> 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.
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.