yeah they just enforce them. so when the come a knocking you better comply.
Yes sir. Also I agree with the principle of your post and can't fathom a rational reason the court would move to make such an agreement public. I was simply clarifying that last portion for you.
Please dissolve your position in Apple (if you actually have one) as you said you were going to; go buy an Android phone, and find a new forum. Your rants pollute this forum with their ignorance and are not welcomed here. We understand that you failed to do your due diligence and invested heavily in GT Advanced solely because they were a potential Apple supplier. Your attempt to blame others for your failure to make sound investment decisions by making wild accusations based on nothing but pure delusional fabrication and conjecture only serves to make you look more irrational.
If anything legal should be discussed here, it should be your slander of the GT Advanced CEO. You have made neumerious slanderous allegations in several of your rants without any sources of merit. Please grow up, learn a lesson from your mistake, and move one.
-PopinFRESH
Actually sog35 is pretty close to the mark. The CEO is going to have to face insider trading allegations, and they have certainly prosecuted people for far less. He's in serious trouble, both from the SEC and from his investors. None of the allegations currently filed in bankruptcy court looks like it would hold merit on first blush. As had been said before, it's not like Tim Cook put a gun to his head (or their board of directors). They entered into an agreement to provide a specific good to Apple...something Apple has done thousands of times with thousands of vendors in the Tim Cook era (post 1997). Tim Cook's is an old operations pro. He knows what can and cannot be done and he wouldn't have invested half a billion dollars of the company's money unless they thought they could pull this off.
But one thing that Apple's providers have learned over the years is that Apple always has alternatives in case a supplier cannot deliver. TSMC has been trying to supply "A" processors for what....3 years now? They finally got a product that meets Apple's specs and can deliver in volume. The difference here is that TSMC has other large sources of income and could afford a few failures to get in Apple's supply chain. GTAT probably couldn't since the market for sapphire-based products was much more limited, especially on the scale that Apple wanted. There was a lot more risk for them if them missed a product launch.
Bingo. When it comes to major Apple products, any news in the rumor mill can cause stock price swings affecting market cap in the billions of dollars. And it tips off competitors to Apple's plans, often leading to them rushing to add features before Apple. A few other smartphone manufacturers are doing sapphire screens now, not because they really believe in it or have gotten the costs in line, but solely because they know Apple is going to do it given what's already been in the press.
The $50m NDA also keeps company directors from doing stupid stuff like going on CNBC and discussing their plans as an Apple sub-contractor. Now there are things you must comment on to satisfy regulatory requirements in their 10K and other filings, which is one of the reasons we know as much as we do about GT and their plans in the first place.
At the end of the day, GT management is doing their best to save their own skins. The insider trading allegations were incredibly dumb and completely unnecessary. The amount of money we're talking about was what...$160K? And the CEO had already sold $10m of shares earlier? All this will get messier before it gets better. But GT's assertions that the contract terms weren't in their best interests are laughable since it makes current management look like a bunch of idiots.
To this point, the SEC will only look at when GTAT knew things were not going to turn out good. They will look to apple and its communications with the GTAT about various things and if the CEO sold after learning things were going to turn bad. Even if it was a plan RCU sale which most people believe these were planned sales, and if he went ahead with the plan sale knowing things were bad and did not provide an update to the market it could be considered insider sales violations. Most people do not know that plan sales can only happen within a certain window, so it a mute point unless he knew something more than what was already know to the public. At this point nothing I have seen says they knew before Sept they were in serious hurt. It also looks like Apple told them something late in Sept which forced they hands, thus the reason for the announcement which happen within a short time period of them finding out.
Yeah GTAT had to put something in the 10K about the Apple deal, Apple could not prevent them, even with an NDA, GTAT has to advise people of the potential upside and risks and they did. The market only looked at the upside not the significant down side of what happens if GTAT can not deliver or Apple walked away. Those were real possibilities not unrealistic expectations. Ever analyst I read about GTAT, not one talked about the down side, only how much potential this company had with the apple deal and their breath of product offerings. I asked the one of the biggest cheerleader of GTAT how he missed this and why did he not present the significant downside, got dead air, they do not want to talk about missing the elephant in the room.
Actually sog35 is pretty close to the mark. The CEO is going to have to face insider trading allegations, and they have certainly prosecuted people for far less. He's in serious trouble, both from the SEC and from his investors. None of the allegations currently filed in bankruptcy court looks like it would hold merit on first blush. As had been said before, it's not like Tim Cook put a gun to his head (or their board of directors). They entered into an agreement to provide a specific good to Apple...something Apple has done thousands of times with thousands of vendors in the Tim Cook era (post 1997). Tim Cook's is an old operations pro. He knows what can and cannot be done and he wouldn't have invested half a billion dollars of the company's money unless they thought they could pull this off.
But one thing that Apple's providers have learned over the years is that Apple always has alternatives in case a supplier cannot deliver. TSMC has been trying to supply "A" processors for what....3 years now? They finally got a product that meets Apple's specs and can deliver in volume. The difference here is that TSMC has other large sources of income and could afford a few failures to get in Apple's supply chain. GTAT probably couldn't since the market for sapphire-based products was much more limited, especially on the scale that Apple wanted. There was a lot more risk for them if them missed a product launch.
You are correct, as a person who has negotiate deals like this I personally have seen where the other side as well as my side ignore their SME's as well as their legal team when they said their was too much risk and just turned around and sign a deal. The CEO and the board has the final say so, and it would not surprise me there are people within GTAT and possible Apple who felt there was too much risk and people ignored this. I still believe Apple was smart enough to have a backup plan to GTAT. Apple down side is far less then GTAT.
Confidentiality agreements cannot be kept away from a court's consideration in most common law jurisdictions of the world (the US is such a jurisdiction).
My "Get Smart" reference (joke) went completely over your head. Not your fault, you're only guilty of not being over 40 years old.
Yes GT whines about the unfair contract now and blah blah blah... we didn't see them whine about it when was awarded some $500 million dollars then. Just grow up, GT. YOU are the one who seems to want EVERYTHING to go your way or you'll cry about it.
That is one possible scenario, but not fact. It's also possible that GTAT simply wasn't producing the volume they promised Apple they could make. Thus Apple didn't pay them because the items were not delivered.
Or perhaps the final product was far too brittle to use because of how thin the screen needs to be. I sometimes wonder if Apple, in fact, uses Gorilla Glass 3. There is no mention of Apple being a customer on Corning's GG website when practically every other smart laptop/phone/tablet manufacturer is listed there.
Edit: This article talks about how Steve Jobs' urging and persistence made Gorilla Glass possible for use in smartphones. Necessity certainly is the mother of invention…and innovation. It's a good read:
Only Congress can make laws. Did you know there are three types of regulations:
interpretive, procedural, legislative
but only one type of regulation has the force and effect of law outside a government agency?
Can you guess which one? Also, do you know how to tell if a regulation is legislative? Hint:
Parallel table of Authorities
Quote:
Originally Posted by PopinFRESH
The Security & Exchange Comission and the Internal Revenue Service are governmental organazitions, not laws. Also neither of those organizations have the power to create laws (although they sure try to).
It seems like they were able to keep leaks about the watch to a minimum.
The iphones and ipads are a whole other matter. We practically know as much about the iphones and ipads before they come than after ifixit does their tear down. Well not really but you guys get the idea, a ton of iphone and ipad components leak out.
So I wonder if perhaps GTAT got caught leaking 4 or 5 times before that October "event", and as a result, Apple fined them $50M x 4 = $200M, which was in excess of the final payment due, and as a result of GTAT's inability to pay the $200M, Apple withheld the final payment, and cancelled use of their sapphire product, which is why GTAT was forced into bankruptcy? This would explain everything... including the lack of sapphire screens that were widely postulated before the event--Apple went with plan B, and a supplier that could keep their lips shut. In the end, Apple might own GTAT and be able to utilize the plant, while the GTAT executives thrash and wither in jail or unemployment. This is a very interesting story!
Make sure you don't apply for any job as a diplomat. There are always 2 sides, and the measure of a persons intelligence is very related to their ability to listen to anothers view.
I can imagine you on jury duty…
Court Clerk :"All rise"
You : "He's guilty! lock him up. Look at him, he even looks guilty. Right, anyone fancy a pint?"
In the end, Apple might own GTAT and be able to utilize the plant...
I guess Apple already owns the land the plant sits on, and has liens on the manufacturing equipment, so in effect Apple already owns it, and just needs to evict the management and compromised staff. Perhaps this was all merely a clever way for Apple itself to try a risky venture of manufacturing sapphire, without the risk of tainting their own corporate reputation with the likelihood of technical failure. Instead of Apple looking incompetent, they effectively took another company (GTAT) as a marionette to experiment with sapphire. Product failure=death of the marionette, not the puppet-master.
I'm late to the comment party (again) but FWIW, tort like liquidated damages in a contract are generally unenforceable. This doesn't mean they aren't effective in making a party nervous about them.
Wah wah wah. If they thought the agreement was unfair, why did they sign it in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snapplez
Who forced GTAT to sign the contracts? If the contract was oppressive they should not have agreed to it.
Because if GTAT did not sign the agreement, then we would all be trashing them for it regardless of what Apple was asking for. So GTAT will always look like the bad guy.
If anything legal should be discussed here, it should be your slander of the GT Advanced CEO. You have made neumerious slanderous allegations in several of your rants without any sources of merit. Please grow up, learn a lesson from your mistake, and move one.
-PopinFRESH
This is the third time I have seen someone on AI issue legal warnings against "slander" of the GTAT CEO. It's really amazing because I don't recall ever seeing people acting like Steve Jobs or Tim Cook's personal attorney on this forum. Are the people issuing these warnings related to or employed by the GTAT CEO in any way?
Comments
Yes sir. Also I agree with the principle of your post and can't fathom a rational reason the court would move to make such an agreement public. I was simply clarifying that last portion for you.
-PopinFRESH
Please dissolve your position in Apple (if you actually have one) as you said you were going to; go buy an Android phone, and find a new forum. Your rants pollute this forum with their ignorance and are not welcomed here. We understand that you failed to do your due diligence and invested heavily in GT Advanced solely because they were a potential Apple supplier. Your attempt to blame others for your failure to make sound investment decisions by making wild accusations based on nothing but pure delusional fabrication and conjecture only serves to make you look more irrational.
If anything legal should be discussed here, it should be your slander of the GT Advanced CEO. You have made neumerious slanderous allegations in several of your rants without any sources of merit. Please grow up, learn a lesson from your mistake, and move one.
-PopinFRESH
Actually sog35 is pretty close to the mark. The CEO is going to have to face insider trading allegations, and they have certainly prosecuted people for far less. He's in serious trouble, both from the SEC and from his investors. None of the allegations currently filed in bankruptcy court looks like it would hold merit on first blush. As had been said before, it's not like Tim Cook put a gun to his head (or their board of directors). They entered into an agreement to provide a specific good to Apple...something Apple has done thousands of times with thousands of vendors in the Tim Cook era (post 1997). Tim Cook's is an old operations pro. He knows what can and cannot be done and he wouldn't have invested half a billion dollars of the company's money unless they thought they could pull this off.
But one thing that Apple's providers have learned over the years is that Apple always has alternatives in case a supplier cannot deliver. TSMC has been trying to supply "A" processors for what....3 years now? They finally got a product that meets Apple's specs and can deliver in volume. The difference here is that TSMC has other large sources of income and could afford a few failures to get in Apple's supply chain. GTAT probably couldn't since the market for sapphire-based products was much more limited, especially on the scale that Apple wanted. There was a lot more risk for them if them missed a product launch.
Bingo. When it comes to major Apple products, any news in the rumor mill can cause stock price swings affecting market cap in the billions of dollars. And it tips off competitors to Apple's plans, often leading to them rushing to add features before Apple. A few other smartphone manufacturers are doing sapphire screens now, not because they really believe in it or have gotten the costs in line, but solely because they know Apple is going to do it given what's already been in the press.
The $50m NDA also keeps company directors from doing stupid stuff like going on CNBC and discussing their plans as an Apple sub-contractor. Now there are things you must comment on to satisfy regulatory requirements in their 10K and other filings, which is one of the reasons we know as much as we do about GT and their plans in the first place.
At the end of the day, GT management is doing their best to save their own skins. The insider trading allegations were incredibly dumb and completely unnecessary. The amount of money we're talking about was what...$160K? And the CEO had already sold $10m of shares earlier? All this will get messier before it gets better. But GT's assertions that the contract terms weren't in their best interests are laughable since it makes current management look like a bunch of idiots.
To this point, the SEC will only look at when GTAT knew things were not going to turn out good. They will look to apple and its communications with the GTAT about various things and if the CEO sold after learning things were going to turn bad. Even if it was a plan RCU sale which most people believe these were planned sales, and if he went ahead with the plan sale knowing things were bad and did not provide an update to the market it could be considered insider sales violations. Most people do not know that plan sales can only happen within a certain window, so it a mute point unless he knew something more than what was already know to the public. At this point nothing I have seen says they knew before Sept they were in serious hurt. It also looks like Apple told them something late in Sept which forced they hands, thus the reason for the announcement which happen within a short time period of them finding out.
Yeah GTAT had to put something in the 10K about the Apple deal, Apple could not prevent them, even with an NDA, GTAT has to advise people of the potential upside and risks and they did. The market only looked at the upside not the significant down side of what happens if GTAT can not deliver or Apple walked away. Those were real possibilities not unrealistic expectations. Ever analyst I read about GTAT, not one talked about the down side, only how much potential this company had with the apple deal and their breath of product offerings. I asked the one of the biggest cheerleader of GTAT how he missed this and why did he not present the significant downside, got dead air, they do not want to talk about missing the elephant in the room.
Actually sog35 is pretty close to the mark. The CEO is going to have to face insider trading allegations, and they have certainly prosecuted people for far less. He's in serious trouble, both from the SEC and from his investors. None of the allegations currently filed in bankruptcy court looks like it would hold merit on first blush. As had been said before, it's not like Tim Cook put a gun to his head (or their board of directors). They entered into an agreement to provide a specific good to Apple...something Apple has done thousands of times with thousands of vendors in the Tim Cook era (post 1997). Tim Cook's is an old operations pro. He knows what can and cannot be done and he wouldn't have invested half a billion dollars of the company's money unless they thought they could pull this off.
But one thing that Apple's providers have learned over the years is that Apple always has alternatives in case a supplier cannot deliver. TSMC has been trying to supply "A" processors for what....3 years now? They finally got a product that meets Apple's specs and can deliver in volume. The difference here is that TSMC has other large sources of income and could afford a few failures to get in Apple's supply chain. GTAT probably couldn't since the market for sapphire-based products was much more limited, especially on the scale that Apple wanted. There was a lot more risk for them if them missed a product launch.
You are correct, as a person who has negotiate deals like this I personally have seen where the other side as well as my side ignore their SME's as well as their legal team when they said their was too much risk and just turned around and sign a deal. The CEO and the board has the final say so, and it would not surprise me there are people within GTAT and possible Apple who felt there was too much risk and people ignored this. I still believe Apple was smart enough to have a backup plan to GTAT. Apple down side is far less then GTAT.
So i guess that companies like LiquidMetal Technology Inc would not want a $50 million fine if they leaked info.
Confidentiality agreements cannot be kept away from a court's consideration in most common law jurisdictions of the world (the US is such a jurisdiction).
