Comments
Link to the court doc:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
> The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases. (May 2024 Tr. 266:22–267:11 (Roman).)
> Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct? A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what -- what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? A. That is correct
> (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).) Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business
So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance
> So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance
Why not both?
Execs will continue to default to obfuscating and misleading in testimony as well as minimally complying with court orders until a high-profile exec spends time in jail for criminal contempt. I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need. While I'm sure he lied and obfuscated, I doubt a VP Finance was really the top decision-maker on "Despite the clear court order, we're going to keep fucking with Fortnite through aggressive non-compliance". I suspect that's an EVP on Tim Cook's staff.
Having spent several years at the top levels of an F500 valley tech company, I'm certain a consistent, broad and aggressive posture like that doesn't happen by accident or any lower than EVP. There was a meeting at some point where the Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options: A) Give in and do what the court ordered, B) Do most of what the court ordered but drag our feet on all of it and 'accidentally' miss some of it where plausibly deniable, C) Make only token concessions to the order while ensuring the actual intent of the order is blocked, delayed or minimized wherever possible.
Someone with an EVP title picked "C" and until that person spends a couple months in jail on criminal contempt, senior execs will never pick "A". The VP Finance going down isn't enough. Until Tim Cook's staff meeting has an empty EVP chair for several months, none of this is serious. They'll just accelerate this VP Finance's options, bonus the shit out of him and consider his "sacrifice" to be collateral damage.
By rdtsc 2025-05-022:30 > Someone with an EVP title picked "C" and until that person spends a couple months in jail on criminal contempt, senior execs will never pick "A". The VP Finance going down isn't enough. Until Tim Cook's staff meeting has an empty EVP chair for several months, none of this is serious. They'll just accelerate this VP Finance's options, bonus the shit out of him and consider his "sacrifice" to be collateral damage.
Agree. They'd have to feel some personal threat of going to prison or at least losing their fortune. As long as they feel protected behind the corporate veil, it's not a big deal to them.
By rdtsc 2025-05-0116:54 Well good point. I guess I was just trying to present it as he just lied because he thought it's not a big deal, as in he is incompetent enough to not understand in the kind of trouble he can be in. Or, he fully understood what deep shit he would be in, but it was a worthy risk to become Mr. Cook's personal favorite.
By dang 2025-05-0119:00 Related ongoing threads:
Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 - May 2025 (504 comments)
A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 - May 2025 (58 comments)
By vjvjvjvjghv 2025-05-0120:221 reply I really, really, really hope this guy gets treated like very else under similar circumstances. Top execs are totally used to be able to buy their way out of problems with company money without any personal repercussions other than maybe a big severance package.
By atoav 2025-05-0120:39 The argument for the high wages was always the "big responsibilty" the manegerial class has to bear. IMO to hold them personally liable is the absolite bare minimum, they already for the money for it. In reality CEO processes are often among the line: "You earned 10 Millions in boni for illegal behavior? Here is a 100K fine!"
A simple tradesperson is also personally responsible when they fuck up their job despite better knowledge. So if those can go to jail for the consequences of their dealings why shouldn't a CEO where the consequences are potentially of a scale several magnitudes higher? Wasn't personal responsibility in everybodies mouths, or is that only important when we talk about poor people?
