or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hmm

I'll probably never understand the point of non-binding arbitration. It seems like a waste of money and resources for all parties involved. Is there in fact precedence for that? I can't find the details, but it is likely that the appropriate standards body wouldn't adopt something with too high a base offer.
It is a typical method, and quite a bit of clothing is produced in Asian countries (and terribly manufactured), even at much higher price ranges. They do sell quite a bit of it at the posted price. I usually order jeans from things like bluefly. Men's jeans aren't that difficult to purchase, and I know what brands typically fit well.
Sog is exaggerating. It's not as high as that, but it's also reduced directly by any tax paid out in other countries. Figuring out origination isn't always straightforward, but as long as they file properly in those countries, whatever tax was paid there is subtracted directly from tax owed here (which still isn't 40%). I would have to look up whether that still applies in Boxer's or Paul's proposals. Neither one of them is ever genuine with their words, but I suspect it's...
Stores use that kind of gimmick to rid themselves of extra inventory. If something didn't sell well, they have to mitigate any losses prior to selling any remaining stock off in bulk.
Why would number 2 have to change? In terms of department store price scales, they aren't going to become Saks. They aren't going to compete with Macy's either. Target actually did quite well with the branding aspect for a store that sells cheap stuff. The same goes for Ikea. He just requires something beyond an aging customer base that currently lacks replacement.
I'm not sure design patent is the right term for something relating to the connector. As for cases, it's unlikely that they could patent all workable configurations of an iphone case or enforce such a thing.
They probably figured it would happen either way. If they provide excellent specifications, perhaps some of those third party bands will turn out better.
Many of those regulations would still apply, including ones that require things such as shareholder meetings. Anyway can you explain how Apple would be in a better situation if it was held by a group of equity firms and investors rather than publicly traded? That's how companies go private. They are bought out. As I pointed out already, Apple doesn't own a piece of itself, because they don't have that authority.
You aren't the first one to post that suggestion, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out why it doesn't work this way. The stocks themselves aren't debt. If you understand that, you'll understand why they can't purchase their own sovereignty. They are effectively using money managed by the company itself on behalf of its owners (shareholders) to buy the stakes of other shareholders. At that point Apple doesn't own that piece of Apple. It's owned by the remaining...
Even if they bought back 80% of them, Apple would not own part of itself. Look at it this way. If they bought back 10 million shares using cash reserves, the remaining shareholders would each own a larger stake in Apple, but Apple would have a smaller remaining amount in cash. It offers liquidity options to some of those shareholders but it doesn't transfer ownership from shareholders to Apple itself.
New Posts  All Forums: