carnegie

The reason for the timing of these sales is pretty clear. The shares were sold when the share price climbed back above the share price at their vesting.

In recent years Mr. Maestri has routinely sold newly vested shares shortly after their vesting (e.g., not the day after vesting but a few days or weeks later). But he doesn't sell them at a share price lower than the vesting price (i.e., the cost basis). This is true of his time-based shares which vest every April and his performance-based shares which vest every October. He receives the shares, minus the 50+% which is withheld for tax purposes, and then sells all of them shortly thereafter if the share price hasn't gone down. In this case the share price started to drop shortly after these shares vested and didn't get back to the vesting price until the day they were sold, more than 4 months later.

dmskalnm said:

Not sure how his award works, but did he just pay short term capital gains tax on $751 million of stock? Nice of him to donate to Uncle Sam I guess, but he couldn't wait a year?

He’s taxed on $754 million as ordinary income. That’s the value of the shares when they vested on Tuesday, based on the closing price that day. He owes taxes on that income whether he sells the shares or not. Apple typically withholds a portion of the shares - a little over 50% in Mr. Cook’s case - and remits their value to taxing authorities to cover withholding requirements. Those share don’t actually get sold. Instead Apple remits their value for tax purposes and they effectively were never issued.

Mr. Cook would also have a short term capital loss of about $2.5 million because the shares he sold went down in value (on average) by the time he sold them the next day. In the alternative, he might have a long term capital gain on those shares. It depends on how he accounts for stock sales - first in, first out (FIFO) or last in, first out (LIFO). The shares he sold on Wednesday could be considered to be the shares he just got on Tuesday or they could be considered to be shares he had previously.

This is a pretty long opinion with a lot going on in it. I haven't finished reading it yet, but on the whole I'd say this result is pretty good for Apple. It could have been better for Apple, and I disagree with some of Judge Rogers' reasoning, but if I were Apple I'd count this decision more as a win than a loss. My quick take is that Apple loses in some narrow strokes while it wins in the broad ones.

I'd also note that, as I read (what I've read so far of) the opinion and orders, Apple can continue to exclude Epic from the App Store based on Epic's breach of contract. It looks like Apple is also now free to terminate the account used for Unreal Engine. I need to finish reading the whole opinion to be sure about that though.

AppleInsider said:

...

What happens next

If Apple wins, it does so by convincing the court that it can't be the subject of this particular type of damages, only the app developers can. In theory, then, the app developers could be open to being sued. In practice, it's unlikely that anyone will attempt to sue hundreds or thousands of individual app companies, but those developers could sue Apple if they believe they've been overcharged.

A ruling against Apple will see unspecified damages levied, but more significantly the likelihood of other cases being brought against online and technology companies in similar positions -- and it would change the nature of application distribution should Apple, Google, Facebook, and others decide to not be faced with this kind of liability. This will set off probably a decade or more of suits, counter-suits, and appeals.

Either way, the ruling at some point in 2019 isn't the end of the story.


Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.

To be clear, a ruling against Apple won't necessarily see unspecified damages levied (and it certainly won't see unspecified damages levied by the ruling itself). The Supreme Court is dealing with a threshold issue here, i.e. whether the plaintiffs have (statutory) standing to sue Apple. If the Supreme Court's decision goes against Apple, that will just mean that the plaintiffs can proceed with their antirust suit. They would still need to win that suit and, if they did, the appeals which might follow.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/02/apple-names-deirdre-obrien-senior-vice-president-of-retail-and-people/

I guess it makes sense that Ms. Ahrendts would leave in April. She has about 105,000 time-based RSUs due to vest on April 1st.

But she's also giving up a lot of unvested RSUs. She has another 200,000 or so unvested time-based RSUs and perhaps 350,000 unvested performance-based RSUs.

22july2013 said:

Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?

The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.

Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.

AppleInsider said:

Epic Games is asking the United States Supreme Court to uphold a recent ruling made by a lower court, hoping the highest court will unpause an injunction against Apple and force the company's hand with App Store payment systems.

...

While the majority of legal decisions in the Epic Games vs. Apple lawsuit have gone in Apple's direction, there is one that didn't -- anti-steering rules in the digital storefront. Unsurprisingly, Apple petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.

As a result of that petition, Apple can technically delay any major changes to the App Store. By default, the company now has 90 days before it needs to make any changes, and it could get even longer if SCOTUS decides to hear the case.

