I love Apple but for the sake of humanity I hope they lose! Apple losing will set an example for every other corporation who tries to bully the small guy. Go Samsung! Free Apple Juice for everyone when Apple loses.
You are all ass-backwards ... Samscum is a shit load bigger than Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark
I mostly feel the same way. Been an Apple shareholder since before the iPod, but something drastic needs to happen in order for this lawsuit happy environment to end. Only people benefitting from this are lawyers and patent trolls. I understand the reasons for patents but it surely hinders competition (generally speaking). Competition is good for everyone. Intel and MS got lazy when they were the top dog, i don't want to see Apple do the same.
It's a lawsuit happy situation because it's a copy / clone situation first and foremost. True competitors innovate first and foremost.
I keep seeing talk of an appeal if Apple looses...
There are not a lot of lower court decisions that are overturned on appeal. You have to prove more than you dislike the jury's decision. You don't hear of too many lower court decisions being overturned on appeal. It's the exception, not the rule.
I don't claim to know who will win, but whoever wins has a major upper hand. Neither Samsung nor Apple want to count on an appeal.
I love Apple but for the sake of humanity I hope they lose! Apple losing will set an example for every other corporation who tries to bully the small guy. Go Samsung! Free Apple Juice for everyone when Apple loses.
So humanity benefits when companies are allowed to brazenly steal all of their competitors IP? It would be interesting to see how you justify that. It would also be interesting to see how you're going to justify companies spending money on innovation if their competitors are allowed to steal everything as soon as it comes out.
You are all ass-backwards ... Samscum is a shit load [SIZE=16px]bigger[/SIZE] than Apple.
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Samsung is considerably larger in number of employees, though.
I keep seeing talk of an appeal if Apple looses...
There are not a lot of lower court decisions that are overturned on appeal. You have to prove more than you dislike the jury's decision. You don't hear of too many lower court decisions being overturned on appeal. It's the exception, not the rule.
I don't claim to know who will win, but whoever wins has a major upper hand. Neither Samsung nor Apple want to count on an appeal.
While it's true that whoever wins has the upper hand, winning at least SOMETHING on appeal is not as uncommon as you think. After all, Apple won an appeal on this very case in order to get an injunction on the sale of some Samsung products.
Personally I would prefer that Apple settle and license virtually every patent claim thus taking the high road.
Power to differentiate drops considerably. Long-term, not a good idea. Apple are where they are today in part because they don't license a lot of their key tech.
We've already gone through this a hundred times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I know that sounds a bit idealistic but I don't like seeing all of Apples private research and strategy information being made public.
If that's your position on *that*, then why on earth would you want Apple to license out the very underpinnings of their "research strategy"? (their IP.)
*confused*
DIFFERENTIATION IS EVERYTHING. You let go of your IP to make a quick buck and play "nice" (which is for industry LOSERS), and soon enough Apple will slip into the "generic" category. Another HP running an OS that's barely different from everything else. Apple's entire strategy revolves around keeping the "Apple experience" as exclusive to Apple as possible. You don't do that by giving away the farm.
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
I love Apple but for the sake of humanity I hope they lose! Apple losing will set an example for every other corporation who tries to bully the small guy. Go Samsung! Free Apple Juice for everyone when Apple loses.
poor little multi-billion dollar companies...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Samsung is considerably larger in number of employees, though.
While it's true that whoever wins has the upper hand, winning at least SOMETHING on appeal is not as uncommon as you think. After all, Apple won an appeal on this very case in order to get an injunction on the sale of some Samsung products.
So... your saying if Samsung made a net loss in a quarter, but Mom&Pop country produce store on the corner of a little town in middle of no where pulled in a profit of $50,000 with their 5 employees... that they are now bigger than Samsung!! Cool!!
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
But since Aramco is not a public company, the term 'market capitalization' does not apply, so your point is moot.
And I never claimed that Apple was the largest by revenue. Several other public companies have greater revenue. My statement was simply that Apple's revenues were greater than Samsung's (refuting the person I was responding to).
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
Reinforces the problem with relying too much on Wiki. It's always useful to compare to peer companies when valuing an entity and ask the question "what's unique?". Exxon-Mobile (XOM) has well over $400 B in revenue and is highly profitable. 2x+ estimated Saudi Aramco (SA) revenue. Not sure of SA's profits. XOM has a market cap < Apple. What would cause SA's hypothetical market cap to be 4x that of Apple? They probably have less profits and lower annual growth than Apple.
