or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

  My understanding is that most of Apple's profit (by Apple's own foreign subsidiaries) are actually re-invested in US assets.  While the corporate taxes in the US by US companies are high, the capital investments from foreign investors, ie, Apple's subsidiaries, are exempt from capital gains taxes.
  There is no one company or single individual who owns all LTE patents.  The point here is that Samsung is one of the major LTE patent holders (10+% of all LTE patents, in fact) - you can't swing a dead cat without hitting Samsung's LTE patents.  The same is probably now true for Apple - which I believe is among the top 10 LTE patent holders.
  Well, at least Samsung researched and developed LTE patents in house, unlike Apple who bough most.
    It's just amazing how well-cultured and cosmopolitan average AI'ers are (sarcasm). Well, I think you are thinking along the line of Taliban or Islamic fundamentalism.   Furthermore, why would Samsung be embarrassed?  Apple's win in the US was more of an oddity than anything else - the courts in the UK, Netherlands, Japan, Austrialia, and Germany (partial) sided with Samsung.  I would hardly call that "embarrassing."    So no. Not really.  Until Apple appoints a female...
  Well, why?   While I expect "moderators" to be somewhat neutral (or perhaps not as obnixous as TS), Appleinsider.com is a Apple echo chamber.  Apple fanboys all over the world come here to spread their Apple propaganda and justify their existence. (ok, just kidding)  You could take a hike if you don't like it here (now, on an unrelated note, anybody know why Appleinsider keeps showing up on my Google news/search?)     Let's all leave that poor TS guy alone, ..  oh,...
    yep, unlike Apple's hometown court in San Jose.  [sarcasm]
  Toshiba, Elpida are Japanese, while Hynix is Korean.
  Well, that's somewhat misleading.  Samsung mobile's sales now accounts for almost 50% of all Samsung Electronic's revenue, or 75% of profit. Apple's $12+B sales doesn't really amount to much, especially considering Samsung's $160+B annual sales. The semi and display divisions don't really make much money for Samsung or barely breaking even. Samsung is really better off without Apple.
  I don't think Samsung is trying to ban Apple's products, as Apple is doing now.  Samsung will probably ask for a high rate, though a rate far fair, reasonable than Apple's rate, to force Apple to cross-license.    There is really nothing set in stone about "fair" or "reasonable" price.  If Apple can charge $25 per low-end Android device (20%) for their utility patents, I don't see why Samsung can't charge Apple 10% or 15% for all eight.
  Didn't Apple pay billions to Nokia a couple of years back (settled out of court)?   Yeah, this case will be appealed regardless of who wins it.
New Posts  All Forums: