or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by penchanted

Bingo! That is a huge difference.   It's really sad that people would even be upset with these companies for fully-complying with the existing tax code. They should be livid with their legislators who both spend their money and who make up the tax code, complete with all of its loopholes that that these companies legally take adavantage of.
I think they got this backwards. I suspect the pressure from the Chinese government is on Proview. China knows that their costs are rising compared to other developing countries and I don't think that will allow such a blatant hold-up of Apple. They are pressuring both sides (but especially the bankrupt Proview) to get a deal done and get this out of the news before other Western companies start reconsidering doing business in China.
I don't really think this decision will bear much weight in the China case. If I understand correctly, what Apple argued was that the case was being properly tried in China and that this case really should have not been brought.
Yes, I am an Apple investor since the late 90s.   But, as usual, you miss the real point which  is that companies should not exist just to shift units but to make money. Most units sold is basically a pissing contest unless it correlates to profitability. Companies don't exist to give you a great deal but rather to extract as much as they can from you. This is capitalism. If you think you are being overcharged, buy something else.
This will eventually have a negative impact on Apple's margins. But the more interesting thing to watch for is how these reduced margins will impact Apple's competition. I think Apple is, in a way, happy to see upwards pricing pressure in the future for what it will do to the competition.
They pay their fair share based on the current US tax code. Scream at Congress who both spends your money and makes up the rules for taxation along with the many loopholes (and don't think these were oversights) created.
Bottom line is that Coburn is criticizing a company for complying with US tax regulations, many of which he has had a hand in forming.
I guess I am odd but I look to see how much profit these companies make from their endeavors. It matters not a whit to me what position Apple ranks in unit sales if they are bringing home the largest share of profits.
  You make some good arguments but most all of these situations could be "scheduled." Certainly, volume discounting is a standard practice.   The point you make about Samsung and RIM is a good point but clearly many of these situations can be handled as payment penalties and pre-payment rewards (discounts) — all standard practice in industry any way.   In general, for something to be non-discriminatory, the base price needs to be the same for everyone. Whatever deals get...
    What I find most annoying about this is that, once gain, Apple is accused of violating a FRAND-encumbered patent that Motorola has chosen to offer only in a discriminatory manner. I truly hope the EC and FTC look into these practices (by ALL parties) and takes action. My personal belief is that once a patent is declared standards-essential and available through FRAND terms, that the patent holder must publish pricing included any opportunity for discounts....
New Posts  All Forums: