carnegie

entropys said:

I always found this case strange, at least why Apple was involved at all. Broadcom made the chips, and should be responsible for ensuring patents were covered. Apple bought the broadcom chips, but was somehow supposed to know if Broadcom was violating patents and thus wa also violating the patents.

seems like a chasing the biggest pocket strategy

That's how patent law works. Making, selling, offering to sell, or importing a patented invention without authority is infringement, but so is using a patented invention without authority. So in theory you or I could be sued for using an iPhone which infringes a given patent if we use it in a way that infringes that patent - e.g., if we use the camera and something about its functioning infringes that patent.

macuserosu said:

Especially with GM’s CEO getting the flack she is, I which industry would move to a more modest $250,000 to $500,000 base salary and all other income is based off of performance of the company.  That way they have the most Incentive to make the company do good.  

Like the Rivian CEO, should be making enough for a nice living situation, but shouldn’t rack up the $$$ until he is able to get the company profitable. I think that is a fair approach and allow for companies to reinvest as much as possible back into them. It also helps us investors in a company, as stock prices should go up. 

Glad Tim is getting his beans. While not the most innovative period of Apple, Tim has done a great job with market cap and share prices. 

For the record, the tranche of shares which just vested for Mr. Cook were performance-based. He could have received 0 shares or could have received about 668,000 shares depending on Apple's relative total shareholder return over the last 3 years.

This isn't Mr. Cook's first stock sale since 2021. He also sold stock in April of this year when another tranche of shares, from the same RSU award these shares came from, vested.

In September of 2020 he received an RSU award which would have more than 100,000 shares vest in each of April 2023, April 2024, and April 2025. When that first time-based tranche vested in April he sold all of them less the nearly 50% which were withheld for tax purposes. That's what he typically (though not always) does. He would have received around $9 million from the sale of those shares.

That RSU award also included a performance based tranche which would have between 0 and nearly 700,000 shares vest this October. As it turned out he had a little over 500,000 shares vest and sold all that remained after more than 50% were withheld for tax purposes.

As for 2022, he didn't sell any shares that year in large part because he didn't have any shares vest that year.

chasm said:

carnegie said:

Apple is likely to file its own cert petition, asking the Supreme Court to consider aspects of the case, today or tomorrow. I think the deadline for filing that petition is, as it was for Epic, tomorrow.

They already did, a few weeks ago now. Sweeney is being Mr. Last Minute Filer, here.

If the court takes up the case, we’ll need to ask the billionaire owners of at least two of the judges what THEY think in order to get an idea of how the court will rule.

They hadn't already filed a cert petition (in the Epic case) before today. I'm aware that some places had incorrectly reported or suggested that they had; I"ve pointed that mistake out a few times. It was in Apple's interests to wait as long as they could to file and the standard 90-day deadline was today, so they filed today.

Apple is likely to file its own cert petition, asking the Supreme Court to consider aspects of the case, today or tomorrow. I think the deadline for filing that petition is, as it was for Epic, tomorrow.