or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple attacks Motorola's efforts to block iPhone 4S using standards patents, asks for huge damages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #201 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

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.

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...]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #202 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post


Just waiting for the next erroneous claim levelled at me.

.

You are a poopy-head.
post #203 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

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.

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.
post #204 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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

Or for Google, since Google bought Motorola & basically stated their intent to continue with this garbage that's going to look even more like antitrust.
post #205 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

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.

... 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!
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #206 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

... 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!

I am stunned your seemless transition from John Prescott to Dick Van Dyke. Bravo.
post #207 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

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.
post #208 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This forum doesn't tolerate fools well.

Surely, you should know that?

Hahaha!
post #209 of 213
When Mueller says that there is a "good chance that Motorola will in the not too distant future be effectively precluded from enforcing its baseband patents against the iPhone 4S (and Apple products to be released in the near term)," Exactly what does he mean?

Is he really suggesting that if MMI lose the US case, other than fines they will have the patents removed?
post #210 of 213
You've got three companies here, all of whom are extremely well versed in patent law.

Mot, with tons of patents in Antenna design, GSM, security, software. Qualcomm, with patents in location, CDMA, processing. Apple, with patents in software, audio, and design.

You've got several issues here: Contract Law. Patent Law. International Law. Essential patents vs. non-essential.

The one thing you haven't got: the language in the contract between Motorola and QualComm...Q says it disagrees with MOT that MOT has the right to terminate a license due to a defensive clause. MOT believes it does.

Q is defending its business and customer.

For all Apple's great products, let it not be said that Apple plays well with others. And before you judge Motorola on the basis of their intellectual licensing openness, remember that Mot used to make Mac Clones that smoked Apple's best products at much lower prices. Jobs, in Act II Scene I, canceled all the licenses for the MacOS, screwing consumers as well as the companies that had invested in the business. Back then, Apple was on the ropes and MicroSoft was the bully that poor Apple hated until it took a bailout from Gates.

The reference to FRAND is still a matter of facts. FRAND refers to essential patents. Apple magnanimously says it willingly licenses essential patents...mostly because Apple, as a late entrant in wireless, wasn't involved in the wireless standards development---its essential portfolio is weak. Apple, however, has no problem asserting non-essential patents against others.

And Apple isn't the counter-cultural underdog that it was in the '90s, either...it's now the 800 lb gorilla exerting market force against smaller players. So much for the David and Goliath story.

The other thing you haven't got: whether this is end-game or opening gambit.

This will play out in the courts.
post #211 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode 5 View Post

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.

I think the Motorola-Motorola deal was a panic purchase. The "back out" clause, however, was xeroxed right out of the AT&T/T-Mobile playbook. The $3.5B is reasonable compensation in the event that Google was blocked through regulation or other backout. Reasonably, the rights to MOT's patent portfolio were certainly worth that in light of Nortel's weaker portfolio garnering $4.5B.
post #212 of 213
I just realized this...

When Motorola and QualComm negotiated their agreement, please remember that the guy sitting on the QualComm side of the table might well have be Sanjay Jha....

Per Wikipedia:

Before joining Motorola, Sanjay Jha was COO of Qualcomm and president of Qualcomm CDMA Technologies. As COO, Jha was overlooking Corporate Research and Development and Qualcomm Flarion Technologies (QFT) in addition to his role as president of QCT, the chipset and software division of Qualcomm Incorporated.

Before joining Qualcomm, Jha held lead design engineering roles with Brooktree Corporation in San Diego, and Hirst Research Centre in London.

Jha began his career at Qualcomm in 1994 as a senior engineer with the Qualcomm very-large-scale integration group working on the Globalstar satellite phone, and later on the first 13k vocoder application-specific integrated circuit, which was integrated into Qualcomm's MSM2200 chipset. In 1997, Jha was promoted to vice president of engineering, where he was responsible for leading the integrated-circuit engineering group. Jha led and oversaw the development of five generations of modem and cell site chipsets, both digital baseband and RF (radio frequency), and system software. He was promoted to senior vice president of engineering in 1998.

In 2002, Jha led the formation of Qualcomm Technologies & Ventures, where he managed both the technology investment portfolio and the new technology group as senior vice president and general manager. Jha became executive vice president of Qualcomm and president of Qualcomm CDMA Technologies in 2003. He was named COO in December 2006. If this whole deal were completely without merit, Sanjay Jha must have had insight on it and would not have pressed the Qualcomm button...just sayin.
post #213 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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...]


Hi Island hermit

Thank you for being the first to appreciate that I am indeed suggesting that Apple may have had a positive effect.

I think that I have a (very) rudimentary understanding of the Law of Large Numbers.
It has been years since I studied stats. Even then, the models that we used were always chance events and the probability of large numbers (LLN) was used to explain why initial observations did not always follow the expected path.

I get the impression that you are saying that given that the population of Foxconn is 1/1338th of the overall population of China, it is a significantly large enough sample group to show little deviance from the observed rates of suicide for the population as a whole. As to whether this is a large enough sample group- I dont know.

My problem with your analysis is that Foxconn is not representative of the population. The WHO highlight two of the sections of society most likely to commit suicide, namely old rural women and those with mental illness, other high risk groups include the unemployed, whilst infants are generally considered to be incapable of committing suicide.

None of the Foxconn employees are babies, none are old rural women, none are unemployed, some will have mental illness but I suspect that they are extremely under represented.

I dont have any figures to hand but for the sake of argument lets say that the above account for 25% of the total population. Now hopefully you can see why I discredit the stats used by both sides.

Additionally Foxconn make products for other firms, not just Apple. I dont see how one can argue that making the iPad is any more likely to be a risk than making the Xbox.
If you can see an obvious flaw in the above please do show me.

I just want to demonstrate the futility and flawed nature of the entranced positions adopted by fanbois on either side.

IMO there is a compelling case to suggest that Western firms should not abdicate their responsibilities for those working for suppliers but that is beyond the scope of this post and even more complex.

Regards
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple attacks Motorola's efforts to block iPhone 4S using standards patents, asks for huge damages