Epic Games is not very happy with how this is going, according to a report from Reuters. The company, which develops the popular battle royale game Fortnite, has filed a request with the highest court in the nation to lift the lower court's decision.

SCOTUS has not moved on this particular case as of the time of publication, either granting Apple's appeal or responding to Epic's requests.

...

That is not what this application asks for. In this application Epic is asking the Supreme Court to vacate the stay issued by the Ninth Circuit so that the injunction requiring Apple to change its anti-steering policies would go into effect while the Supreme Court considers the matter - i.e., while the Court decides whether to grant the forthcoming cert petition from Apple and then, possibly, hears the case.

Epic no doubt will ask the Court to let stand the ruling in its favor regarding Apple's anti-steering policies , but that ask will come in the form of a response to a cert petition from Apple which has yet to be filed. It would make no sense for Epic to ask the Court to let stand that ruling now; it would be putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Similarly, Apple would not now ask the Supreme Court to let stand all of the aspects of the Ninth Circuit's decision  which went in its favor. It would only do that in response to Epic filing a cert petition of its own challenging those aspects of the decision.

As I suggested, Apple has not petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision. It has 90 days from the date when the Ninth Circuit denied panel and en banc rehearings of the case to file such a cert petition. That happened at the end of June, so Apple has about 2 months left to file a cert petition. So does Epic. Apple will likely take almost all of that time before filing its petition. And so long as Apple files such a petition and provides notice to the Ninth Circuit of that filing, the Ninth Circuit's stay (of the injunction requiring Apple to change its anti-steering policies) will automatically be extended until the Supreme Court decides whether to grant Apple's petition. That could take a few months or it could take much longer. So even if the Court ultimately decides not to hear the case - i.e., not to grant Apple's petition - the Ninth Circuit's stay was, for practical purposes, for longer than 90 days.

tech_traveller said:

Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.

Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.

That (i.e. developers keeping 100% of income) doesn't seem likely, at least not in most circumstances where they weren't already able to keep 100% of income.

This injunction doesn't abrogate Apple's right to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP. Developers will still have to use the App Store to distribute their apps and still be bound by the terms of Apple's developer agreements, minus the specific terms which Apple can no longer enforce. Unless Apple decides otherwise, they'll still be required to pay a commission on certain kinds of digital sales - whether Apple processes the payments or not.

Apple might decide to change some of its (still legal) terms or lower its commissions under certain circumstances, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it will reward those developers who decide to direct users to other payment options by completely doing away with the commission requirements that currently apply to certain kinds of digital sales. 
 
Some developers may find ways to cheat and not pay all the commission which they owe, but in doing so they would be risking Apple figuring that out and terminating their developer accounts for breach of contract. 

AppleInsider said:

...

Referring to its US Patent No 10,133,558, dated November 2018 and known as the '558 Patent, Aftechmobile says Apple is infringing "at least one of the 28 claims" in that patent, by making and selling the Shortcuts app.

...

The application for the '558 patent was filed in 2016. That date, rather than the 2018 grant date, is what would matter if it were a regular (i.e. not a continuation) application.

However, the 2016 patent application was a continuation application claiming priority back to a 2012 application. So it's the 2012 date that matters for the '558 patent.

sflocal said:

iOS_Guy80 said:

netrox said:

I hope he wins the appeal. It seems ridiculous since he wasn't playing.

Exactly what constitutes a uniform violation? Would he be in violation if he were wearing a Rolex? Fitbit?

"The player is reportedly appealing against the fine, which concerns the wearing of any electronic messaging devices during play."

Right there, clear as day.  A Rolex and Fitbit do not have the ability to send electronic messages.

I too think it's ridiculous especially since he wasn't playing at the time.  Would he be fined if he took out his smartphone and started texting on the sidelines as well since he's not playing?

To answer your question: Yes, probably.

The use of electronic communications devices is generally prohibited on the sidelines (and, e.g., in coaches' booths) before and during games. There are some exceptions, e.g., for medical staff. But part of the point is to prevent people on the sidelines - whether coaches or players - from communicating with players on the field outside of the allowed methods. So it doesn't really matter that Mr. Roethlisberger wasn't playing. Even if he weren't a player he wouldn't be allowed to use a smartphone or, e.g., an Apple Watch on the sidelines.