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
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.
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.
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...
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)
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
"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.
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
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.
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...
Deleted. (No need to belabor a point that some people will never undestand.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
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