OSNews

He'll be popular in jail. Some say that he has a pretty mouth... ;-p

If there is an ultra rush to justice, he might end up in prison in time to get a Super Bowl commercial spot. Steve can then reveal iPrison, a CU-SEE-ME remake.

The stripped ipod sounds like a winner. Another ipod idea is one that looks like a normal ipod, but does not like to play AAC anymore and does not like to talk about why.

Edited 2006-12-29 19:54

We are almost getting ahead of ourselves here: is it really likely that some corporate high flyer will actually ever go to prison without going to Enron-esque extremes? Don't think so!

Yup. One law for the politicians and the rich and powerful (including corporations), and one law for the rest of us. Sounds like a fair and equitable judicial system to me.

Dave

Yeah, it's a pretty stark contrast between some poor slob who gets 5-10 years for holding up a gas station (and possibly getting $50) -- and a white collar criminal who gets away with millions and serves no time at all. Somebody's values are totally out of whack.

That's a very good comment. Deserves a mod point. 1984 anyone?

Dave

Not that I disagree with your point, but consider that, in this particular case, no one's life or livelihood was seriously endangered, whereas in the gas station example, someone was likely threatened with violence, and someone really could have gotten hurt. It's not *always* about strict monetary loss.

I agree with your point about the loss of life.

But Apple shares most certainly form part of someone's income, life savings or pension. So, yes, someone's livelihood could be threatened.

I would agree to your point about shareholder vulnerability, but in this case the financial discrepency is relatively small. It looks like Apple is now reporting $84 million in previouly un-stated expenses. Shame on Apple for its bad accounting, but that kind of money is nowhere near enough to put a dent in Apple's ability to do business.

@melkor

They're reading into our brains, man!

It's the same law for everyone: The best justice money can buy.

Or as one public defender I know puts it: the rich get richer and the poor get prison.

Or as one public defender I know puts it: the rich get richer and the poor get prison.

Well, if you think about it though, it makes sense. The rich can afford better lawyers, who do a better job of defending their clients. Lawyers are like any other profession, in that there are tiers of ability. Anyone who lowballs their legal representation shouldn't be suprised if they end up in prison.

But shouldn't the system be about justice and not which lawyer can lie the best.

Martha Stewart saw jail time for a relatively minor offense, so it's not impossible for the rich to go to prison without going to Enron-esque extremes. (I'm not making any comparisons to the Apple case as I've not followed it closely enough.)

If we could all be so lucky to get stuck in the "prison" she had to go to.

And house arrest in her big ass mansion to boot. Yeah, that musta been real tough.

"Martha Stewart saw jail time for a relatively minor offense, so it's not impossible for the rich to go to prison without going to Enron-esque extremes. (I'm not making any comparisons to the Apple case as I've not followed it closely enough.)"

Yeah, but Jobs is leading a company that is doing amazing things...Martha Stewart is just making macaroni art. I think we can live with her in prison for a while.

What is Jobs doing that is changing the world?

Get your priorities right, Apple is a design + marketing company, not a technology company. And thats ignoring the possibility that computing is not that big of a deal.

"What is Jobs doing that is changing the world?

Get your priorities right, Apple is a design + marketing company, not a technology company. And thats ignoring the possibility that computing is not that big of a deal."

Computing is a big deal, it defines the way that we live our lives. It's hard to believe that anybody who would be posting comments on OSNews would not think so. And Apple is a technology company. Some of the more signicant technologies that we use today would not be possible without Apple, eg. PowerPC, Firewire/DV, Newton, iTunes, iPod, etc etc. The list goes on. Thanks to the Apple/IBM/Motorola(AIM Alliance) we now have PowerPC's controlling everything from Satellites and space rovers to game consoles to car electronics. There are something like 60 PPC's chips controlling the new higher-end BMW's. I know that Jobs was gone from Apple for something like 12 years, but without him, there would never have been an Apple. So please don't tell me that Jobs is not changing the world.

According to the article he revoked it?

So nobody profited from it?

What's the big deal?

When did he revoke it? The article I read this morning states that after the stock option was granted, later jobs revoked it and did not profit. Was this after the probe started 3 months ago and it looked like he and the company were going to see problems? If that is the case then that is the same as robbing a bank and once investigators are on to you, you give the money back and all is ok. No a crime was still committed. Here is the latest article I found.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061229/D8MAH8VG0.html

"According to the article he revoked it?
So nobody profited from it?
What's the big deal?"

The "revoking" could be seen as admission by Jobs that he knew that things were not kosher within his company. But it's also being said that the stock grant Jobs received in exchange for the tainted stock options are themselves tainted.

From AppleInsider.com's story:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2333
"Although Jobs later surrendered those options before they were exercised -- implying that he did not benefit from them -- he was later handed 10 million split-adjusted shares as a replacement.

In October, a financial columnist argued that while Jobs did not directly benefit from the initial grant, he did so on the ensuing exchange because the value of the 10 million shares were themselves based on favorably chosen "backdated" dates."

So giving back the tainted options in exchange for the grants might not put Jobs in the clear. In fact, exchanging the bad options for bad grants could be akin to money laundering.

Edited 2006-12-29 18:16

No kidding! I just read an article at CNN that said that no one is to blame! Though I am still a bit iffy on that simply because the investigation conducted was an internal one...and ahem...post Enron I am ready to believe in the bad side of humanity much mre willingly than the good, innocent side. I am sure there is some kind of a smell...but whether it is a very strong one or a whiff...that remains to be seen and probably we would never find out.

Hey great, Apple says Apple didn't do anything wrong. Let's just take their word for it.

It's good enough for thems that matter. From the article:

"Apple shares rose about 5 percent to $84.91 in morning trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market after the news."

"The company admitted that it had falsified records to show that a board meeting on October 19, 2001, had approved the awarding of 7.5 million stock options to Mr Jobs. In fact, no meeting took place on that day and the records were fabricated, the company said."

The Times, London, today.

Nothing to see?

I don't think his value to the company excuses misleading accounting practices. It's true that in this case, the damage was minimal: a *mere* $84 million is going on the books as previusly un-stated expenses. No big deal. But what if that number had been $8.4 billion? At that point, Apple's ability to do business would be seriouly in question. Investors would suffer, and any employee whose retirement depended on the company's stock purchase plan would be out in the street.

Now, it *looks* like Jobs didn't have anything to do with this mess. But part of the reason this story has gotten so much traction is that it has forced people to consider at what point Jobs would have to resign, and where that would leave Apple. It tickles the imagination, no?

still testing. apologies!