk just because a defendant has high enough market share in a relevant market. That's because there's another element to Section 2 violations... anticompetitive behavior.

foregoneconclusion said:

gatorguy said: Apple fast approaching 65% market share in the US won't be helpful to their defense. 

Market share isn't relevant. Apple lost the e-book lawsuit regarding illegal conspiracy at a time when Amazon controlled almost 90% of the ebook market. So the courts didn't care about Amazon's dominance. They cared that Apple was found to have conspired with a group of publishers to raise the price of ebooks on the NYT bestseller list. 

And the reality is that Amazon has a horrendous commission structure for ebooks relative to the App Store and it doesn't really matter. Amazon takes 30% commission on ebooks priced between $2.99 and $9.99 and a 60% commission on anything above or below that price range. So not only are they taking as high or higher of a cut than Apple does in the App Store, they're also trying to set a specific price range. 

Market share is relevant when it comes to U.S. antitrust law though, of course, it isn't the only thing that matters and its relevance depends on which aspect of antitrust law is at issue. Further, if Apple had 65% market share in a properly defined relevant antitrust market that could be important in potential antitrust actions brought against it. Anything below 50% market share is generally considered indicative of a lack of monopoly power, but 65% market share is in a gray area where it may or may not be indicative of monopoly power.

There are three primary aspects of U.S. antitrust law: Sherman Act Section 1, Sherman Act Section 2, and the Clayton Act. The Clayton Act relates to whether potentially anitcompetitive mergers and the like are allowed. Sherman Act Section 1 prohibits agreements which unreasonably restrain competition - e.g., Apple and Google agreeing to policies which would make it more difficult for others to compete in a smartphone OS market. Market share doesn't necessarily matter when it comes to Sherman Act Section 1 violations. Sherman Act Section 2 is generally about single firm conduct - unlawful monopolization or monopolization attempts. There market share matters because:

The offense of monopoly under § 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

See U.S. v Grinnell (1966). That's black letter U.S. antitrust law that you'd find quoted in some form in countless antitrust decisions. The elements that need to be established for a successful Section 2 action are: (1) monopoly power and (2) anticompetitive behavior. Market share is an important factor that goes into determining whether the first element is present.

The Apple e-book decision you refer to was based on Section 1 of the Sherman Act so Apple's market share didn't really matter there.

AppleZulu said:

MplsP said:

AppleZulu said:

MplsP said:

Wait…doesn’t this just disprove Apple’s argument that they’ll suffer irreparable harm?

tht said:

And so it goes. 

Gurman is rumor-mongoring that Apple is working changing how the measurement works to clear the patents in question. 

My pet theory is they will only use 1 LED emitter and overdrive it to provide enough light. This would require getting a new calibration data set, so it takes time. 

Pulse oximetry requires a minimum of 2 wavelengths.

AppleZulu said:

techsavvy said:

While a huge Apple fan, when you buy a team away from a company and then use their IP to create a solution you need to be held accountable. Apple was trying to be a bully and for once…failed. They should just settle, pay a royalty and get over it. Odds are their internal solution, like 5G radios from Qualcomm, will not be as good.

Sure, Apple poached some staff, but that happens throughout the industry. Did they use Masimo's IP? Masimo didn't win that claim in court, which is why they implemented Plan B, C, or D and went to the ITC. Apple has appealed that and clearly believes they'll win on appeal. If Apple believes they're right, why should they settle? Doing so would only embolden even more people to come out of the woodwork with even more claims just looking for a settlement check.

Well, settling might avoid the supposed ‘irreparable harm,’ but more to the point, settling may be cheaper and more expeditious than a drawn out lawsuit.

It appears Apple tried to bully a company that was big enough to stand up to them and they lost - at least in the short term. I’m amused at all the people calling Masimo a patent troll. It appears the definition of patent troll has evolved to mean ‘anyone who has a patent that Apple wants to use.’ 

You folks keep forgetting that the actual trial in this case ended with a hung jury, with only one of seven jurors believing Masimo. So Masimo went elsewhere to the ITC to try to block Apple there, the heck with a jury. Apple appealed the ITC ruling and expects to win. So they’ll sell watches with the feature in question disabled so they can keep shipping them from the factory. When they finally win the appeal of the ITC in a few months, they’ll turn the feature back on. 

