or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Corporate taxes.http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/08/companies-paying-the-most-taxes/2/Because much of the profit was realized overseas both Exxon and Chevron paid those taxes overseas, deducting the expense from the taxes owed the US. Regarding your numbers for Apple from MarketWatch they far exceed what Tim Cook stated to be fact in the Senate hearings. I think they've made an error unless you believe Mr Cook didn't know what he was talking about."Last year...
Pays or makes allowances to pay at some future point if nothing changes?Both Exxon and Chevron are far FAR ahead of them with $31B and $20B "paid" in corporate taxes in 2013. Apple didn't even come close to those two.
I know. He was responding to me as well. He just didn't realize that the 14.8M iPad sales were over an 8 month period too.
There shouldn't be any need to raise the price to cover taxes. Apple already made an allowance for corporate taxes, and they declare it in their financials when reporting results as do the other techs AFAIK. They just hadn't gone so far as to actually pay them up to this point.
The iPad hit around 15M sales in much less than 12 months. It was released for sale the first week of April/2010 and Steve Jobs was announcing the first year sales of 14.8M just 9 months later, mid Jan/2011. The Apple Watch will be going on sale roughly the same week in 2015 as the iPad did in 2010.To be fair it would be normal to assume that when Apple announced first year sales they would have meant a full 12 months and not the calendar year, but they...
So more than 15M Apple Watches between now and the end of December then.EDIT: Just noted you excluded the iPad first year sales. Sorry! With that said what new product launches from the past 7 or 8 years are you including? I wasn't sure which ones you considered to be new lines.
The root of the problem is there's little incentive for many of the retailers to invest in repair/maintenance, new equipment or employee training. The retailers don't get any monetary benefits from Apple Pay, Google Wallet or any of the other NFC-enabled payment methods. The only money made from it flows thru the service provider, for instance Apple, and the banks/CC issuers. None of it is shared with the retailers making the sale.I doubt few if any of the brick and...
The District Court would have no reason to defer. They aren't being asked to award damages or order an injunction. It's not at cross-purposes with the ITC filing. At the District Court It's a straightforward request for a finding on whether the offer was in accordance with FRAND commitments AFAIK. At the ITC it would be whether Apple is an unwilling licensee. If so, and in accordance with the Presidential veto letter, Apple would meet the exception clause for the issuance...
Note that Ericcson's District Court filing isn't requesting injunctive relief, nor is it something that court will decide. The request is for the court to rule on whether the offer they made to Apple was fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). The rest would be up to the ITC to decide based in part on what the District Court finds. Ericsson might not get the result they want in Texas making it a wasted effort at the ITC. Then again they may.I would have...
Apple cast the first stone in this one, bringing a suit against Ericsson. Perhaps they figured Ericsson was eventually going to sue them so they'd get in the first punch? Who knows.
New Posts  All Forums: