> I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need.
>> Tim Cook ignored Schiller
>> Cook chose poorly.
>> Cook, Schiller, and Maestri were the ultimate decision makers “about what they felt was [an] acceptable” level of risk to cabin the Injunction’s effect in terms of link placement and design.
It really seems like the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders. Tim Cook is as senior as you get. I think the usual problem is that they're not able to gather good enough evidence. IIRC the FTC went after Bezos last year because be was using disappearing messages with Signal to hide business records.
> the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders
Yes, I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence." While I'm certain an EVP-level exec had to sign off on the aggressive non-compliance posture, I'm also almost certain that EVP ran it by Tim Cook. The problem is that very likely happened in a one-on-one, in-person conversation. No notes, witnesses or recording.
It's the same age-old problem of convicting the mafia boss for ordering or approving the hit when it was a private conversation and he spoke euphemistically or even just nodded. So, I decided the EVP who communicated the strategy with the team in a wider meeting was probably the best we could do.
> I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence."
What I was trying to point out is that it appears there is significant evidence. My interpretation of them is that the court is claiming Cook was knowingly in violation with the court's orders.
