Apple attacks Motorola's efforts to block iPhone 4S using standards patents, asks for huge damages - Page 6

Originally Posted by hungover

I would have hoped that your friend would have told you that in isolation, statistics are meaningless.

By way of an example; shark attacks increase as ice cream sales increase.

Originally Posted by hungover


Just waiting for the next erroneous claim levelled at me.

.

Originally Posted by sennen

What a load of waffle. I doubt very much that you care about the workers in China - if you did you would be using your time a lot more fruitfully than spouting off on an apple-centric we forum.

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

That's the linchpin right there - whether or not Moto had any right to terminate. Things don't look good at all for Motorola.

Originally Posted by hungover

Are you ordinarily quite so rude and dismissive.

I am fully aware that this is an apple-centric forum, the name is a bit of a give away. I have read posts by intelligent fellow forum members but unfortunately there seem to be too many members that scan through posts and completely miss the salient points.

So please elucidate, which unwritten rule have I broken?

At NO point have I criticised apple and or any of their products. nor have I suggested that any other maker is superior or holds a higher moral ground.

I HAVE stated my revulsion at some of the language used when talking about dead people.

I HAVE attempted to answer questions put to me.

I HAVE NOT portrayed myself as a champion of the Foxconn employees. If you think that suicide is a joke then we have completely different moral compasses.

Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy

... in the final analysis, what one such as yourself would be doing perusing the threads of a popular forum enough to be drawn into posting in it, or in fact to feel compelled in anyway shape or form to defend one's posts, should they (as they have) occur.

Indeed, one might be likened to a snooty English don attempting to refute common banter in a Cockney pub after hours, when said population is in full season regarding the local politics, national governmental faux pas, or even meteorologic events of merit.

No, I think perhaps declining to be engaged would have been the moral high-road, and in fact one is inclined to consider that all this is merely a self-serving means of assuring one's sense of importance, learning, and the fact that one has not been able to be gainfully employed in a learned profession, nor in fact achieve any popular appreciation of the sacrifices a liberal arts education requires in order to be intellectually superior to the rabble, as evinced herein.

Thus personally reinforced, one could resume lesser employ, secure in the perception that , yes one is far superior than the rest of the would-be debators, that the forum is debased and far beneath even one's condescension, and that the lovely pearls so thoughtfully constructed, so magnanimously flung into the sty of common discourse, and so peccarily trampled and disregarded, are wholly unappreciated and the audience unworthy of such replete and splendid arguments dressed in their finest array.

(using my finest Cockney accent) Bugger off ya toad! I'll give ya QED right upside yer hatrack ya toff! Ewww, look at me mates, I got's me a dee-gree and I ain't afraid to flogg yew low-lifes wif it! I got yer purile right 'ere perfesser! Gif me a bleedin' break ya hoity-toity ivy-covered gull! I got's a heapin' helpin' of yer revulsion right 'ere me bucko! I'll gif ya salient elucidation right to the bleedin' curb I will!

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

IMHO Moto was able to bluff Google into a better deal that Moto deserved.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This forum doesn't tolerate fools well.

Surely, you should know that?

Originally Posted by Mode 5

That's an odd way to put it. A bluff is typically associated with having a weak hand, with a misrepresentation of the actuality. But a bluff of sorts is what I'm suggesting motivated Motorola Mobility's lawsuit against Apple. Seven days after Motorola splits into two companies, making MMI a saleable division from the parent company, they commenced this strategy which they knew would become a protracted legal battle with Apple. For the duration of this dispute, MMI (running losses) appears to be potentially sitting on patents that could be used as leverage against Apple's IP. Who might be willing to take a gamble on that? When you're baiting a hook you select your bait according to the fish you want to land.

With regard to multiple suitors, you need to look at the haste of the negotiations and with regard to the patent suit, the $3.5 billion Motorola has negotiated in the eventuality of the deal falling through.

When multiple suitors are involved or are a real possibility in takeovers, it's always in the sellers interest to prolong negotiations into a bidding war. MMI however, had something to drive a hurried bargain (8 days) with Google alone sitting at the table, and to secure a deal the industry regards as overvalued. Are you suggesting a multibillion dollar acquisition, subject to every type of scrutiny, is an environment where something as crude as bluffing you've got another buyer but will sell now for an extra $3 billion is a real prospect?

Then there's that potential $3.5 billion in reverse termination and damages that has industry observer's jaws dropping, how did MMI secure such an extraordinary figure from Google? What is at stake? This figure represents the risk to Motorola and it's representative of a sizeable unknown MMI had to bargain with in the deal that Google was willing to gamble on. The obvious unknown of interest to Google is the outcome of the patent case against Apple. Just say Apple looses, then MMI really is worth something to Google, they'll finally have a way to negotiate with Apple over IP. Now assume Apple wins, MMI is then worth exactly its quarterly losses to Google's balance sheet, plus any damages coming from the patent case and conformation that MMI's patents are worth nothing more than what was already being paid for them. This is the risk to MMI in the deal, because Google will in all likelihood just walk away at that point. HTH.

Originally Posted by island hermit

LOL

You just don't get it, do you.

I will repeat, though,

The statistics are only meaningless (according to your example) if the number of suicides is well above the national average. Any numbers that are equal to the national average show that the suicide rate is in a normal range. [we're talking about a hell of a lot of employees at Foxconn]

You sound as if you are saying that there is a possibility that the suicide level may be less at Foxconn and therefore Apple has had a positive effect on the people who have worked there.

With almost 1 million people working at Foxconn you should know that this is not an isolation case. An isolation case wold be if there was a higher suicide rate amongst a subset of the workers (ie. sweepers at Foxconn have higher suicide rates) and, if that were the case, then, because the suicide rate is at or below the national average overall yet much higher in one subset then we'd have to conclude that overall the suicide rate was much lower than average for the general population of people employed at Foxconn and therefore Apple is having a positive impact for these people.

[There was no fucking insult.... apparently you can say that people's comments are puerile but you are not allowed to say that someone's username is sophomoric... weird...]