or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

I think you are overreacting. iOS just needs enough market share to survive and thrive. It doesn't need to be the top seller. It isn't as if John Sculley or Michael Spindler were named CEO. There is room for 2 or even 3 or 4 major mobile operating systems. That said, I do think that Apple is secretly a fan of Windows Phone and Windows 8 ARM. Any growth that those operating systems experience will probably be largely at the expense of Android.
Samsung doesn't earn Apple-style margins, however. They aren't at razor-thin Motorola margins, either, but Apple still commands a premium.It remains to be seen how well the Galaxy Tab actually sells in Australia. It hasn't really caught on here in the US. All the non-iPad attention is on the Kindle Fire.
Full disclosure: I'm long AAPL. I agree. Apple is trading at utility P/E ratios right now. "Analysts" are tough to figure out. On the one hand, they all seem to think that Apple is prime for a fall (hence the 9.76 forward P/E). On the other hand, they keep on ratcheting up expectations and putting out higher and higher guidance on the iPhone and iPad. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Do you think that the management team and board that Steve Jobs left behind...
That was a German regional court. The EU investigation is completely separate. The German court was simply applying existing German law. The EU may separately determine that Motorola Mobility's use of the law, when viewed in light of other actions, amounted to anti-competitive behavior.
The crux of the debate is that to definitively assert a FRAND defense, apparently one needs to admit prior infringement. The net effect of this is that someone who genuinely believes a FRAND patent is invalid is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay the FRAND royalty and waive the ability to contest the patent, or take your chances in court. Apple has the resources to do the latter. But not every company does. This exposes a flaw in the FRAND system (one...
You're not a patent lawyer, so no, there's nothing wrong with that last bit. Enjoy the sales spike for as long as it lasts.
Apple approached Motorola years ago about licensing the patents on FRAND terms. Motorola Mobility decided to play hardball. Apple is more than happy to settle out of court. Nokia is a good example. Nokia has far more patents than Motorola Mobility and has done more to develop mobile communications standards than anyone else. They had a brief war of words, but then later came to an amicable settlement.
I disagree. Motorola Mobility was looking to use a rather ordinary patent as a gold mine, much the same way that Microsoft has done with Android licensees.
The whole dispute seems to be over the royalty amount. Apple wants to pay FRAND rates while disputing the validity of the patent. Motorola Mobility wants to charge more than FRAND for that period from 2007 to whenever it was that Apple first approached them about a license.Neither stock is moving much today, so I'm guessing what will happen is that this will force a relatively quick settlement, depending on what results Apple gets at the appeals court.Given that the EU is...
How so? Motorola apparently refused to license the patents on FRAND terms because Apple wanted to reserve the right to contest the patent. It sounds like Motorola was the one overreaching. Anyway, Motorola's attorney in Germany is also the same one who got the Samsung injunction lifted. Perhaps Apple should think about switching law firms. It sounds like the only matter under actual dispute is the amount of royalties Apple will pay Motorola. Apple wants to pay FRAND rates...
New Posts  All Forums: