Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Apple

The SEC Is Getting Closer To Jobs 154

Posted by kdawson
from the bigger-fish dept.
Strudelkugel writes "CNN is reporting that Apple's ex-CFO warned Steve Jobs about backdating options. From the article: 'Apple's former finance chief Fred Anderson blamed Apple CEO Steve Jobs for a 2001 stock option grant that was backdated, according to a statement from Anderson's lawyer released Tuesday. The statement was released by Anderson's lawyer, Jerome Roth, after Anderson settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission related to Apple's stock option plan without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.' This is serious business. It is quite possible that the SEC could someday require Jobs to resign from Apple."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The SEC Is Getting Closer To Jobs

Comments Filter:
  • Bring on the iPod clones!
    The iMac clones!
    The Powerbook clones!

    Ring the death knell, only Steve Jobs has imagination. Oh no!

    He can still run it from the shadows.
    • by JQuick (411434) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:03PM (#18863069)
      CNN is not reporting the whole story.

      Yes, Fred Anderson's lawyer did claim that he had warned Job's about the issue in 2001, and implied that Job's had misled Anderson.

      However, in a press release today, the SEC made several statements that flatly contradict the CNN story.

      The SEC said it isn't bringing enforcement action against Apple "based in part on its swift, extensive, and extraordinary cooperation in the commission's investigation."

      They also stated that, "Apple's cooperation consisted of, among other things, prompt self-reporting, an independent internal investigation, the sharing of the results of that investigation with the government, and the implementation of new controls designed to prevent the recurrence of fraudulent conduct."

      In short, the SEC stance appears to be that Anderson and Apple's former general counsel Nancy Heinen had the direct responsibility to review the board's decisions in this matter and make sure that Apple complied with reporting requirements. The SEC publicly stated that they are not bringing any action against Apple, they have settled with Anderson already, and will continue prosecuting Heinen (since she has chosen to fight the charges against her.

      This is poor reporting on CNNs part, not a real story.
      • by mkiwi (585287) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:17PM (#18863675)
        This is the real article. [mercurynews.com]

        The story has more info and content than the CNN acticle.

      • by qbwiz (87077) *

        The SEC said it isn't bringing enforcement action against Apple


        Contrary to popular belief, Steve Jobs is not, in fact, Apple. There was a period of many years when Steve Jobs was not associated at all with Apple. If they actually do go to court against Jobs (and not Apple), there may be another period of many years when he won't be associated with Apple.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by iocat (572367)
          There was a period of many years when Steve Jobs was not associated at all with Apple

          Yeah, when Apple sucked. I'm not saying Jobs would have done a better job than Scully and his sucessors, but they certainly managed to do an awful job, and simply coast on the "cool" that Jobs and Woz lent to the company.

      • by vought (160908)
        This is poor reporting on CNNs part, not a real story.

        No surprise there. CNN has been on a crappy headline writing binge today. [blogspot.com]
      • Well, why would Fred Anderson and Nancy Heinen be charged for hiding options grants that benefited Steve Jobs, and Jobs himself not be charged at some point? The Seattle Post Intelligencer has this quote [nwsource.com]:

        "Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office was still investigating. A spokeswoman for the office declined to comment Tuesday on the status of the case.

        Legal experts say the combination of Anderson's new accusations and the pending investigations leaves Jobs' culpability in question.

        "That statement and the disp

    • Leading Headline (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "The SEC Is Getting Closer To Jobs"

      Oh, really? SEC won't file stock options case against Apple; cites company's 'extraordinary' cooperation [reuters.com]

      Sorry, Apple-haters.
  • by Stanistani (808333) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @05:58PM (#18862345) Homepage Journal
    If Jobs has a good lawyer, and doesn't make the 'Martha Stewart' mistake of lying to federal investigators, then the worst thing that will happen to him is a hole in his wallet.
    • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:14PM (#18862567) Journal

      Right. Here's the ONLY thing Steve Jobs should be saying to Federal Investigators:

    • by wass (72082) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:45PM (#18862889)
      It also looks like Fred Anderson is also trying to stab back at Apple after their own internal investigation pointed to him and another former employee Heinen, after these two were let go. Apple claimed these two executives acted improperly, and now that Anderson settled with the SEC (and lost a bunch of time and cash in the process) he's trying to strike back.

      See this article [chron.com] and this other article [law.com] from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is

      And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."

      Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.

      In light of this contradiction, why should anyone trust his word now?
      • by w42w42 (538630)

        See this article and this other article from back in January. Interesting that back in January, from the article, Anderson's statement is

        And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."

        Yet, now having claimed he knew that Jobs was awarded or considering these backdated options, he would either violated his SEC ethics obligations, or was so insanely incompetent he should have been fired anyway. So by settling with the SEC he basically admits he did act improperly. It's obvious he most likely lied (or sneakily phrased his statement) back in January.

        Ex

      • by wattersa (629338) <andrew&andrewwatters,com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @11:31PM (#18865401) Homepage
        1. That is why you have a lawyer make those statements. Your lawyer is not under oath. Your lawyer only has an ethical duty not to mislead a court or a jury. That doesn't apply to the opposing side-- much less the public. See Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200. The idea is, you have someone other than the principal make statements so that the principal always has an excuse (i.e., that the representative made an error in transcription, etc.). Blame any "mistake" on the lawyer-- that's what is at work here.

        2. A lawyer's prepared statement is designed to give wiggle room while implying certain things that put the client in a favorable light or make the client appear innocent. See my breakdown of the statement:
        - Fred didn't play a "day to day" role
        -> could mean
        - Fred wasn't in charge of that, so he's not responsible for misconduct.
        - Fred was in charge of that, but he wasn't involved in the details, so someone else committed misconduct and he's not responsible for it.
        - Fred was in charge and is officially responsible for the misconduct, but he didn't know about it because he can't review _everything_ that happens or else he couldn't do his main job-- helping the company make money for shareholders.
        -> implies
        - Fred is innocent.
        - Fred is above the fray.
        - Fred is too important to have committed misconduct.
        - Fred couldn't have known about misconduct because he doesn't know all the details.
        - Whoever committed misconduct hid it from Fred.

        - "in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options."
        -> could mean
        - Fred doesn't have the authority to grant stock options (true: the Board of Directors may be the only entity that can grant stock options).
        - Fred isn't involved in reporting stock options to the SEC or shareholders.
        - Fred isn't involved in auditing/accounting.
        - Fred has authority to grant stock options but it's not one of his more significant duties.
        - Fred is involved in reporting to the SEC, but since reports to the SEC don't come out on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
        - Fred is involved in accounting of stock options, but since auditing and accounting isn't done on a day to day basis, the statement is true.
        -> implies
        - Fred is not responsible for misconduct.
        - Fred is above the fray.
        - Fred can manage a public company's finances in the future because he did nothing wrong here.
        - Fred knows nothing.

        - "he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process"
        -> could mean
        - Fred manipulated the process unknowingly.
        - Fred was involved in manipulating the process but didn't know the extent of his role.
        -> implies
        - Fred didn't
    • by Tickletaint (1088359) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:12PM (#18863637) Journal
      "No, Your Honor, I guess I just see things differently."

      "I'm a misfit. A rebel. A troublemaker. I admit it."

      "I'm not fond of rules. And I have no respect for the status quo."
    • The other thing is that options backdating (giving you the right to buy/sell some stock at a better, earlier price for higher profit) is legal, but you have to properly report it - it counts as income, and the feds want to tax it.

  • by SashaM (520334) <msasha&gmail,com> on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:02PM (#18862399) Homepage
    You can see from today's AAPL chart [yahoo.com] that the average investor thinks this overblown. The dip and the quick recovery occurred when the news about this accusation came out.
    • by maeka (518272) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:22PM (#18862671) Journal

      You can see from today's AAPL chart that the average investor thinks this overblown. The dip and the quick recovery occurred when the news about this accusation came out.


      That stock price chart merely reflects that the market hates uncertainty, the announcement of anticipated news always brings an up tick, as uncertainty is removed.

      The uncertainty, in this case, was on possible "smoking guns" revealed as part of Fred Anderson's settlement. There were none, his "punishment" was minimal, and as soon as the market processed this information the temporary downturn (during the period of imperfect information when traders are unsure if they have the full story) reversed and Apple's stock went higher than opening.

  • I can't see them asking him to step down, before he straight-up hands over the reigns to someone else before shit hits the fan.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:07PM (#18862457) Homepage
    As an extravagantly paid consultant. Who in their right mind thinks that they're going to let him go, unless the law puts a total barrier between Apple and Jobs?
  • Despite it all (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:09PM (#18862485)
    Despite all our criticisms as techno-nerds about Steve Job's "reality distortion field", I think that we can agree that this man is the best person to remain head of Apple. One might argue that he is overpaid, but, with that said, this man can sell their products like no other. I think his fate should be to pay back whatever ill-begotten gains this dirty trick gained him, plus fines, and he should remain in his current position.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by mrdaveb (239909)
      One might argue that he is overpaid

      His salary is $1 per year... I don't think anyone is going to argue he is overpaid
      • Re:Despite it all (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MalleusEBHC (597600) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:21PM (#18862653)

        His salary is $1 per year... I don't think anyone is going to argue he is overpaid


        His salary may only be $1, but he received about $8 million worth of options last year. The $1 salary is purely symbolic now.

        And for the record, Jobs is easily worth millions to the company. There's no way Apple would be where it is without him, and he is worth every penny they give him.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by afidel (530433)
          Jobs is one of those relatively rare CEOs who's worth whatever compensation the board decides to give him. Apple was literally on the verge of collapse when he returned to the helm with investors talking about liquidating the company being a real option. He's a lot like Jack Welsh in his ability to lead the people and see the market and future for the company.
        • by catbutt (469582) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:36PM (#18863361)

          The $1 salary is purely symbolic now.
          A few years ago, of course, Jobs needed the money and the extra dollar a year came in handy.
        • His salary may only be $1, but he received about $8 million worth of options last year. The $1 salary is purely symbolic now.
          Except for the fact that other CEOs make six-figure salaries and STILL get all the kickbacks. In this sense, Jobs is making six-figures less than he is worth.
          • by drsquare (530038)
            If he's getting those six-figures in stock rather than cash then he's not being paid less.
            • My point is, if a CEO is making 1.5 million in stock options on top of their 567,000 per annum salary, and Jobs is getting the same in stock options, but only $1 in per annum salary, then Jobs is making less than a CEO is worth.
              • by drsquare (530038)
                This is a very simple concept, I don't see why you can't understand it.
                • This is a very simple concept, I don't see why you can't understand i
                  My point exactly. Let me break it down for you: Steve Jobs makes $1 a year plus X million in Stock Options. Joe CEO makes 650,000 a year plus X million in Stock Options. Steve Jobs has sacrificed 650,000 in salary, compared to other CEOs.
                  • by drsquare (530038)
                    Why don't you tell us what these 'X's are. How much are other CEOs earning compared to Steve Jobs? What makes you think they all get the same amount of options?
            • My point is, if a CEO is making 1.5 million in stock options on top of their 567,000 per annum salary, and Jobs is getting the same in stock options, but only $1 in per annum salary, then Jobs is making less than the other CEOs.
      • Re:Despite it all (Score:5, Informative)

        by StikyPad (445176) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:37PM (#18862813) Homepage
        I think a few people might... [wikipedia.org]