What would cause SA's hypothetical market cap to be 4x that of Apple? They probably have less profits and lower annual growth than Apple.
How much they own comes to mind. How much untapped oil reserves they own compared to Exxon. We know they are the largest but how much larger are they than Exxon? You can also factor in the relative difficultly vis-à-vis cost for extracting that oil. How much they have also saved plays a roll. I wouldn't be surprised if SA has billions in gold bar sitting in some secret location but would be if Exxon had the same.
So in your view, letting your competitors steal all of your IP and giving away your competitive advantage for a pittance is "the high road"?
OK, then let's do this. I want to use your car. I'll pay you $1 per day for unlimited use of your car. You need to take the high road and allow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Power to differentiate drops considerably. Long-term, not a good idea. Apple are where they are today in part because they don't license a lot of their key tech.
If that's your position on *that*, then why on earth would you want Apple to license out the very underpinnings of their "research strategy"? (their IP.)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the word license. If you reread my comment it might make more sense once you understand it says that I think Apple should be the one buying the licenses not the other way around.
Reinforces the problem with relying too much on Wiki. It's always useful to compare to peer companies when valuing an entity and ask the question "what's unique?". Exxon-Mobile (XOM) has well over $400 B in revenue and is highly profitable. 2x+ estimated Saudi Aramco (SA) revenue. Not sure of SA's profits. XOM has a market cap < Apple. What would cause SA's hypothetical market cap to be 4x that of Apple? They probably have less profits and lower annual growth than Apple.
While you are probably correct that Wikipedia appears to greatly overstate the value of Aramco, it's irrelevant, anyway. Aramco is not a public company, so it doesn't have a market capitalization, so my statement that Apple has the largest market cap of any company in the world is correct.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the word license. If you reread my comment it might make more sense once you understand it says that I think Apple should be the one buying the licenses not the other way around.
Then your post makes absolutely no sense.
It is widely recognized that Apple has to license the FRAND patents. The only thing that's not settled is what the license fee should be.
But that's not the issue of this trial. The issue is what to do about Samsung stealing Apple's IP without permission and if you meant that Apple should pay to license technologies, that doesn't address the biggest issues.
Personally I would prefer that Apple settle and license virtually every patent claim thus taking the high road. My feeling is that they would profit even more and minimize the critical media press commentaries therefore enhancing their public image and further solidifying their dominate position in mobile technology worldwide. That way they could pay the fees yet maintain their own IP. Perhaps it would add another $50 to the cost but that being subsidized would not make that much difference. When it was time to take another company to court over patents the competitor would have no counter position to argue from since Apple would have already licensed all relevant patents.
I know that sounds a bit idealistic but I don't like seeing all of Apples private research and strategy information being made public.
As seen with Apple settlement with Nokia, Apple is willing to agree to reasonable licensing terms for standard essential patents. It, however, isn't going to be discriminated against merely because it sells a lot of product. Many people thought Nokia was going to squeeze anywhere from one to two billion dollars from Apple in back owed licensing fees. Instead, Apple paid 600 million. That was a win for Apple because Apple always knew it had to pay Nokia something.
In this case, Apple also knows it has to pay Samsung something for Samsung's standard essential patents. The issue is merely how much does it have to pay. Companies like Nokia, Samsung, and Motorola are trying to discriminate against Apple because its volume of sales and charge it a higher rate than it does other companies licensing their patents. They can't do that when standard essential patents are involved.
In terms of Apple licensing its patents, it made Samsung an offer, and as the trial showed, it gave Microsoft a license as well. Apple, however, isn't going to tolerate companies making products that look like its own because making products that stand out is how Apple has become successful.
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
Market capitalization refers to companies publicly traded on the exchanges. The market cap is easy to figure out in such cases. If a company is private, it doesn't have a market cap.
How much they own comes to mind. How much untapped oil reserves they own compared to Exxon. We know they are the largest but how much larger are they than Exxon? You can also factor in the relative difficultly vis-à-vis cost for extracting that oil. How much they have also saved plays a roll. I wouldn't be surprised if SA has billions in gold bar sitting in some secret location but would be if Exxon had the same.
Could be. Just guessing that their excess cash gets distributed as a huge dividend back to the state to finance the country. I haven't looked up their proven reserves vs. those owned/licensed by XOM.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan
I love Apple but for the sake of humanity I hope they lose! Apple losing will set an example for every other corporation who tries to bully the small guy. Go Samsung! Free Apple Juice for everyone when Apple loses.