My "Get Smart" reference (joke) went completely over your head. Not your fault, you're only guilty of not being over 40 years old.
That is one possible scenario, but not fact. It's also possible that GTAT simply wasn't producing the volume they promised Apple they could make. Thus Apple didn't pay them because the items were not delivered.
Or perhaps the final product was far too brittle to use because of how thin the screen needs to be. I sometimes wonder if Apple, in fact, uses Gorilla Glass 3. There is no mention of Apple being a customer on Corning's GG website when practically every other smart laptop/phone/tablet manufacturer is listed there.
http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/products-with-gorilla
Edit: This article talks about how Steve Jobs' urging and persistence made Gorilla Glass possible for use in smartphones. Necessity certainly is the mother of invention…and innovation. It's a good read:
http://www.wired.com/2012/09/ff-corning-gorilla-glass/
Only Congress can make laws. Did you know there are three types of regulations:
but only one type of regulation has the force and effect of law outside a government agency?
Can you guess which one? Also, do you know how to tell if a regulation is legislative? Hint:
Quote:
The Security & Exchange Comission and the Internal Revenue Service are governmental organazitions, not laws. Also neither of those organizations have the power to create laws (although they sure try to).
-PopinFRESH
What product was leaked prior to bankruptcy filing?
Get with the times. The executive branch has been doing this alone for years.
It seems like they were able to keep leaks about the watch to a minimum.
The iphones and ipads are a whole other matter. We practically know as much about the iphones and ipads before they come than after ifixit does their tear down. Well not really but you guys get the idea, a ton of iphone and ipad components leak out.
So I wonder if perhaps GTAT got caught leaking 4 or 5 times before that October "event", and as a result, Apple fined them $50M x 4 = $200M, which was in excess of the final payment due, and as a result of GTAT's inability to pay the $200M, Apple withheld the final payment, and cancelled use of their sapphire product, which is why GTAT was forced into bankruptcy? This would explain everything... including the lack of sapphire screens that were widely postulated before the event--Apple went with plan B, and a supplier that could keep their lips shut. In the end, Apple might own GTAT and be able to utilize the plant, while the GTAT executives thrash and wither in jail or unemployment. This is a very interesting story!
P
In the end, Apple might own GTAT and be able to utilize the plant...
I guess Apple already owns the land the plant sits on, and has liens on the manufacturing equipment, so in effect Apple already owns it, and just needs to evict the management and compromised staff. Perhaps this was all merely a clever way for Apple itself to try a risky venture of manufacturing sapphire, without the risk of tainting their own corporate reputation with the likelihood of technical failure. Instead of Apple looking incompetent, they effectively took another company (GTAT) as a marionette to experiment with sapphire. Product failure=death of the marionette, not the puppet-master.
I'm late to the comment party (again) but FWIW, tort like liquidated damages in a contract are generally unenforceable. This doesn't mean they aren't effective in making a party nervous about them.
Wah wah wah. If they thought the agreement was unfair, why did they sign it in the first place?
Who forced GTAT to sign the contracts? If the contract was oppressive they should not have agreed to it.
Because if GTAT did not sign the agreement, then we would all be trashing them for it regardless of what Apple was asking for. So GTAT will always look like the bad guy.
If anything legal should be discussed here, it should be your slander of the GT Advanced CEO. You have made neumerious slanderous allegations in several of your rants without any sources of merit. Please grow up, learn a lesson from your mistake, and move one.
-PopinFRESH
This is the third time I have seen someone on AI issue legal warnings against "slander" of the GTAT CEO. It's really amazing because I don't recall ever seeing people acting like Steve Jobs or Tim Cook's personal attorney on this forum. Are the people issuing these warnings related to or employed by the GTAT CEO in any way?
maybe Apple employed Luca Brasi and made an offer to GT Advanced that they cannot reject.
Hahaha!! Yes! Don Cook! Though we know that Don Jobs was the original Podfather.