        His current salary at Apple officially remains US$1 per year, although he has traditionally been the recipient of a number of lucrative "executive gifts" from the board, including a US$46 million jet in 1999 and just under 30 million shares of restricted stock in 2000-2002. As such, Jobs is well compensated for his efforts at Apple despite the nominal one-dollar salary. This approach reduces his personal tax liability because, under current U.S. tax law, salary income is taxed at a significantly higher rate (currently up to 35%) than the capital gains tax (currently a maximum of 15%) applied to profits arising from the sale of stock grants. Obtaining remuneration through stock instead of salary is a common extrinsic rewarding technique which ties management performance to financial benefits. Furthermore, it acts as a tax minimization strategy.
    • Re:Despite it all (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wass (72082) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:51PM (#18862961)
      Jobs didn't gain ANYTHING from this deal, he never exercised the backdated options.

      As someone else pointed out, his salary is $1 per year, but of course he owns significant shares of Apple, Pixar, and other stocks where the real money is made.

      Since Jobs never exercised the options, his only guilt in this scam is in having been awarded the options by his company (where the options backdating was approved by Anderson himself who's making the accusation now).

      It's kind of like your friend giving you a forged check from a rich person's account, and then him getting busted for writing these forged checks. Since he's busted he wants to claim you as an accomplice, even though you never cashed that check.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by aczisny (871332)

        That not quite true. The options were converted to restricted Apple stock for the same value as the options were currently worth. If the options had been granted later, presumably he would have been given a lot less restricted stock than he otherwise was. The Washington Post had an article [washingtonpost.com] about it on January 11th.

        So you're correct that he never exercised the options, but he gained in a big way when they were converted to a restricted stock grant of their approximate value.

        • Backdating is not illegal nor unethical, as long as those accused in this case had reported it correctly. The illegal aspect of this situation is that it wasn't reported correctly, not the backdating.

      • Since Jobs never exercised the options, his only guilt in this scam is in having been awarded the options by his company (where the options backdating was approved by Anderson himself who's making the accusation now).

        It's kind of like your friend giving you a forged check from a rich person's account, and then him getting busted for writing these forged checks. Since he's busted he wants to claim you as an accomplice, even though you never cashed that check.

        Just kind of like the time my wife caught me leav

    • I think that we can agree that this man is the best person to remain head of Apple.
      Well, certainly we can agree to that, since he's the only one who can feasibly do it. Any other option is grammatically impossible.
      • Err, I typed this in a hurry. Meant to have 2 paragraphs as well, but you know, post early to get the positive moderation.

        Anyhow, how would I write it correctly, to express the idea that Mr. Jobs should not be forced to leave his post?
        • by Wordplay (54438)
          "I think that we can agree that this man is the best person to be head of Apple."

          No previous state implied.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Paradise Pete (33184)
          I typed this in a hurry. Meant to have 2 paragraphs as well, but you know, post early to get the positive moderation

          Yes, because it's much more important to have three or four random people mod you up than it is to clearly and articulately get your point across.

  • by k2enemy (555744) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:11PM (#18862517)
    Jobs probably won't be forced to quit by the SEC. From today's WSJ coverage:

    "The SEC said it will not pursue any further action against Apple itself, which cooperated fully with the probe"
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by tlhIngan (30335)

      Jobs probably won't be forced to quit by the SEC.


      It would be a very bad day for Apple investors if Jobs is forced to resign - honestly, he's done a lot for revitalizing Apple in the last 10 years he's been around (iMac practically saved the company, and iPods are doing relatively well). It's hard to argue that public interest is served by firing Jobs and hiring some other person in his place (everyone else who tried has failed).
    • by walter_f (889353)
      "The SEC said it will not pursue any further action against Apple itself, which cooperated fully with the probe"

      Note the term "Apple itself" which means Apple as a company.

      Steve Jobs, contrary to what many people seem to believe, is still a different entity. ;-)

      So there will be probably further action against Jobs himself.
  • They'll lose no time going after Jobs for piddlin' crap, but will they touch SCO for their OBVIOUS pump 'n' dump stock scam? Nooooo...

    Gutless wienies.

    • Why should they waste their time and taxpayer dollars when IBM and Novell are going to do their job for them?
  • by N8F8 (4562) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:22PM (#18862673)
    Run for President, fix the economy, the political system and world strife then pardon himself. He's got my vote.
  • Elsewhere... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by djupedal (584558)
    "Hello, this is Norddest Airways RapidExit Request Hotline, my name is Danielle-Shawnee-Alisa-Moonshine, where do you wish to fly today?"

    "Hi, eh, Moonshine, my name is Steve Jobs and I need a ticket to anywhere overseas, on the next plane out of Dodge - what've ya got?"

    "Yes Sir, Mr. Jobs...let's take a look at the latest departures and see what we have - the next flight, which leaves in 42 minutes, is for Guatemala, via Houston...how does that sound?"

    "...no good - anything direct?"

    "Well, we do h
  • Maybe ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:33PM (#18862789)
    ...Jobs can just claim that the backdating was the result of a really badly screwed up DST patch.
  • What do you expect from a guy who parks in handicapped stalls? The only thing is, if he removed from the company, I hope Steve Balmer, Larry Ellison and most other CEOs are required to resign at the same time. In Microsoft's case, its clear that all top executives allowed the company to break antitrust laws in a way that was repeatedly pointed out to them by US government. It's high time to make upper management responsible for any lawbreaking by their firm. In my opinion, this would make running a huge com
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission made the following announcement today:

    SEC Charges Former Apple General Counsel for Illegal Stock Option Backdating
    http://sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-70.htm [sec.gov]
  • ...if backdating was patented already. Meaning, submarine patents are more destablizing than financial caught-in-cookie-jar.
  • by bl8n8r (649187) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:53PM (#18862985)
    Mac: "PC, I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

    PC: "Oh, that was the door to courtroom slamming shut. There are six Mac users out in the hallway singing Jonestown's Classics..... Hey mac, is this Gatorade??"

  • by Tablizer (95088) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @06:53PM (#18862991) Homepage Journal
    SEC could someday require Jobs to resign

    Would he then change his name to "Steven Pinkslips"?
         
  • Introducing the iFraud (tm)

    Apple is currently negotiating the trademark, reportedly still held by Enron.
  • Remember, this is all for the benefit of the shareholders. They will be so much better off once he is gone.
  • by samantha (68231) * on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @07:24PM (#18863265) Homepage
    Since when? Either they press criminal charges or they do not. But even if they do and found guilty there is no power in the law I am aware of that can force someone to resign their position. IANAL, but if such power is in the hands of SEC it is clearly pernicious.
    • by gertam (1019200)
      The SEC can seek to bar people from being members of the board of a company if they have broken securities laws. Martha Stewart is banned for 5 years from being a director of a public company. Something similar could conceivably happen to Jobs.
    • No no no - Slashdotters have such a great fucking grip on reality - the last line should read"

      "This is serious business. It is quite possible that the SEC could someday make Steve Jobs explode just my making a single phone call with their magical fucking CEO exploder phone!"

      And Snakes on a Plane was OSCAR WINNER MATERIAL BABY! PWNED!
  • Where's the "haha" tag?
  • He didn't have to admit to any of his own wrongdoing. He was too busy admitting to Steve Job's wrongdoing to help Steve out. Isn't it great when you staff is so helpful?
  • by TechnicolourSquirrel (1092811) on Tuesday April 24, 2007 @08:09PM (#18863615)
    The full text of Fred Anderson's statement: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/in dex.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070424006168& newsLang=en [businesswire.com]