You are all ass-backwards ... Samscum is a shit load bigger than Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark
I mostly feel the same way. Been an Apple shareholder since before the iPod, but something drastic needs to happen in order for this lawsuit happy environment to end. Only people benefitting from this are lawyers and patent trolls. I understand the reasons for patents but it surely hinders competition (generally speaking). Competition is good for everyone. Intel and MS got lazy when they were the top dog, i don't want to see Apple do the same.
It's a lawsuit happy situation because it's a copy / clone situation first and foremost. True competitors innovate first and foremost.
If he were being paid by Samsung to make specious arguments without declaring it, would that be a breach of the rules?
I keep seeing talk of an appeal if Apple looses...
There are not a lot of lower court decisions that are overturned on appeal. You have to prove more than you dislike the jury's decision. You don't hear of too many lower court decisions being overturned on appeal. It's the exception, not the rule.
I don't claim to know who will win, but whoever wins has a major upper hand. Neither Samsung nor Apple want to count on an appeal.
So in your view, letting your competitors steal all of your IP and giving away your competitive advantage for a pittance is "the high road"?
OK, then let's do this. I want to use your car. I'll pay you $1 per day for unlimited use of your car. You need to take the high road and allow it.
So humanity benefits when companies are allowed to brazenly steal all of their competitors IP? It would be interesting to see how you justify that. It would also be interesting to see how you're going to justify companies spending money on innovation if their competitors are allowed to steal everything as soon as it comes out.
I guess I see where your previous opinion came from. You seem to love proving your ignorance.
Koh is not Korean. She's American. He's also not a 'he'. You would be better off if you stop expressing opinions on subjects you don't understand.
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Samsung is considerably larger in number of employees, though.
While it's true that whoever wins has the upper hand, winning at least SOMETHING on appeal is not as uncommon as you think. After all, Apple won an appeal on this very case in order to get an injunction on the sale of some Samsung products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Personally I would prefer that Apple settle and license virtually every patent claim thus taking the high road.
Power to differentiate drops considerably. Long-term, not a good idea. Apple are where they are today in part because they don't license a lot of their key tech.
We've already gone through this a hundred times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I know that sounds a bit idealistic but I don't like seeing all of Apples private research and strategy information being made public.
If that's your position on *that*, then why on earth would you want Apple to license out the very underpinnings of their "research strategy"? (their IP.)
*confused*
DIFFERENTIATION IS EVERYTHING. You let go of your IP to make a quick buck and play "nice" (which is for industry LOSERS), and soon enough Apple will slip into the "generic" category. Another HP running an OS that's barely different from everything else. Apple's entire strategy revolves around keeping the "Apple experience" as exclusive to Apple as possible. You don't do that by giving away the farm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_aramco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ewan
I love Apple but for the sake of humanity I hope they lose! Apple losing will set an example for every other corporation who tries to bully the small guy. Go Samsung! Free Apple Juice for everyone when Apple loses.
poor little multi-billion dollar companies...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You can't make a blanket statement like that without defining what you mean by 'bigger'. In market capitalization, Apple is the largest company on the planet.
Revenue? For the Christmas quarter, Apple was larger - $46 B to $45 B. I haven't looked up more recent numbers or annual figures.
Profits? Apple is well ahead.
Samsung is considerably larger in number of employees, though.
While it's true that whoever wins has the upper hand, winning at least SOMETHING on appeal is not as uncommon as you think. After all, Apple won an appeal on this very case in order to get an injunction on the sale of some Samsung products.
So... your saying if Samsung made a net loss in a quarter, but Mom&Pop country produce store on the corner of a little town in middle of no where pulled in a profit of $50,000 with their 5 employees... that they are now bigger than Samsung!! Cool!!
But since Aramco is not a public company, the term 'market capitalization' does not apply, so your point is moot.
And I never claimed that Apple was the largest by revenue. Several other public companies have greater revenue. My statement was simply that Apple's revenues were greater than Samsung's (refuting the person I was responding to).
Reinforces the problem with relying too much on Wiki. It's always useful to compare to peer companies when valuing an entity and ask the question "what's unique?". Exxon-Mobile (XOM) has well over $400 B in revenue and is highly profitable. 2x+ estimated Saudi Aramco (SA) revenue. Not sure of SA's profits. XOM has a market cap < Apple. What would cause SA's hypothetical market cap to be 4x that of Apple? They probably have less profits and lower annual growth than Apple.
How much they own comes to mind. How much untapped oil reserves they own compared to Exxon. We know they are the largest but how much larger are they than Exxon? You can also factor in the relative difficultly vis-à-vis cost for extracting that oil. How much they have also saved plays a roll. I wouldn't be surprised if SA has billions in gold bar sitting in some secret location but would be if Exxon had the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So in your view, letting your competitors steal all of your IP and giving away your competitive advantage for a pittance is "the high road"?
OK, then let's do this. I want to use your car. I'll pay you $1 per day for unlimited use of your car. You need to take the high road and allow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Power to differentiate drops considerably. Long-term, not a good idea. Apple are where they are today in part because they don't license a lot of their key tech.
If that's your position on *that*, then why on earth would you want Apple to license out the very underpinnings of their "research strategy"? (their IP.)
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about the word license. If you reread my comment it might make more sense once you understand it says that I think Apple should be the one buying the licenses not the other way around.
Correct me if wrong but it's multiple decisions, so it could be win some lose some.
While you are probably correct that Wikipedia appears to greatly overstate the value of Aramco, it's irrelevant, anyway. Aramco is not a public company, so it doesn't have a market capitalization, so my statement that Apple has the largest market cap of any company in the world is correct.
Then your post makes absolutely no sense.
It is widely recognized that Apple has to license the FRAND patents. The only thing that's not settled is what the license fee should be.
But that's not the issue of this trial. The issue is what to do about Samsung stealing Apple's IP without permission and if you meant that Apple should pay to license technologies, that doesn't address the biggest issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
You do know that the Judge can overthrow the Jury's decision if she/he doesnt agree with its outcome, no?
Are you still here?!
Ugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Personally I would prefer that Apple settle and license virtually every patent claim thus taking the high road. My feeling is that they would profit even more and minimize the critical media press commentaries therefore enhancing their public image and further solidifying their dominate position in mobile technology worldwide. That way they could pay the fees yet maintain their own IP. Perhaps it would add another $50 to the cost but that being subsidized would not make that much difference. When it was time to take another company to court over patents the competitor would have no counter position to argue from since Apple would have already licensed all relevant patents.
I know that sounds a bit idealistic but I don't like seeing all of Apples private research and strategy information being made public.
As seen with Apple settlement with Nokia, Apple is willing to agree to reasonable licensing terms for standard essential patents. It, however, isn't going to be discriminated against merely because it sells a lot of product. Many people thought Nokia was going to squeeze anywhere from one to two billion dollars from Apple in back owed licensing fees. Instead, Apple paid 600 million. That was a win for Apple because Apple always knew it had to pay Nokia something.
In this case, Apple also knows it has to pay Samsung something for Samsung's standard essential patents. The issue is merely how much does it have to pay. Companies like Nokia, Samsung, and Motorola are trying to discriminate against Apple because its volume of sales and charge it a higher rate than it does other companies licensing their patents. They can't do that when standard essential patents are involved.
In terms of Apple licensing its patents, it made Samsung an offer, and as the trial showed, it gave Microsoft a license as well. Apple, however, isn't going to tolerate companies making products that look like its own because making products that stand out is how Apple has become successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_aramco
Actually, my theoretical market cap is even higher: 9 trillion. People (sort of) mean the real world....
Incidentally, the total revenues of Saudi Aramco are probably two or three multiples of the number you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 845032
Google’s Motorola Files New Patent Case Against Apple
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-17/google-s-motorola-files-new-patent-case-against-apple-at-itc
Whatever, Samsung is not the last one.
Good Luck with that
Apple is 'one and only' trouble maker in industry.
World will be a better place if without Apple
Time to update the Block List
Look, I can make stuff big too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
Apple is not the largest company on the planet by market capitalization or revenue. Saudi Aramco has a value (theoretical market cap) somewhere between 2.2 and 7 trillion dollars and had revenue of $210 billion in 2010....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_aramco
Market capitalization refers to companies publicly traded on the exchanges. The market cap is easy to figure out in such cases. If a company is private, it doesn't have a market cap.
Could be. Just guessing that their excess cash gets distributed as a huge dividend back to the state to finance the country. I haven't looked up their proven reserves vs. those owned/licensed by XOM.