carnegie

randominternetperson said:

If this stands, some attorney's slow paperwork cost Apple nearly half a billion dollars.  I hope his or her resume is up to date.

This wasn't an issue with slow paperwork. Apple was seeking to supplement its arguments for a (desperation) motion it had filed in February. What it sought to supplement its arguments with didn't happen until July. Apple couldn't have argued based on that supposedly new thing (decisions from the PTAB) until that supposedly new thing happened. In reality, it wasn't really a new thing - it didn't change what had already been decided by the Federal Circuit, and what the Supreme Court had already decided not to grant cert on.

9secondkox2 said:

So...

in other words, a judge made Apple Pay HALF A BILLION dollars to an extortionist. 

And now a judge won’t make the thieves repay

- simply because apples wording wasn’t good enough for him in the time they had to write and file? 

The heck? 

That’s agenda right there. 

Or at the least it’s thinking like “well Apple ID so rich they don’t need it.” Which is anything but justice. 

Terrible judge. 

I believe this will be overturned. It’s wrong. 

And beyond that, the judge is actually trying to sto Apple from using the fact they were in the right in future court cases. 

What kind of justice is that? 

This decision won't be (ultimately) overturned. This matter was, for all intents and purposes, decided when the Supreme Court refused to grant cert.

Appeal filed the Rule 60(b) motion in the district court just prior to the Supreme Court's denial of cert, I would think, just to keep a door open in case it came up with something new to argue. That motion was almost certain to never be successful. So it effectively sat there until Apple found something new that it thought it could argue, but that something new wasn't really something new and had almost no chance of succeeding - and Apple surely knew that. This was a 1 in a 1000, what do we have to lose, attempt by Apple.

chadbag said:

maestro64 said:

That is the tax bill for the RCU's that just vested. How many people do you know who have tax bill like that.

It is actually both.   According to the article Apple withheld a butt load which it sold for taxes and the rest he sold.   The tax ones seem to have sold for the $503 amount and his own sales for the other listed sales range.  

Yes, more than 50% of Mr. Cook’s vesting shares get withheld for tax purposes.

But to be clear, Apple doesn’t sell those shares. It just doesn’t issue them and then remits their value (based on the closing price of the stock on the day the shares vest) to tax authorities.

greenmeenie said:

I am still confused on what happens btwn today(24th) and August 31st. I was under the impression that today was the last day to buy shares eligible for the 4:1 split. But it seems from this article that shares you buy up until the 31st will be eligible. 

If you buy shares through the close of trading this Friday, August 28th you'll get the additional shares. Starting Monday, August 31st they'll trade on a split-adjusted basis (i.e., at a lower price).

Which date matters depends on the perspective we're looking from. From Apple's perspective, shareholders of record on August 24th (today) get the additional shares. (On a side note, most people who own shares through an online broker aren't really shareholders of record; but we'll leave that issue aside and proceed as though they are.) Any trades made through Nasdaq between today and the end of trading on Friday have, in effect, a notation attached to them which means that the seller - who will get the additional shares on Friday - owes 3 more shares (for each 1 sold) to the buyer. From Apple's perspective, those additional shares will go to the original owner, i.e. the owner as of today. But Nasdaq has a process whereby it transfers those additional shares to the buyer (if they buy by Friday).

So from a buyer or seller's perspective, the additional shares go to whoever owns the shares at the end of trading on Friday. But from Apple's perspective, the additional shares go (at the end of trading on Friday) to whoever owned the shares today. There's an automatic process which happens outside of Apple which gets, or is supposed to get, the additional shares to the right owner - i.e., the owner as of the close of trading on Friday.

All that said, if a private trade happens - i.e., one that doesn't go through Nasdaq - between today and Friday then the buyer should be sure that means are in place whereby they will get the additional shares from the original owner after the original owner receives them on Friday.

He’s done this each of the last 3 years just before his 560,000 shares vested on August 24th.