or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

  Tim Cook is no John Sculley. Some things will undoubtedly be different, but on the whole he's been doing a good job. They scored a big win on Friday in court. They launched the new iPad, and for the first time in years they had enough supply to match demand. They released Mountain Lion on schedule, and look to have a great new iPhone in the wings.
Things are going to be different whenever there is a change in CEO, and whenever there is a change in a significant position such as SVP of retail. We may just be hearing from some disgruntled employees, which there always are. The thing to remember is that Ron Johnson wasn't pushed out. A CEO position became available, and he jumped at the chance (although he's finding things difficult at JC Penney).    Like it or not 2012 is very different from 2001, and the goals...
  Apple would need to bring up the Galaxy SIII in a separate case. However, they can ask they judge for an injunction separately if they believe that it infringes upon the patents, similar to how they asked prior to the existing case for the judge to issue an injunction (which she did only for the Nexus S).
  I think that's a function of capacity. 3G networks are overloaded here in NYC, so LTE is a big benefit.   As for the survey itself, it doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't help matters that the ITC loosened the rules so that T-Mobile and AT&T could rechristen their existing 3G networks as "4G." Consumers may not even realize that there is a difference between "4G" and "LTE." As long as they can download what they want, they are happy. Having said that, LTE is more...
She's a former patent lawyer. Patent law is a very unique part of the law, and most people who go into it have a technical background. This isn't like closing a real estate deal, or even trying a criminal case.
Not necessarily. Samsung has virtually no time left to cross-examine. Apple is just putting these witnesses one one after another after another for a few minutes to make a single point. They just might get all 22 in, or close enough that they can argue that the list was in good faith (avoiding sanctions). The jury is getting to hear nearly 2 dozen people make Apple's case and stew over it through the weekend before closing arguments early next week.
  It depends on if it was sold ex-dividend. If yes, then yes, the "old" owner will receive the dividend. If no, then the "new" owner would receive the dividend, but the selling price would reflect that fact. The market knows how to handle these kinds of things.
Must this article parrot a talking point of one particular party? One of the reasons that the 2003 tax cuts reduced the dividend rate was to eliminate the disparity between dividends and capital gains. The economic argument is that the corporation already pays taxes (up to 35%), so it makes sense to reduce the taxes that individuals pay on the dividends they receive from corporations. Otherwise, corporate earnings would effectively be taxed at up to 70%. As a result of...
I want to see an ad where Ellen Feiss asks for a Genius to help her set up her knockoff Ultrabook so she can create a video while she's on her way to the hospital to have a baby.
They were probably cheap to make, aired a few times, and got everyone talking. Sometimes "bad" ads are the best publicity ever. Think Menards or Empire Carpets.  
New Posts  All Forums: