Comments on: Perhaps the Macalope spoke too soon http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/ Apple news and analysis from everyone's favorite mythical Mac user Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:43:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Buster http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16859 Buster Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:24:30 +0000 http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16859 Doesn't it stand to reason Fred is not telling the truth? Think it through - if Fred is telling the truth now, and didn't reveal this info to the SEC, he is in heap big trouble for withholding evidence. The government wouldn't settle so fast if he withheld evidence. Second, we have just had a very thorough investigation by both Apple and the SEC. Doesn't it make sense as soon as the SEC had Fred in their cross-hairs he would start singing like a battalion of canaries to save his own hide? Obviously, he was silent on the subject or we would hear of SEC charges on Steve Jobs. If Fred did disclose this, we can be sure neither Apple nor the SEC thought much of it, or couldn't come up with proof to back Fred's story. Third, the other shoe may not have dropped yet and Fred singing now may be diversionary tactic to start laying the ground work for reasonable doubt should there come a criminal trial. In short, folks, Fred doesn't pass the "smell" test. Fred trying to save his hide after the fact just doesn't make sense. He would be in deeper trouble for lying to the SEC than for the options, so why come forward now? Doesn’t it stand to reason Fred is not telling the truth? Think it through - if Fred is telling the truth now, and didn’t reveal this info to the SEC, he is in heap big trouble for withholding evidence. The government wouldn’t settle so fast if he withheld evidence.

Second, we have just had a very thorough investigation by both Apple and the SEC. Doesn’t it make sense as soon as the SEC had Fred in their cross-hairs he would start singing like a battalion of canaries to save his own hide? Obviously, he was silent on the subject or we would hear of SEC charges on Steve Jobs. If Fred did disclose this, we can be sure neither Apple nor the SEC thought much of it, or couldn’t come up with proof to back Fred’s story.

Third, the other shoe may not have dropped yet and Fred singing now may be diversionary tactic to start laying the ground work for reasonable doubt should there come a criminal trial.

In short, folks, Fred doesn’t pass the “smell” test. Fred trying to save his hide after the fact just doesn’t make sense. He would be in deeper trouble for lying to the SEC than for the options, so why come forward now?

]]> By: TechnicolourSquirrel http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16638 TechnicolourSquirrel Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:33:26 +0000 http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16638 The SEC is not going after Jobs because Anderson said nothing that hasn't already been said by Apple (i.e. that Jobs knew about the backdating but didn't know the implications). Anderson informing him that there were reporting requirements doesn't qualify Jobs to judge whether the need for 'prior approval' had been met. I'm sure that there was agreement that these options would happen. Since Jobs's opinion expressed to Anderson was not an expert one, there is no need to read into it any further than that. Anderson simply didn't do his job -- BTW we do realise, don't we, that it was HIS job, not Steve's, to compare what was said and done to the reporting requirements. Why would Anderson relinquish this decision to Jobs when Jobs didn't even ask him to? So did the Board verify what Jobs said they would verify, or didn't they? Didn't Anderson follow through? Note that he didn't say 'Bury this' -- he referred Anderson to the Board. Jobs connected the necessary dots when asked ... but the dots didn't operate as they should have, now, did they? The SEC realises this. They cannot send the message that CEOs have to micromanage every accounting practice to avoid censure. The SEC is not going after Jobs because Anderson said nothing that hasn’t already been said by Apple (i.e. that Jobs knew about the backdating but didn’t know the implications). Anderson informing him that there were reporting requirements doesn’t qualify Jobs to judge whether the need for ‘prior approval’ had been met. I’m sure that there was agreement that these options would happen. Since Jobs’s opinion expressed to Anderson was not an expert one, there is no need to read into it any further than that. Anderson simply didn’t do his job — BTW we do realise, don’t we, that it was HIS job, not Steve’s, to compare what was said and done to the reporting requirements. Why would Anderson relinquish this decision to Jobs when Jobs didn’t even ask him to? So did the Board verify what Jobs said they would verify, or didn’t they? Didn’t Anderson follow through? Note that he didn’t say ‘Bury this’ — he referred Anderson to the Board. Jobs connected the necessary dots when asked … but the dots didn’t operate as they should have, now, did they? The SEC realises this. They cannot send the message that CEOs have to micromanage every accounting practice to avoid censure.

]]> By: swift http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16618 swift Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:28:07 +0000 http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16618 why the SEC has decided not to go after Jobs? This is probably the answer you're looking for. Is it over now or what? :-) "The Commission also announced today that it would not bring any enforcement action against Apple based in part on its swift, extensive, and extraordinary cooperation in the Commission's investigation." http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm why the SEC has decided not to go after Jobs?

This is probably the answer you’re looking for. Is it over now or what? :-)

“The Commission also announced today that it would not bring any enforcement action against Apple based in part on its swift, extensive, and extraordinary cooperation in the Commission’s investigation.”

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm

]]> By: John Muir http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16603 John Muir Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:34:32 +0000 http://www.macalope.com/2007/04/24/perhaps-the-macalope-spoke-too-soon/#comment-16603 Quick, Artie MacStrawman needs to take a bullet for the boss. Where is he in our time of possible rhetorical need? Quick, Artie MacStrawman needs to take a bullet for the boss. Where is he in our time of possible rhetorical need?

]]>