carnegie
About
- Username
- carnegie
- Joined
- Visits
- 213
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,613
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,085
Reactions
-
Apple to hold $14 billion bond sale to take advantage of cheap borrowing costs
That used to be a concern and a reason for borrowing in order to facilitate share repurchases, but it isn't anymore. With the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, existing not repatriated foreign earnings were deemed repatriated for tax purposes. And going forward it doesn't matter whether foreign earnings are repatriated, the new minimum taxation rules apply anyway.crowley said:A large part of their cash will not be in the USA, and if they repatriate it then it will be subject to domestic taxation that far exceeds the interest rates of the debt they're taking on. The foreign cash holdings are effectively a guarantee of Apple's ability to pay that allows them to borrow even more cheaply, safe in the knowledge that their income in the USA will enable them to comfortably pay off those loans, without ever having to touch the cash held overseas (until the next repatriation tax holiday).
-
Judge denies new Apple & VirnetX trial, Apple will likely owe more than $1B
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.flydog said:
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.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?
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.
-
Judge denies new Apple & VirnetX trial, Apple will likely owe more than $1B
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.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?
-
Bill introduced to strip Section 230 protections from the internet
Private contracts can be binding. But they generally don't bind third parties.SpamSandwich said:
Not trying to be glib, but get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.Mike Wuerthele said:
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means.SpamSandwich said:
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.Mike Wuerthele said:
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.gatorguy said:The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years.
The forum and the breaking news are the only reasons I continue to come here. With no forum, I would have to weigh my options.
It wouldn't be feasible for Apple Insider to screen every post to make certain that it didn't include anything that might give rise to liability to a third party - e.g., for defamation. Apple Insider wouldn't, even if it did screen everything, know if certain things might be, e.g., defamatory.
-
Bill introduced to strip Section 230 protections from the internet
How would that protect Apple Insider (or other providers) from potential liability to third parties? Apple Insider and I can't, not effectively any way, contractually agree to eliminate rights of third parties. That's what 47 USC §230(c)(1) is about. It's about, e.g., Apple Insider not being liable, to a third party, for what I might say about that third party on Apple Insider's forum. Absent Section 230, no agreement which Apple Insider might require me to consent to would eliminate such liability. I can't release Apple Insider from liability to third parties other than in special circumstances, e.g., based on some kind of power of attorney.SpamSandwich said:
What a bunch of garbage.dewme said:
Thanks for summing it up very nicely.Mike Wuerthele said:
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.gatorguy said:The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
Nobody in their right mind would place themselves in a position where they can be held liable for other people's crimes and indiscretions. Likewise, repeal of this provision would not only encourage mass censorship, but instill it as a survival mechanism for anyone bold enough to attempt to provide a public forum that allows open participation.
This bill is just another case of one group saying "Only we can ascertain the truth and we will enforce it as we see fit." This is not a slippery slope, this is an icy cliff. Unfortunately, after the truth decay, hate priming, and "win at any cost" behaviors that have become normalized over the past several years, this bill may gain some traction. The same failings in human nature and twisted cognition that led 900+ attendees of the Jim Jones kool-aid party to be led to the gates of hell by a psychopathic but charismatic leader are still very much in play to this day. It's just a matter of time before the party starts.
Want to avoid liability after Section 230 is eliminated? Just have every user who wants to use your forums sign off on a legal document releasing the site from liability. It’s really not that difficult.
Use some common sense.
