carnegie

crowley said:

maximara said:

crowley said:

flydog said:

darkvader said:

22july2013 said:

if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.

Except Apple is lying.  It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day.  All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app.  And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.

You missed a small detail. Apple needs a to implement a mechanism to collect the 30% commission. 

No they don't.  They want to, but they don't need to.

Apple needs some method and legal mechanic to collect the amount owed them and that isn't something you throw together in day.

That's not a stipulation of the legal judgement, that's Apple's business priorities and wants. Not a basis for delaying a legal deadline. 

It goes to whether Apple would suffer irreparable harm if it had to comply with the injunction or would suffer such harm if it had to comply with the injunction by the original deadline. In that sense, it certainly is a proper consideration when it comes to deciding whether the injunction should be stayed or not. Irreparable harm to the movant is one of the four factors a court is supposed to consider when deciding on issuance of a stay. The Ninth Circuit panel that issued the stay thought Apple sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm.

darkvader said:

22july2013 said:

if Apple is accurate when it says it may take months to complete, then either Apple will be in violation of a court order, or Apple will have to shut down its store to avoid being in violation of a court order. There are no other options. I'm hoping for the latter, of course.

Except Apple is lying.  It could almost certainly be implemented in less than a day.  All Apple has to do is remove the illegal language from the developer agreement and turn off any automated filters that look for links to external payment options in an app.  And if you think those filters can't be turned off with a simple change to a config file, I've got a few bridges available for sale.

What do you think Apple is lying about? Apple hasn't, as far as I'm aware, argued that it couldn't technically comply with the injunction by the deadline. It probably could do that fairly quickly.

Apple has argued that it would suffer irreparable harm if was forced to comply with the injunction and it's suggested that having to comply with the injunction in such a short period of time would cause even more harm. I think that's most certainly true.

rmoo said:

blastdoor said:

For the other 80%, I wonder if Apple will need to pay Qualcomm some patent royalties. 

No, they won't. The royalties are for 3G, and AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are trying their level best to get the feds to finally allow them to shut their 3G networks down. Various medical and emergency alert entities that still use 3G - and some 2G - tech have thus far successfully petitioned the feds to prevent the mobile telcos from shutting them off, even though the telcos have warned them for like 10 years that the legacy services were going away, and they want to repurpose the spectrums and hardware to increase 5G coverage and begin preparations for 6G (plus the fact that they have longed ceased making money off 2G and 3G and are being forced by the feds to keep providing it at a loss). 

Even if the legacy network users are successful in forcing the telcos to keep 3G going, Google finally crossed the line in the sand by shipping the Pixel 6 with a Samsung Exynos modem, not a Qualcomm one. It is the first time a Samsung modem has ever been used in the United States, and it doesn't support the legacy networks. It only supports 4G and 5G. Meaning that neither Google or Samsung is paying Qualcomm royalties. Apple can certainly follow Google's precedent and make their own modems without 3G in 2023. That way, they wouldn't need to pay Qualcomm anything.

Apple is paying Qualcomm for more than just 3G patents. Qualcomm has other standards essential patents for, e.g., 4G and 5G, as well as patents in other areas. Even if Apple uses its own chips it has to pay Qualcomm for the use of that technology, and it has a licensing agreement in place with Qualcomm that covers such technology.

That said, even if U.S. cellular carriers stop supporting 3G soon, iPhones will likely continue to support it for a while. The latest iPhones still support 2G technologies.

blastdoor said:

For the other 80%, I wonder if Apple will need to pay Qualcomm some patent royalties. 

Yes. Even if Apple is using its own chips, it has to license the needed technology from those who have patented it - and that includes Qualcomm. Apple has a long-term licensing agreement with Qualcomm that covers cellular standards essential patents as well as other patents.

vesalius said:

Depends on his vesting schedule how long he can delay payment. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/tax/09/restricted-stock-tax.asp  The option to donate as of yet untaxed shares that have increased in value on paper also offers more tax advantages than donating already taxed salary. Can structure/choose to take less actual monetary salary in the years of RSU vesting decreasing other taxable income for that year. No such luck for anyone with a w2 income. 

These shares are as of yet untaxed because Mr. Cook hasn't received them. It's comparable to having an employment contract that says, conditions being met, you'll get paid some amount of money next year. You generally wound't be taxed on that future income until you earned and received it. Something might happen and you never get that income and, generally speaking, employment income is taxed when it's made rather than when it's contracted for or offered.

The salary Mr. Cook receives this year will be taxed as income for this year. The salary he receives next year will be taxed as income for next year. The same is true of equity compensation. He'll receive these shares in 2024, 2025, and 2026 if he's still employed by Apple and if, for some of them, certain performance targets are met. That's when he'll incur income tax liability for them - based on their value when he receives them. That doesn't representing avoiding taxes, it's how income taxes work - for most everyone, not just executives or those compensated through equity.

As for charitable donations... yes, people can sometimes avoid taxes on money (or value) they donate. But that's true whether they're receiving compensation in the form of equity or in cash. For income tax purposes, these equity awards are treated as though the recipient was paid cash in an amount equal to the value of the shares they receive on the day they receive them.