    "Fred Anderson has a long-standing impeccable reputation and is widely regarded as one of the most ethical CFO's in the nation whose extraordinary contributions to Apple's success during his eight-year tenure are unquestioned. He is accurately recognized by many current and former Apple employees and throughout the industry as a man of exceptional ability, achievement and integrity. "With respect to today's announced settlement by the SEC of its complaint against him, Fred is pleased to put this matter behind him. "In the settlement Fred makes no admission or denial of the claims by the SEC. The terms of the settlement permit Fred to continue to act as an officer or director of public companies and do not bar him from practicing before the SEC. The claims against him also do not include fraud under the two antifraud provisions of the securities laws requiring proof of knowing misconduct. "With respect to the Executive Team grant that is the subject of the complaint against him: * Fred was told by Steve Jobs in late January 2001 that Mr. Jobs had the agreement of the Board of Directors for the Executive Team grant on January 2, 2001. At the time Mr. Jobs provided Fred this assurance, Fred cautioned Mr. Jobs that the Executive Team grant would have to be priced based on the date of the actual Board agreement or there could be an accounting charge. He further advised Mr. Jobs that the Board would have to confirm its prior approval in a legally satisfactory method. He was told by Mr. Jobs that the Board had given its prior approval and the Board would verify it. Fred relied on these statements by Mr. Jobs and from them concluded the grant was being properly handled. * Fred understood that, under Apple's stock option plan and accounting rules at the time, a grant date could be moved to a later date than the date of the actual grant decision and that there would be no compensation expense as long as the stock price on the new date was higher than the price on the original date. Apple's 1998 Executive Officer Stock Option Plan provided in Section 16 that 'The date of grant of an Option...shall be, for all purposes, the date on which the Administrator (in this case the Board) makes the determination granting such Option...or such later date as is determined by the Administrator '. Mr. Anderson understood that the date of grant was to be moved forward pursuant to this provision from January 2 to January 17 to avoid any appearance of impropriety that might arise from a grant awarded just prior to the stock price rise that resulted from the 2001 MacWorld exhibition and Mr. Job's keynote speech at the exhibition on January 9. He further understood that the January 17 date was selected by Mr. Jobs and Ms. Nancy Heinen, the former General Counsel, and that the stock price on January 17 was higher than the price on January 2. * Finally, Mr. Anderson understood that the Board of Directors, which consisted of sophisticated corporate executives of national stature, including the former Chief Financial Officer of IBM, verified the January 17 date by signing in early February 2001 a Unanimous Written Consent (UWC) with an effective date of January 17. It now appears the Board may not have given the necessary prior approval to the grants, contrary to what Mr. Anderson understood from Mr. Jobs and from the Board's signing of the UWC with an effective date of January 17. "Mr. Anderson has agreed to pay disgorgement, the difference in the value of the stock between the January 17 date and the date in early February when the UWC was signed by the Board. "With respect to the October 2001 grant to Mr. Jobs that is also the subject of the complaint, Fred had virtually no involve

  • Apple had been operating under the common interpretation of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123:

    http://www.fasb.org/pdf/fas123.pdf [fasb.org] Oct 1995, 134 pages

    However, Apple and several thousand other companies were surprised to learn that their understanding of FASB 123 might be flawed, and so the Federal Accounting Standards Board issued a clarification in December 2004, the cleverly named Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), more commonly known as FASB 123R.

    http://ww [fasb.org]
  • In the worst case scenario for Jobs, he did not even do enough to get into the Republican party. Bill Gates will send Jobs a bottle of champagne with a note that reads "join the club."

  • Hasn't the SEC already closed its investigation in to Jobs' involvement with these options? That's what I heard on business news weekly this morning, anyway...
  • The SEC has already closed the case. There will be no more action. The story is a whole lot of nothing.
  • The guy that the independent investigation said did it, who was forced to take some time with his family, kaff, kaff, who now has settled for millions to avoid a civil trial, wouldn't have any motivation to backstab his old boss, would he? If it's against Jobs, you apparently don't need any proof. Who's running Slashdot, Nancy friggin' Grace? Has anybody said, "evidence"? A denunciation timed to take attention from your own admission of misdeeds doesn't qualify as evidence, just an assertion. The only resp

What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.

Working...