Nickname: SP

Review: This is a cover up that is so obvious. This was also a standard practice in those times to keep talent in-house. Blame Anderson? Maybe for turning around a company that was in a death spiral in 1996. It will be interesting to find out who led the internal Apple investigation. Jobs is Apple. The current Board and Review board are clearly protecting their queen -- or king in this case. Only time and the SEC will tell.

Date reviewed: Oct 25, 2006 6:17 AM

Nickname: roberto

Review: If Jobs got a grant of 40 million shares, in the money by $5 at the time of the backdate, isn't that compensation of $200 million, even if later exchanged? I don't get this, it seems to me a taxable event upon the grant, for both Apple and Jobs, and not cheap.

Date reviewed: Oct 8, 2006 4:12 PM

Nickname: Terrin

Review: I agree, this article has a biased slant to it. Apple's stated transparancy can only go so far, as it has to release information to the SEC. If Apple starts naming individuals before giving information to the SEC, it opens itself up to possible lawsuits by the individuals who it has "concerns" over. Afterall, those people's names will be smeared all over the news. This is unnecessary if the SEC finds those individuals did nothing wrong. Moroever, a CEO who does not have an accounting background, should not have to know the law. That is what accountants are hired for, to tell the CEO the law. ANderson was paid very well to know the law, and advice Jobs of proper accounting practices. If Anderson misled Jobs, I see no reason why he should be held responsible.

Date reviewed: Oct 6, 2006 1:23 PM

Nickname: drew clark

Review: Most of the supposed questions that are brought up by Apple's answers are easy to find a solution to. Hesseldahl easily shows this in his ideas. Also, he challenges his own question about specific periods or back taxes. There is no need of knowing this, and Steve Jobs surely shouldn't worry about being transparent about these or other matters that the SEC should discuss and make open, rather than Apple's special committee. In short, Apple respectfully and diligently addressed things internally, just as it internally reported them initially to the SEC, and possibly influenced two resignations. The implication of this article has bias of distrust to Apple. While I will not swear myself to any company, I don't believe this is an evil scheme to hide the issue. Apple has done a good job of managing a hot button topic of the questionable practices of public companies, Round 2. This article needs to be in line with the statements given, not the skepticism written.

Date reviewed: Oct 5, 2006 7:57 PM