gatorguy

badmonk said:

I still don’t understand why an established well defined 50+ year old technology can lead to these decisions.  We live in a time when cheap $20-30 pulse oximeters are readily available.  Obviously none of these manufacturers are paying royalties to Masimo.

Of all the crazy patent claims why this one and not one of the previous patent fights??!

22july2013 said:

 This could be a problem for Google and Microsoft, because their AI services are all done online. 

sdw2001 said:

DAalseth said:

sdw2001 said:

I don’t know whether or not this tariff strategy will work, but I’d give it better than 50-50 odds.

Why? Why would you do that? His first term he tried the same thing albeit on a smaller scale and the US lost, badly. He started a trade war with China and China won, big time, they came out vastly stronger on the world stage than at the start. Now he’s doubling down on trying to tariff his way to prosperity. What’s that old line about insanity being trying the same failed strategy over and over and expecting the same result. 

What on earth would make you think someone who has gone bankrupt as many times as Trump would have a clue about international trade? Why would you trust the judgement of someone with no macroeconomic training or experience, who when given a chance the first time failed by any and every measure. Why would you believe in him to do better this time with the same failed policies he failed with the first time?

We’ve seen this movie before.

Because your comment about China is completely inaccurate.  That's why.  As is your comment about him "failing by every measure."  That's just bizarro-world Trump Derangement coming through.   His first term saw massive increases in real income, low inflation, low unemployment, and a dozen other positive economic indicators.  That is, before Covid.  You know, Covid.... when you and yours demanded we shut the country down through the election?  When Trump was called a murderer for wanting to get back to life?  Even with the economic carnage that the Left demanded, the economy was well into a robust recovery by the end of 2020.  

As for Trump "going bankrupt," that is misleading, and I think you know it.  He never declared personal bankruptcy. He did use Chapter 11 bankruptcy with business numerous times.  If it makes you feel good to say "he went bankrupt," go ahead.  It has nothing to do with his business acumen.  If anything, going Chapter 11 six times and still coming out on top is impressive.  

red oak said:

They will be last to receive any new benefits or pay enhancements Apple Retail unilaterally rolls out to all the stores 

They will now need to transactionally ask and negotiate for every-single-thing  

They think they “won”

davidw said:

The solution for Apple seem quite simple. If a developer want to have an app in the Apple App Store where there are advertising and links in the app that allows for any IAP payments outside of Apple iTunes, then Apple will charge those developers $1 per app downloaded per month, with a deal for $10 per  app per year.  (or something to that nature). It will be up to the developers if they want to charge their customers for downloading the app. So a developer can weigh in on whether to have a free app where Apple will get a commission or paid for each downloaded app and hope the users makes enough IAP to bring the cost of having such an app, below what they would had paid in commission.

This way the developers that are happy with the arrangement of having a free app and paying Apple a commission to handle IAP payments (along with refunds and updates) can still do so. And those that don't want to pay Apple a commission on IAP can do so by paying Apple upfront for having an app in the Apple App store from which they are profiting from using Apple IP.

Isn't Apple already doing something like this in the EU, with downloads from third party app stores?

Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream.

Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up (the 2024 evidentiary hearing). To unveil Apple’s actual decision-making process, not the one tailor-made for litigation, the Court ordered production of real-time documents and ultimately held a second set of hearings in 2025.

To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. Apple’s response: charge a 27 percent commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app.

Apple’s goal: maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.

Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic statements.

Apple’s goal: to dissuade customer usage of alternative purchase opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream.

In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.

In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly.

The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The Court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.

This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.

The TLDR version? 

"This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order."

rob53 said:

I have to laugh about the ad revenue generated from Safari search result advertising. Raise your hand if you AREN'T using some kind of advertisement blocking on Safari. Wait, I'm not seeing any hands so at least the commenters on this forum aren't bothered by Google's (and other's) advertising. Apple knows this and they got $20B along with 36% of ad revenue. I use DuckDuckGo and there's very little advertising except for those ads buried in websites that aren't from Google. 

Cesar Battistini Maziero said:

Why are people on the left so angry? 

sdw2001 said:

ssfe11 said:

Clueless idiot. Oh and btw Springfield do you know that your pets are getting eaten?  Fido is being roasted up right now. Smh you can’t even make this stuff up!

Yeah, except it’s actually happening.