So rather than Apple as the bully, it appears from this and other past patent suits that Masimo is the bully that looks to their lawyers for an extra revenue stream. Apple is standing firm because paying off Masimo would cost a lot more in the long run than the figure on that one check. 

And you keep forgetting that a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win. 

It actually means the opposite, that Masimo didn’t win. In that case, the judge threw out five of Masimo’s ten infringement claims, and the other five went to a jury trial, where Masimo was required to convince a unanimous jury that Apple had infringed on its patents in the remaining five claims. In that trial, six of seven jurors found that Apple had not infringed, and one sided with Masimo and would not budge. Unanimity is required to make a ruling, so the jury was hung and the judge declared a mistrial. 

A mistrial means Masimo could’ve requested a retrial, but the fact that they all but lost the first attempt makes that an incredibly poor bet. So they appear to have abandoned that route, lest they spend more money just to get a unanimous jury voiding their claims. 

Now they’ve leaned into the ITC claim, blocking Apple from importing the devices from the factories into the United States. They don’t appear to be making such claims in other countries. That seems odd. 

Apple has appealed the ITC ruling and in the meantime turned off the app in question on devices currently being imported. Given Masimo’s weak position after the jury trial (and presumably their lack of commitment to seek a retrial) Apple appears to expect to win this appeal, at which point they should be done with Masimo.  

So no, it is not correct to say “a hung jury means nothing other than that Apple didn’t win.”

I've seen a number of posts about the district court case you're referring to (Masimo v Apple, 8:20-cv-00048) which don't accurately reflect what's happened thus far in that case. So, for better clarity...

I'd begin by noting that there's no overlap between the patents at issue in that case and the patents at issue in the ITC investigation discussed in this thread. There were 12 patents asserted in the district court complaint and 5 in the ITC complaint, but they were all different.

That said, neither the judge nor the jury in the district court case ruled on the validity or infringement of the 12 patents-in-suit. Early on in the case Apple asked the court to stay consideration of the patent infringement claims because it had filed inter partes review petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relating to every one of those 12 patents. The court granted that request and since then the district court case hasn't been considering the patent infringement claims.

That case has instead been about Masimo's claims that (1) Apple misappropriated certain trade secrets, (2) certain Masimo (or Cercacor) employees collaborated in the invention of certain patents now assigned to Apple and should thus be added as inventors of those patents, and (3) Masimo (or Cercacor) should be assigned at least co-ownership of those patents and certain others based on assignment agreements they have with their employees (some of which left to work for Apple). The jury couldn't come to a unanimous decision with regard to the trade secret claims, with the vote being 6-1 in Apple's favor as you suggest, thus a mistrial was declared.

Since then the parties have been proceeding toward a new trial with the target start date, as of the last order I've read from the judge, being October 31, 2024. I've seen no indication that Masimo doesn't want a retrial. It could have, e.g., asked to have the case dismissed if it didn't want to go through another trial.

With regard to the 12 patents asserted in the case, the PTAB in several waves of decisions eventually invalidated all of the asserted claims from all but 2 of those patents. It declined to invalidate the asserted claims from the other 2 patents. Further, the Federal Circuit eventually upheld all of those PTAB decisions (save one small, not-relevant-here aspect of one of the decisions). The Federal Circuit rulings which upheld the 2 PTAB decisions not to invalidate certain patent claims came just a couple weeks ago. So, I suppose, it's possible that Masimo might be able to get its infringement claims relating to 2 patents into the upcoming trial.

Apple also has its own district court case in which it accuses Masimo of infringing certain Apple patents. So we're probably a ways from Apple and Masimo being done with each other.

chasm said:

foregoneconclusion said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 

You’re not wrong, but Apple will likely apply it worldwide (outside of Europe, which has its own rules now). Apple has zero interest in creating different versions of the App Store on a state-by-state basis, and even if they could do so it would tempt other states to create similar regulations that would be harder to customize.

Just to be clear, and as I indicated earlier, the injunction applies nationwide. Apple doesn't have the option of only applying it in California.

For those who still have doubts on this front, from Judge Rogers' Rule 52 Order (citations and footnotes omitted):