Judge Forcing Apple CEO oo Testify in eBook Conspiracy Case

[exfileme]

Tim Cook must take the stand.

Judge Forcing Apple CEO oo Testify in eBook Conspiracy Case : Read more

 

[wannabepro]

This ought to be fun.

 

[mi1ez]

oo?

 

[johnsonma]

Haha, suck it Tim Cook.

 

[SinisterSalad]

Nobody seems to proof-read online articles around here...

 

[ubercake]

I doubt Jobs needed to talk to Cook about this. That kind of thing is kept on the DL. I'm not sure what Cook's testimony will get anyone? He wasn't there when the deals were signed?

I think bringing Cook into the fray is all to bring media attention to our circus-show of legal system.

 

[Parrdacc]

It's called the 5th amendment. So all you will likely here is "I plead the the 5th on the grounds it may incriminate me." So we will probably never know the what, where, why and how's in regards to Tim Cook in relation to this.

 

[visa]

""Our company is not large enough to risk a worst case judgment," said Macmillan’s chief executive John Sargent."

So your company is big enough to get into eBook price-fixing scheme but not big enough to pay the price when you're caught? At least you'll be able to sleep soundly knowing the settlement will go to the lawyers instead of people that actually purchased the books.

 

[Memnarchon]

"Apple" and "Conspiracy" in the same sentence? What a strange coincidence that never, ever, crossed anyone's mind I believe...

 

[kanoobie]

" 'Our company is not large enough to risk a worst case judgment,' said Macmillan’s chief executive John Sargent."
The farce is strong with this one!

 

[falchard]

The judge does not seem to understand the law. You cannot force someone to testify under the 5th amendment. She should really read the Constitution.

 

[house70]

Trying to dodge testimony is a very smart move, you'll surely make friends with the judges that way...
/sarcasm

 

[rantoc]

Bring the Crook err i mean Cook to the judges =)

 

[bllue]

Apple was behind this price fixing conspiracy case and I hope they get smacked down.

 

[spectrablue]

Sherman Anti Trust applies?

 

[janetonly42]

Don't you love the two faced legal system we have. It takes a crow bar to get executives or politicians to testify then they usually still lie anyway but when it comes to the average Joe Blow out there, well.........

 

[madjimms]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]The judge does not seem to understand the law. You cannot force someone to testify under the 5th amendment. She should really read the Constitution.[/citation]
If someone won't comply with the judges orders they are in contempt of court....

 

[ven1ger]

Don't see how Tim Cook can claim 5th Amendment, as he's testifying to details relating to the Apple's involvement with price fixing. Since he isn't being directly prosecuted but Apple the company is then he doesn't have any redress. And if he pleads the 5th, then he's just signaled to the prosecution that he had a direct hand in the price fixing and then they have open season into prying into his life.

 

[Hando567]

[citation][nom]ven1ger[/nom]Don't see how Tim Cook can claim 5th Amendment, as he's testifying to details relating to the Apple's involvement with price fixing. Since he isn't being directly prosecuted but Apple the company is then he doesn't have any redress. And if he pleads the 5th, then he's just signaled to the prosecution that he had a direct hand in the price fixing and then they have open season into prying into his life.[/citation]

Glad I am not the only one who realized this. The 5th protects one from testifying against themselves, in this case Tim Cook is not on trial, but Apple is. Since Tim Cook the person is not Apple the company, that tactic is useless.

 

[house70]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]The judge does not seem to understand the law. You cannot force someone to testify under the 5th amendment. She should really read the Constitution.[/citation]
Not the case here. One still has to appear before a judge if ordered so. Also, the 5th applies only in case of self-incrimination. Apple is on trial, not Cook.
I guess the judge is not the one who needs to read the Constitution.