Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.
Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.
Thanks, that's exactly my point. I gave SEC documents to prove what Google finds the patents be worth and I get bashed. Then, he goes and says the 100x crap with absolutely nothing to back it up. The bias is showing.
I really hate that Google and Apple and everyone else are buying up these patents for nothing but lawsuits. It's sickening.
I said it on another thread. Cook needs to reiterate what Ive and Federighi have said before: new and different are easy, but better is hard. Or what Ive said in the 5S video: Apple isn't about technology for technologies sake; it's interested in doing things that truly enhance the user experience. Just keep hammering this point home over and over again. And throw the dogs a bone once. Apple gave us an early look at the Mac Pro. How about doing something similar with Apple TV? Or maybe some of their software programs? But really I think Apple should move away from announcing almost all new products in September and October. Spread out product announcements so there aren't these long lulls where others can fill the vacuum with FUD and D&G.
What's the venue? What's the frame, the packaging? The occasion?
By my count, you have four different complaints about his management. To justify all this kvetching and diffuse advice, I think you have to give him more specific help.
Meanwhile, we're talking about the world's most successful company, led by the guy who Steve Jobs found to be unperturbably competent.
It's amusing to imagine the look he would give us if we were to make these suggestions to him in person.
That whole SEC filing from 2012 is worth a read. The takeaway though, regarding Motorola's patent worth, is that the figure you cite is what Google placed on them, not what industry peers placed on them. From that same SEC filing:
"Use of Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable and sales allowances, fair values of financial instruments, inventory valuation, intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of stock-based awards, income taxes, and contingent liabilities, among others. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. "
There is no way in hell, that any other company on Earth would have payed $12.5 billion for Motorola, or valued the patents at $5.5 billion.
Let us not forget too, that Motorola was actively involved in litigating against manufacturers of Android devices. Again from that same SEC filing you linked to, it states:
"Patent and Intellectual Property Claims
We have had patent, copyright, and trademark infringement lawsuits filed against us claiming that certain of our products, services, and technologies, including Android, Google Search, Google AdWords, Google AdSense, Google Books, Google News, Google Image Search, Google Chrome, Google Talk, Google Voice, Motorola devices and YouTube, infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services, and may also cause us to change our business practices, and require development of non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenues for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, the ITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) has increasingly become an important forum to litigate intellectual property disputes because an ultimate loss for a company or its suppliers in an ITC action could result in a prohibition on importing infringing products into the U.S. Since the U.S. is an important market, a prohibition on importation could have an adverse effect on us, including preventing us from importing many important products into the U.S. or necessitating workarounds that may limit certain features of our products.
Furthermore, many of our agreements with our customers and partners require us to indemnify them for certain intellectual property infringement claims against them, which would increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. Our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenues and adversely impact our business."
Clearly, Android became a legal morass for Google. It is highly likely that the acquisition of Motorola was to stop the threatened lawsuit by Motorola towards Google. Google overpaid, because they had no choice - well played Motorola. Not hating on Google, (& the ability of a company to write off or write down expenses for tax purposes aside), but no one could reasonably think that they were happy with what they got, for what they paid.
What's the venue? What's the frame, the packaging? The occasion?
By my count, you have four different complaints about his management. To justify all this kvetching and diffuse advice, I think you have to give him more specific help.
Meanwhile, we're talking about the world's most successful company, led by the guy who Steve Jobs found to be unperturbably competent.
It's amusing to imagine the look he would give us if we were to make these suggestions to him in person.
Something other than a 2 minute segment on ABC World News Tonight on a Friday night.
I find some of Apple's media outlet choices odd to say the least. Last year when Apple offered up Cook, Ive and Federighi the two publications of choice were Bloomberg Business Week and USA Today. Who the heck reads Bloomberg Business Week? And is USA Today really the audience Apple wants to capture?
Something other than a 2 minute segment on ABC World News Tonight on a Friday night.
I find some of Apple's media outlet choices odd to say the least. Last year when Apple offered up Cook, Ive and Federighi the two publications of choice were Bloomberg Business Week and USA Today. Who the heck reads Bloomberg Business Week? And is USA Today really the audience Apple wants to capture?
I agree it 's alien to the normal human, but maybe they calculated that they want to reach the number nuts of Wall Street and the biz world, not the public, at the same time snubbing the treacherous WSJ and NYT.
As for ABC, I have no ideas for their choice except avoiding CNBC, Fox, MSNBC might have been a factor.
Too bad Apple PR is behind the Great Wall of Apple too. There's no public or customer-facing department. Or is there, aside from Tim Cook's email stream of 900/day?
I agree it 's alien to the normal human, but maybe they calculated that they want to reach the number nuts of Wall Street and the biz world, not the public, at the same time snubbing the treacherous WSJ and NYT.
As for ABC, I have no ideas for their choice except avoiding CNBC, Fox, MSNBC might have been a factor.
Too bad Apple PR is behind the Great Wall of Apple too. There's no public or customer-facing department. Or is there, aside from Tim Cook's email stream of 900/day?
I'd say Schiller needs some new duties and bring someone in who can run marketing and PR together. It's not like there is a lack of stuff to do at Apple. I'm sure Cook could find another role for Schiller. Maybe overseeing Apple's applications teams or something,
Comments
Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.
Based on what? I remember news from a couple weeks back that they were unexpectedly having problems with licensing many of them, so they've turned to selling them off piecemeal. I think there was one license taken by Huawei for some unknown amount, but otherwise these hi-profile lawsuits haven't resulted in any revenue and may not ever.
Thanks, that's exactly my point. I gave SEC documents to prove what Google finds the patents be worth and I get bashed. Then, he goes and says the 100x crap with absolutely nothing to back it up. The bias is showing.
I really hate that Google and Apple and everyone else are buying up these patents for nothing but lawsuits. It's sickening.
What does that have to do with anything? They get salary and benefits regardless of the competition.
What's the venue? What's the frame, the packaging? The occasion?
By my count, you have four different complaints about his management. To justify all this kvetching and diffuse advice, I think you have to give him more specific help.
Meanwhile, we're talking about the world's most successful company, led by the guy who Steve Jobs found to be unperturbably competent.
It's amusing to imagine the look he would give us if we were to make these suggestions to him in person.
Of course. It's listed in Google's SEC filing. Note 8. $5.5 billion to be more precise.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512312575/d357361d10q.htm
That whole SEC filing from 2012 is worth a read. The takeaway though, regarding Motorola's patent worth, is that the figure you cite is what Google placed on them, not what industry peers placed on them. From that same SEC filing:
"Use of Estimates
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported and disclosed in the financial statements and the accompanying notes. Actual results could differ materially from these estimates. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to the accounts receivable and sales allowances, fair values of financial instruments, inventory valuation, intangible assets and goodwill, useful lives of intangible assets and property and equipment, fair values of stock-based awards, income taxes, and contingent liabilities, among others. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities. "
There is no way in hell, that any other company on Earth would have payed $12.5 billion for Motorola, or valued the patents at $5.5 billion.
Let us not forget too, that Motorola was actively involved in litigating against manufacturers of Android devices. Again from that same SEC filing you linked to, it states:
"Patent and Intellectual Property Claims
We have had patent, copyright, and trademark infringement lawsuits filed against us claiming that certain of our products, services, and technologies, including Android, Google Search, Google AdWords, Google AdSense, Google Books, Google News, Google Image Search, Google Chrome, Google Talk, Google Voice, Motorola devices and YouTube, infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain features, functionalities, products, or services, and may also cause us to change our business practices, and require development of non-infringing products or technologies, which could result in a loss of revenues for us and otherwise harm our business. In addition, the ITC (U.S. International Trade Commission) has increasingly become an important forum to litigate intellectual property disputes because an ultimate loss for a company or its suppliers in an ITC action could result in a prohibition on importing infringing products into the U.S. Since the U.S. is an important market, a prohibition on importation could have an adverse effect on us, including preventing us from importing many important products into the U.S. or necessitating workarounds that may limit certain features of our products.
Furthermore, many of our agreements with our customers and partners require us to indemnify them for certain intellectual property infringement claims against them, which would increase our costs as a result of defending such claims, and may require that we pay significant damages if there were an adverse ruling in any such claims. Our customers and partners may discontinue the use of our products, services, and technologies, as a result of injunctions or otherwise, which could result in loss of revenues and adversely impact our business."
Clearly, Android became a legal morass for Google. It is highly likely that the acquisition of Motorola was to stop the threatened lawsuit by Motorola towards Google. Google overpaid, because they had no choice - well played Motorola. Not hating on Google, (& the ability of a company to write off or write down expenses for tax purposes aside), but no one could reasonably think that they were happy with what they got, for what they paid.
I find some of Apple's media outlet choices odd to say the least. Last year when Apple offered up Cook, Ive and Federighi the two publications of choice were Bloomberg Business Week and USA Today. Who the heck reads Bloomberg Business Week? And is USA Today really the audience Apple wants to capture?
I agree it 's alien to the normal human, but maybe they calculated that they want to reach the number nuts of Wall Street and the biz world, not the public, at the same time snubbing the treacherous WSJ and NYT.
As for ABC, I have no ideas for their choice except avoiding CNBC, Fox, MSNBC might have been a factor.
Too bad Apple PR is behind the Great Wall of Apple too. There's no public or customer-facing department. Or is there, aside from Tim Cook's email stream of 900/day?