Apple buying small companies every other month but constantly evaluating larger acquisitions

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't think Google is pursuing any new litigation against competitor since taking over Motorola, much less using Moto IP to do so.



    I don't think that's true.

  • Reply 22 of 35
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I don't think that's true.



    I believe the FCC or some other govt agency warned them about abusing FRAND patents.


     


    As for the article, you mean Cook et al. aren't swimming in gold coins?

  • Reply 23 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I don't think that's true.



    A simple citation to show me wrong might be appropriate. I believe I'm right, but it's always possible I'm mistaken.

  • Reply 24 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    A simple citation to show me wrong might be appropriate. I believe I'm right, but it's always possible I'm mistaken.



    Or you can do a Google search. 


     


    This notion that we must all provide a citation to make a point is silly, with all due respect. Did you provide a citation when you claimed that Google had never sued anyone? 


     


    If you are not sure, search. If you don't believe me, I am fine with you remaining misinformed :)

  • Reply 25 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    I believe the FCC or some other govt agency warned them about abusing FRAND patents.


     


    As for the article, you mean Cook et al. aren't swimming in gold coins?



     


    What does that have to do with what I wrote?


     


    FCC's warning is a warning; it does not stop them from doing anything particularly if the patents in question are not standards-essential.

  • Reply 26 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Or you can do a Google search. 


     


    This notion that we must all provide a citation to make a point is silly, with all due respect. Did you provide a citation when you claimed that Google had never sued anyone? 


     


    If you are not sure, search. If you don't believe me, I am fine with you remaining misinformed :)



    I always check before claiming something. I'm pretty certain I'm right.  It doesn't mean I'm always correct, but I am much more often than not. As far your suggestion of finding a citation that Google hasn't sued anyone, that sounds silly. Almost akin to you trying to prove you've never kicked a dog. How would you go about that? 


     


    I'm looking forward to reading the ongoing Google-initiated IP claim you hint you're aware of, tho unable so far to cite. Just one since May of last year will suffice.


     


    EDIT: You might be thinking of an ITC complaint filed by Google Motorola against Apple in August of last year. But several weeks later that one was dropped without explanation so it's not anything they're pursuing. I'm not aware of anything else you could be thinking of. If you know of one please correct me.

  • Reply 27 of 35
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,816member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


    And the stock is down almost 2%.  I guess Wall Street won't be satisfied unless Apple starts doing things just to grow the top line (whether it makes good business sense or is profitable doesn't matter).



    Correct.  I like the way Apple doesn't let shareholders run the company.  That is always a bad idea.  Some people have said Apple has no respect for shareholders, but I would say the opposite (is always) true.  Shareholders do not care about product quality, or changing customers live or good design or any of the things that drive Apple DNA.  They only care about return.  In fact most corporations have a line at the very top of their charter that says the job of corporate officers is to "enhance shareholder value".  That simple requirement is what drives corporations to the bottom.  I'm thinking apple does not have such a clause or that it is worded in a more cagey manner.


     


    All this being said, I don't buy Apple stock any longer because it is too unpredictable.  Perhaps because they don't kowtow to shareholders and Wall Street.

  • Reply 28 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    "Deliberate, thoughtful" is our mantra. 


     


    LOVE hearing this. 


     


    It was Steve's as well.



     


    Yep, and as a long-term stock holder I am more than content to see the ship steered with this mantra as the wind behind its sails.

  • Reply 29 of 35


    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

    Yep, and as a long-term stock holder I am more than content to see the ship steered with this mantra as the wind behind its sails.


     


    Also to not see any leaks at the top.

  • Reply 30 of 35
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member


    Hmm. 


     


    I've always said that Apple should buy or merge with that secretive business entity which mysteriously calls itself simply... the "OTHERS". 


     


    Whoever they are, their products are obviously incredibly appealing, since they outsell everyone else on the planet.   I mean, they're always tops in every phone sales or market share chart !!   Check it out...


     


  • Reply 31 of 35
    Twitter and Pandora would be a good play I think. And I would love for them to get into gaming as well.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    I predict Apple will buy AMD......
  • Reply 33 of 35
    Well rather than buy large company's like google and Microsoft, to eliminate competition, they buy little ones to make them improve and defeat competition, a more costumer friendly way of things(vs. costumers throwing fits because of limited competition)
  • Reply 34 of 35


    Deleted. (No need to belabor a point that some people will never undestand.)

  • Reply 35 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,364member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    Or you can do a Google search. 


     


    This notion that we must all provide a citation to make a point is silly, with all due respect. Did you provide a citation when you claimed that Google had never sued anyone? 


     


    If you are not sure, search. If you don't believe me, I am fine with you remaining misinformed :)



    Google yesterday filed it's first IP infringement suit in company history, as a counterclaim against a previous filing by British Telecom. So there you go, and it only took 15 years. About time IMHO. Florian sounds positively giddy that he can now claim Google has chosen to fall in line with all the other litigating techs.


     


    I've even offered you a citation to prove you were "misinformed" if you believed Google was already pursuing other infringement claims.  This is the first.


     


    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569279-93/google-countersues-british-telecom-over-networking-patents/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it


     


    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/02/google-files-first-patent-infringement.html

Sign In or Register to comment.