or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by focher

 There is such a fundamental flaw in that reasoning. An investor's direct interest is in maximizing the share value. Running a company in the optimum way does not equate directly to share value, which is defined by people guessing what the share value should be. To run a company based on an investor's direct interest is totally flawed and a terrible practice. Some of us choose to invest in companies that are optimally run, but don't assume that the immediate share value...
 Lucky for the rest of us that actually do care about Apple's long term plans, the vote is non-binding. So it's not gonna happen. Most likely, the board is going to continue a stock buyback program on top of the currently authorized one. But I fully trust they have the most information to know when and how much is appropriate. The idea that the Carl Icahn's in the world should be interfering in anything within Apple is ludicrous to many of us.
Yeah, thanks Carl for reminding me to just vote....NO!   When I see an investor's rate of return, I wonder exactly what the true cost was. Companies going under or becoming non-competitive in their markets. People losing their jobs. Great for people like Icahn, but they leave a rather dismal state of things behind them.
I have my account set so that every dividend issue goes right back into buying more Apple shares.
I have no idea about the merits of UW's patent, but I don't think they can be labeled as "waiting 18 years" when the A7 just came out a few months ago.
Universities regularly profit by licensing technologies their employees created. I think Stanford alone must get a significant part of their money this way. I know UW is a public institution, but they also receive private grants for research so it's not so clear cut. I agree in principle that research should be publicly available for no cost, but it is what it is.
It wouldn't matter. If the University patented it first under those circumstances, they win. Apple either needs to either: 1. Show they didn't use the patent; or2. Have the patent invalidated through prior art, non-uniqueness, etc.
 Actually, Microsoft lost their legal battles against Lindows. Eventually, they did settle but in no way did Microsoft win anything through a court room. In fact, they backed off the legal strategy because they started to fear the Windows trademark would be ruled as too generic. In the instant case, I find it highly doubt that "Candy" would be upheld as a legitimate trademark as it is an extremely generic term by itself. The problem is that to get to the moment and have a...
No one in this thread even mentioned OBD2 or the CANNBUS. That pretty much says it all about what people know about this space.
Obviously another total fail by Apple to not match and even exceed analysts' expectations. I have mind to liquidate my shares but cannot do so as I'm an actual long term investor and not a day trader.
New Posts  All Forums: