[SIZE=16px]<span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;line-height:25px;text-align:justify;">"A consumer might well think: 'I had better not buy a Samsung - maybe it's illegal and if I buy one it may not be supported'," Sir Robin said.</span>
[/SIZE]
Well that is just silly.
Also they only really need to remove the reference to the German and US rulings, there is no need to rewrite the entire statement.
"Bravely bold Sir Robin, rode forth from Camelot,
He was not afraid to die, Oh Brave Sir Robin,
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a
pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in, and his heart cut out,
And his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged,
And his nostrils raped, and his bottom burned off,
And his penis split ... and his ...
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Sir Robin
Petrified of being dead
Soiled his pants then brave Sir Robin
Turned away and fled.
Bravely good Sir Robin was not at all afraid
To have his eyeballs skewered ...
... and his kidneys burnt and his nipples skewered off
..."
trad. arr. Monty Python
You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form. In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.
i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.
This is a political judgment through and through. British Civil Law, and European Law for that matter, clearly defines what's permissible and what's not permissible under a set of laws. But with ample freedom for Justices to color judgments with their own biased interpretations.
As much as South Korean Civil Law contorts under pressure from the Korean industrial cartel, British Civil Law reins in threats to its sense of omnipotence by imposing top-down, abusive interpretations to what it considers to be an invasion of the British character's privacy. British Law is flexing his interpretative power muscles in this Apple case towards the overbearing transcendence of a foreign intruder.
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
Should Apple conform to the diktats of power-play politics camouflaged as a civil judgment? Apple has so much idealism built into its business model...and into its products...that one wonders how it can co-exist alongside so much cynicism embedded into the righteous core of regulators and legal institutions. There seems to be an unholy alliance of legacy entitlement and a running commoditizing process to stop the merging of 'liberal arts' and technology in its track.
No. It shouldn't. It has to take a stand. But can, ...will Tim Cook rise to the 'liberal arts' part of the equation, as I suspect Steve Jobs would? If not, may God save Apple, for the Queen would not...
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form. In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.
i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.
Yeah, that's dumb. If the kid was required to make his dad a sandwich "because dad doesn't like pickles" and the kid included pickles then that's not complying, period.
The more interesting question is how far the judge could go with respect to statements Apple makes outside of the specifically ordered statement. What if Apple had posted an "open letter about the Samsung case" also linked from the Apple home page and made all the statements they included in the "offending" page and explained their position. Would that be ok? I'd say yes, probably.
I am not going to read all the posts this time as there is just going to be too much infighting.
BUT....as I stated earlier....Apple is being forced to follow through correctly. I like Apple (and really LIKE the chaff they just jettisoned!) but Apple's lack of willingness to follow through with a legal order is disappointing. I wish Apple would just stand up and take their lumps. I expect the same from other companies when they are in the wrong, so I expect the same from Apple. They should act like responsible adults and not skeevy lawyers.
I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.
Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**. It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.
If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter.
Seriously? You don't know why it would matter?
If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.
I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
Explain?
Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax. Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task. And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
Explain?
I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.
If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.
I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.
They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.
Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax. Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task. And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.
The Daily Mail is, indeed, backside-wiping material, but the rest of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which is, the original poster's claim that UK is the second most profitable market for Apple, after the US.
I am suggesting, using evidence he provided, that it's not so, not by a long shot.
I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.
You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.
This has gone through the court of appeal. Four judges (one for the original case, three for the appeal) have agreed on the same verdict.
No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.
As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.
Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest
Jeez, I'm all for protest by people not frigging multinational prtotectionist companies.
Corporations are people.
"Bravely bold Sir Robin, rode forth from Camelot,
He was not afraid to die, Oh Brave Sir Robin,
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a
pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in, and his heart cut out,
And his liver removed, and his bowels unplugged,
And his nostrils raped, and his bottom burned off,
And his penis split ... and his ...
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Sir Robin
Petrified of being dead
Soiled his pants then brave Sir Robin
Turned away and fled.
Bravely good Sir Robin was not at all afraid
To have his eyeballs skewered ...
... and his kidneys burnt and his nipples skewered off
..."
trad. arr. Monty Python
You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form. In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.
i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp
Politics and British Law...
This is a political judgment through and through. British Civil Law, and European Law for that matter, clearly defines what's permissible and what's not permissible under a set of laws. But with ample freedom for Justices to color judgments with their own biased interpretations.
As much as South Korean Civil Law contorts under pressure from the Korean industrial cartel, British Civil Law reins in threats to its sense of omnipotence by imposing top-down, abusive interpretations to what it considers to be an invasion of the British character's privacy. British Law is flexing his interpretative power muscles in this Apple case towards the overbearing transcendence of a foreign intruder.
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
Should Apple conform to the diktats of power-play politics camouflaged as a civil judgment? Apple has so much idealism built into its business model...and into its products...that one wonders how it can co-exist alongside so much cynicism embedded into the righteous core of regulators and legal institutions. There seems to be an unholy alliance of legacy entitlement and a running commoditizing process to stop the merging of 'liberal arts' and technology in its track.
No. It shouldn't. It has to take a stand. But can, ...will Tim Cook rise to the 'liberal arts' part of the equation, as I suspect Steve Jobs would? If not, may God save Apple, for the Queen would not...
thnx for information!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp
Interpretation of the Law has nothing to do with British justice, specially when it comes to dealing with a foreign threat. It has everything to do with British politics and the British insular sense of defensiveness. British Justice would partner with the devil itself, ...which in this case happens to be a Google/Samsung cross-breed, to summon ambitious invaders to their top-down, whimsical interpretation of British Law. A Judge's mindset bounds the rule of Law, ...just as a Monarch's character traits used to define British Monarchy. I'm afraid the administration of British Justice has taken over the secular role of a ruling British Monarch... Sometimes equitable, ...always breathlessly arbitrary...
thnx for information!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
You've changed the context of that analogy quite significantly so I don't think it's relevant in its new form. In your new analogy the kid's actions have no impact on the dad or his intentions.
i think we should drop the analogies for specific talk like we're getting into.
Yeah, that's dumb. If the kid was required to make his dad a sandwich "because dad doesn't like pickles" and the kid included pickles then that's not complying, period.
The more interesting question is how far the judge could go with respect to statements Apple makes outside of the specifically ordered statement. What if Apple had posted an "open letter about the Samsung case" also linked from the Apple home page and made all the statements they included in the "offending" page and explained their position. Would that be ok? I'd say yes, probably.
I am not going to read all the posts this time as there is just going to be too much infighting.
BUT....as I stated earlier....Apple is being forced to follow through correctly. I like Apple (and really LIKE the chaff they just jettisoned!) but Apple's lack of willingness to follow through with a legal order is disappointing. I wish Apple would just stand up and take their lumps. I expect the same from other companies when they are in the wrong, so I expect the same from Apple. They should act like responsible adults and not skeevy lawyers.
That commentary on British Justice is a load of paranoiac carp. And I don't mean fish.
"the British character's privacy"? What the hell are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I seem to remember seeing the UK quoted as Apple's second biggest market a few years ago, though doubtless China has overtaken it now, and possibly Japan too, as the iPhone is very popular there.
Apple doesn't do by-country revenue reporting, but an estimate of $6bn sales in the UK has been doing the rounds*, of $156bn total revenue**. It's a sizeable market that Apple wouldn't give up on lightly.
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127048/Apple-6bn-UK--paid-10m-tax.html
** http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312511282113/d220209d10k.htm
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
Explain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
The judge's reasoning was clearly stated in the order I linked to earlier. If you read it for yourself without tinted glasses on you may even agree that the reasoning was proper.
If there's been a similar case I wouldn't know about it, nor do I know why it would matter.
Seriously? You don't know why it would matter?
If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.
I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
Explain?
Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax. Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task. And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredawest
Jeez, I'm all for protest by people not frigging multinational prtotectionist companies.
What is "prtotectionist" about Apple? Are you off your rocker (as they say in the UK)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.
Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.
In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.
Explain?
I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Seriously? You don't know why it would matter?
If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.
I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.
They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid
Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax. Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task. And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.
The Daily Mail is, indeed, backside-wiping material, but the rest of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which is, the original poster's claim that UK is the second most profitable market for Apple, after the US.
I am suggesting, using evidence he provided, that it's not so, not by a long shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.
You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.
No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.
Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
The tooth and the nail have been fought.
Should it be "The tooth and nail have been fought with"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.
I asked him that too. I don't think you're going to get a reply.
Figures.
I didn't realize that people in the UK were that stupid, but now we know. Apple really should just tell these pretentious prats to fk off!