NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- Ho-hum news breaks in the David Einhorn versus Apple ( AAPL) leave it on the ice tussle and you have a choice: Say "Ho Hum" and move along or consider the backstory of rhetorical positioning taking place publicly and most likely behind the scenes.I choose the latter. Not only is that approach more fun, it's intellectually stimulating and, in the grand scheme of all things Apple, it's what matters. So, here's TheStreet's Chris Ciaccia with what happened and here's why I think it matters. First, I call it a leave it on the ice tussle because I view CEO Tim Cook, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer, the Apple Board, David Einhorn and his firm the way I view hockey players. They generally leave it all on the ice. Take some shots. Call some names ("silly" sideshow). Make strategic moves. But, ultimately, there's nothing that will stop the players from drinking beer together at any point during this battle. These "two sides" (as much as I despise dichotomy) do not hate one another. In fact, they ultimately have common goals. But they're still somewhat at odds. That's a big part of why this is all so fascinating. Einhorn needs to strike again. And now. I make the first three-quarters of that case in Apple iPrefs: David Einhorn Will Win Because Steve Jobs is Dead and What David Einhorn is Doing Foreshadows the Beginning of the End at Apple. Einhorn absolutely has Apple where he wants it or, at least, where he needs it to be. Einhorn should take the opportunity of being in the headlines again with the formality of dropping the lawsuit to gently turn the screws on Tim Cook. When Tim Cook talks, Apple's stock goes down. He's on the verge of becoming a liability for the company, if he isn't already. So, piggyback the ho-hum headline with powerful rhetoric (and, again, I use "rhetoric" in the academic sense of the word, not the political sphere where well-done rhetoric died with RFK). Einhorn needs to maintain control of the narrative. That's what Steve Jobs would have done. It's something Tim Cook does not appear capable of doing. Riffing here ... like I am Einhorn (except a Yankees fan) ... Apple and Greenlight have the same goals. A great long-term future for the company and more incredible innovation. At Greenlight, we're confident in Apple's continue success. However, Apple must act by taking care of its shareholders and instituting better capital allocation practices. iPrefs is one way to go about it, but as a large Apple shareholder, we're open to a variety of ideas.
Using language that says How in the world can Apple be against what we're proposing here, in any way, unless they're just completely out of touch? will help seal the deal for Einhorn. Or, maybe it's already sealed. Maybe Apple is preparing to do something that will satisfy Einhorn and likeminded shareholders, but we're simply not privy to this information yet? In any event, the chess match -- assuming there's as much of one as I think there is -- rolls on. No matter what happens, when it's done one thing will not change: We will continue holding our collective breath wondering, outside of rumors and a nicely evolving Siri, can Apple still Think Different and be revolutionary again? Follow @rocco_thestreet -- Written by Rocco Pendola in Santa Monica, Calif.