or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

I imagine he's referring to when Be sued Microsoft.  That action got settled out of court.   http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microsoft/   http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Microsoft+Pays+$23m+to+Settle+BeOS+Antitrust+Suit.-a0107384535
 Really?  Google though this mutant device was going to be that popular? Oh, I see.
Of course, that's why Apple doing so would be illegal.  But no one is saying that's what they're doing, the kerfuffle is entirely about tax on profits.   Sorry for the distraction.
Insider knowledge.
In literal terms, yes, in effect, debateable.  In the hypothetical absence of the sales tax Apple might be able to charge more, and in that case the presence of the tax means Apple earns less profit, ergo the same effect.   But I digress, perhaps a simple rewording is in order to make the original point clearer...    The sale of Apple's products contributes to government revenues in the form of sales tax.  There is no suspicion that Apple are in any way avoiding or...
Yes, ok, that's what I meant.
They pay sales tax.  It's corporation tax that they avoid through transfers to Ireland.
No, it's iPhone loss.  Financial loss is part of it, but I didn't say it was the only thing, which seems to be what you're implying I said.
Don't understand why this is in response to me.  I didn't mention financial loss.
Not sure you fully grasp what "anecdotal" means, because that's definitely anecdotal to anyone else.
New Posts  All Forums: