- Last Active
MlorianFueller said:applemagic said:
Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!
That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:********
For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:
- the "no license-no chips" policy;
- incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
- the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
- past exclusive arrangements with Apple.
Incidentally then, how do we know you’re not being paid by Qualcomm?
redhotfuzz said:I’m actually amazed Google is doing the right thing here. After all, they’ve been fueling Asian knockoff artists (including Samsung) since Android 1.0, at the expense of/on the backs of American companies and American innovation. Remember how Google bought one of the last remaining American mobile device companies (Motorola), only to mine their patents before dumping the company off on the Chinese? All to build a mobile market share monopoly to feed their sweet, sweet digital surveillance advertising business.
Now all that remain are Apple and, surprise, Google. Who, like Microsoft before them, found it worthwhile to stab their hardware “partners” in the back by jumping into the hardware market themselves for some potentially-lucrative double-dipping.
Google are scum, but at least they’re doing the right thing here. For once.
Credit it where credit is due.
slurpy said:Sorry, but why does the media hang on Wozniak's every word? Why do we care what he thinks? He hasn't been relevant in decades. What has he produced since he left Apple, while living on his AAPL stock? He's never been shown to have even a shred of insight into where things are going, or even a fundamental understand of what makes products and companies successful. He's certainly never under what has made Apple successful.
But on this one, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Fully self-driving cars are at least 7-10 years away. They have to first fix insurance/liability issues, and then hundreds (if not thousands) of state and local regulations related to vehicles and vehicle traffic have to be worked on one by one. On top of which, the US Congress will have to pass legislation.
I think it will all ultimately happen, but not before 2025.
Great summary! Thanks.
The Watch is truly a game-changer — as much as the iPad was, if not more. It has become an essential accoutrement to my daily life, in a completely non-intrusive way.
But on a slow-burn, so people are not paying that much attention. It’s a sleeper product for Apple in so many ways...
GeorgeBMac said:China is smart and they’ll Play it smart. They know they’re dealing with a madman playing to his base.
But, they are taking this attack on their country and the private industry seriously and they are not going to back down. As they said today: “Don’t say we didn’t warn you”.
Hopefully Trump realizes he has already taken this game too far.
Yeah, indeed, "don't say we didn't warn you" (while looking in the mirror).
gatorguy said:roake said:Macsplosion said:gatorguy said:It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
IMO Cellebrite is a non-issue for 99.8% of users who will NEVER encounter them or their software.
Here's an idea instead of faux hand-wringing on the mountain top:
Take your umbrage over lost personal privacy and look into into what credit bureaus are allowed to collect, share, and outright sell. It's right in front of your face and effects nearly every one of you every single day. That's worth at least a few minutes of your time, certainly more than whether Cellebrite can access some suspect's/criminal's phone under certain and specific circumstances and likely for a very good reason. But you (not you specifically) probably won't because off-the-cuff reaction to some headline is easy. Understanding takes more effort.
Moreover, a hack of a credit card company or a DMV does not result in your giving up your personal thoughts, personal (e.g., family, workplace) communication, privileged communications (e.g., with a doctor or a lawyer), your contacts, your calendar, your company's secrets or plans... the list is long.
GG, shame on you for such dissembling nonsense.