carnegie

GeorgeBMac said:

Xed said:

anantksundaram said:

Apple currently has ~$110B in debt (incl commercial paper). This new issue will make it’s total debt ~$125B. That’s still a trivial 5.5% of the company’s market value of equity. It’s like a person with a million dollar net worth having $55,000 in debt. 

Apple’s cash (including all of its marketable securities), at ~$190B, still dwarfs its total debt. 

This board has had many discussions about debt over the years. Often I've seen forum members claim that having debt of any kind means you're not responsible with your money when I'd easily argue that borrowing when interest rates are incredibly low is the most financially prudent thing you can do, even if feels uncomfortable having to pay something back that you can easily afford to pay for outright.

Borrowing money to give it away is not responsible corporate management.

Responsible corporations manage money responsibly and invest in themselves.   Stock buybacks do neither.  And, borrowing money for stock buybacks is even less responsible.

Because Apple has enough profit and cash from operations to cover it up does not make it responsible corporate management.

Borrowing money - to include borrowing it to facilitate stock buybacks - can be irresponsible. But in Apple's case the buybacks have been anything but irresponsible. Apple's buyback program over the last decade or so has been one of the most successful financial moves in the history of equity investment. Apple saw something that was persistently undervalued and had the ability to buy it in large quantities and, having nothing else it wanted to do with its retained profits, did so. Its persistent shareholders have benefited tremendously from those buybacks. And if Apple itself wanted to, it could as well - e.g, by (reissuing and) selling those shares at an enormous effective profit.

Apple has continued to invest in itself and its future product lines and services. It shouldn't have spent more money on such things - i.e., beyond what it thought made sense - just because it had more money available to it. You don't just spend money because you have it. That's a good way to lose money. You spend money because there are reasons - and reason on-net - to do so. A well run business doesn't buy a new fleet of vehicles just because it has money to do so. It buys a new fleet of vehicles because it makes business sense to do so. These buybacks were done with money that was left over (or money borrowed effectively against money that was left over) after Apple spent whatever money it thought made sense on, e.g., R&D and acquisitions.

I haven't entered the latest buyback information, so I won't offer more precise numbers, but Apple is more than a trillion dollars ahead on its buybacks. That gained value is reflected in the current share price. If Apple wanted, or needed money for something, it could reissue and sell the shares it has bought back at an average price of just $50 and still come out ahead - i.e., it would have more money on its books than if it had not done the buybacks (and just held that money) at the same share dilution as if the buybacks never happened.

The prudence of different share buyback programs can be difficult to assess, even after the fact. But when it comes to Apple, it's pretty hard to argue that its buyback program hasn't been very successful - very profitable for its shareholders and, if needed, for the company itself. Consistent with my philosophy of equity investment, I'm generally not a fan of returning capital to shareholders. (And I'm certainly not a fan of doing so through dividends.) But at some point, when a company has been so successful that it doesn't have another prudent use for its retained profits, it makes sense to return capital to shareholders. Without the possibility that will eventually happen, equity investment in general doesn't make much sense.

flydog said:

rob53 said:

Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?

Based on what?  Do you have access to all the trial evidence, and you personally reviewed all of it?  Did you read the judge's opinion and the parties' motions?   Do you know anything at all about patent law or civil procedure?  The answer to all of these quesitons is, of course, no.

The fact that the USPTO deemed the subject of the patents "unpatentable" is irrelevant because the US Court of Appeals reversed the USPTO's decision.  The patents were valid, enforceable, and Apple infringed on them.  This case has been around for 10 years, and every single court and jury has ruled againt Apple.  
 
End of story.

The PTAB's (i.e. the USPTO's) invalidations of claims from the two patents at issue were not reversed by the Federal Circuit. Rather, those invalidation decisions were vacated and the matter was returned to the PTAB to decide again whether certain claims were invalid. In July of 2020 the PTAB again decided that the relevant claims were invalid. VirnetX's appeal of the PTAB's decisions is now pending with the Federal Circuit. Those claims have been invalidated, but we don't have a final decision on them yet because VIrnetX hasn't exhausted its appeals. The same is true with regard to the infringement case which is the subject of this thread; we don't have a final decision yet because Apple hasn't exhausted its appeals. The question is, what will become final first: The PTAB invalidations or the infringement judgment? If it's the former, Apple may be able to get the infringement award thrown out.

rob53 said:

Sounds like judge is prejudiced against Apple. It’s like using witnesses in a murder trial who end up being caught telling lies about the murder and not telling the jury they did. 

How many of VirnetX’s patents in question are currently valid? One, two, none?

All four of the patents which Apple was originally found to have infringed have now been invalidated by the PTAB (i.e. all of the relevant claims have been). For two of those patents, the Federal Circuit has yet to decide whether to uphold the invalidations. So there isn't a final decision regarding their invalidity. Those are the two patents still at issue in this infringement case.

professorsteve said:

Apple should drop Facetime which is buggy anyway.

This judgment doesn't relate to FaceTime. Previously Apple had been found to infringe two patents with its redesigned FaceTime and two patents with its redesigned VPN on Demand. The infringement findings based on FaceTime were subsequently overturned by the Federal Circuit. What remains (at least for now) are findings that Apple infringed two patents with its redesigned VPN on Demand.

22july2013 said:

Now that the Dems have full control of House, Senate and the Presidency, watch out Apple! Apple as a corporation and Apple's employees as individuals are strong supporters of the Democrat party and yet it's the Democrat party which consistently spars with Apple's business practices. 

In what ways is Apple as a corporation a strong supporter of the Democrat party?

Many employees? Sure. But the company itself?