Jobs was also chief executive, to increase the value of option grants to senior employees. Jobs of wrongdoing, saying he didn’t understand the accounting implications. There’s no indication that any lawyers put the brakes on.But it concluded that he “was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates.” Mr. You see this kind of behavior sometimes in small, private or family-run companies, but almost never in large public companies like Apple.”Apple declined to comment. (On the contrary, the chief architect of the scheme inside Apple was a lawyer.) In an email to James Murdoch, then an executive at News Corporation, which owned the publisher Harper Collins, Mr.You can’t get into this game without a healthy distaste for the status quo.”But even as Mr.Jobs was doing his best to snuff out competition, he publicly reveled in it, Mr. “The paradox is, Steve Jobs was totally energized by competition. He later felt the same about Microsoft Windows and did the PC versus Mac ads.Jobs himself received options on 7.5 million shares, which were backdated to immediately bolster their value by over million. Jobs “didn’t pay much attention to convention, and now more than ever, that’s the culture of tech companies.”Professor Hovenkamp characterized both the e-book agreements and the anti-poaching pact as “blatant restraints of trade.” Mr. Jobs offered what amounted to a classic case in price fixing: “Our proposal does set the upper limit for e-book retail pricing based on the hardcover price of each book” and urged Harper Collins to “throw in with Apple.”Harper Collins did, along with other major publishers. Cote of Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that “Apple is liable here for facilitating and encouraging the publisher defendants’ collective, illegal restraint of trade,” adding: “Through their conspiracy, they forced Amazon (and other resellers) to relinquish retail pricing authority and then they raised retail e-book prices.Apple admitted that the minutes of the October board meeting where the grant was supposedly approved were fabricated, that no such meeting had occurred and that the options were actually granted in December. Those higher prices were not the result of regular market forces but of a scheme in which Apple was a full participant.”Why were no criminal charges filed?The anti-poaching case may be taking a bigger toll on Mr.Jobs’s reputation, especially since he seemed so cavalier about people’s jobs. Jobs was again injudicious in his emails to competitors. with patent litigation unless Palm agreed not to recruit Apple employees, even though Palm’s then-chief executive, Edward Colligan, told him that such a plan was “likely illegal.”That same year, Mr. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google at the time, “I would be extremely pleased if Google would stop doing this,” referring to its efforts to recruit an Apple engineer. Schmidt forwarded the email, adding his own indiscreet comment: “I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request.
While he was taking care of his top lieutenants by trying ti “surprise and delight them with what a career at Apple could be”, he was “hurt” that Apple’s board didn’t do the same for him.
Jobs “was a walking antitrust violation,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and an expert in antitrust law.
“I’m simply astounded by the risks he seemed willing to take.”The anti-poaching pact was hardly Mr. His behavior was at the center of an e-book price-fixing conspiracy with major publishers.
Jobs, had he lived and been healthy, would have faced charges, especially since he was a recidivist. Jobs’s immense popularity, prosecutors might not have wanted to risk a trial, Mr. Isaacson added, “The rules just didn’t apply to him, whether he was getting a license plate that let him use handicapped parking or building products that people said weren’t possible.
Most of the time he was right, and he got away with it.”Mr. Jobs’s seeming indifference to the law wasn’t unusual in Silicon Valley. “He was arrested for speeding and driving without a license. It’s just a characteristic of young tech entrepreneurs to look at the rules and question them.