carnegie

darkvader said:

fahlman said:

ivanh said:

When I buy an iPhone, I don’t see a clause about “planned obsolescence”.  But in fact, after a few years, the new iOS versions and apps can’t be installed in the older iPhones. Virtually, Apple has disabled older iPhones from functioning. It is planned obsolescence.

If the current IP laws don’t allow installation of an Android to current iPhone versions that I respect. But it’s also a monopolistic practice that law makers should protect the consumer rights. 

You received what you were promised when you bought it and were never guaranteed anything more.

I dunno about you, but I bought a piece of hardware.  That hardware isn't Apple's, it's mine.  Apple has no right to say I can't run any software I want on it, and I have every right to use any mechanism I want to install and run whatever software I like if I so choose.

And anybody claiming that 1201 lets Apple stop jailbreaking is just plain wrong:  https://www.ifixit.com/News/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule

That refers to an exemption from 17 USC §1201(a)(1), not an exemption from 17 USC §1201(a)(2) or 17 USC §1201(b). There isn’t a similar exemption from those latter provisions because the law doesn’t empower the Librarian of Congress to adopt exemptions from those provisions. So while jailbreaking may be legal, providing tools or services designed to facilitate jailbreaking is not.

There is another provision of the law which might be argued to provide an applicable statutory exemption, but I don’t think such an argument based in that provision would be right.

iqatedo said:

So, did Broadcom infringe the patent and leave its customer on the hook? If so, aren't all of Broadcom's Wi-Fi chip customers targets too? Did Apple perhaps contribute to the coding algorithms for its purposes?

gatorguy said:

iqatedo said:

So, did Broadcom infringe the patent and leave its customer on the hook? If so, aren't all of Broadcom's Wi-Fi chip customers targets too? Did Apple perhaps contribute to the coding algorithms for its purposes?

Both Apple and Broadcom stated in court filings that the claims against Apple are “based solely on the incorporation of allegedly infringing chips” in Apple products. 
Unfortunately for Apple as the defendant that's the way patent law works. 

Yes, that's how infringement works. Even if it's Broadcom's chips which are responsible for the infringement - and even if Apple didn't know they infringed - Apple is guilty of infringing the patents. For that matter, we're guilty of infringing the patents if we use that functionality of our iPhones. But Caltech isn't, for obvious reasons, going to sue us.

That said, it's likely that Broadcom's contract with Apple requires it to indemnify Apple in a situation like this.

SpamSandwich said:

Apple is not being very smart with their legal team recently.

I think it's likely that it's moreso Broadcom leading the legal defense in this case. Broadcom is likely on the hook for all the damages.  Though Apple probably has a contractual obligation to assist with the defense. It probably can't, e.g., just settle the case or refuse to provide information or witnesses which might help the defense.

gatorguy said:

FWIW six months ago the same author wrote this:
"But why is Apple buying back shares seemingly regardless of their price? It appears clear that Apple expects its share price to grow much higher in the future. So rather than carefully timing its repurchases to only occur when the stock price hits its lowest levels, Apple continues to buy shares back nearly as fast as it can all the time, even as the stock price jumps up and down as it continues to increment higher."

As for jumping on this unexpectedly low stock price I would assume that at the moment Apple would be in one of their "blackout periods" where they are not permitted to buy back stock except under a predefined/prearranged schedule that ignores what the stock price is at a point in time and instead picks a date for the transaction to occur. Of course they are not obligated to complete a pre-scheduled buyback, they can choose to hold on to the cash instead, but they also can't create one at their whim during a blackout period. Have I got that right?

Even if Apple has a self-imposed blackout period where it doesn't buy back shares, it likely isn't in that period now. Apple routinely buys back large numbers of shares during the last 4 weeks of its quarters, and we aren't even in the last 4 weeks yet. Also, the last time Apple issued a guidance revision it bought back a substantial number of shares between when it issued that revision and when it reported earnings.

Also, a Rule 10b5-1 Trading Plan doesn't have to ignore the stock price. It can pick specific dates on which shares will be bought or sold. But it can also specify prices at which they will be bought or sold. It can even specify that X number of shares will be bought if the share price drops Y% from a peak. The plan just has to be, speaking practically, self-executing - it has to provide an algorithm which determines when or for how much shares are bought or sold. It can't require further decision making from someone who, at that point, has material non-public information. Whoever does the buying or selling just follows the rules set forth in the plan.

Apple could also give someone - e.g., a broker - the authority to make decisions about when to buy or sell shares based on changing circumstances so long as that person doesn't have material non-public information. They might be told to buy shares as efficiently as they can - e.g., when there are price dips. So longs as they are making the decisions about individual buys and they don't have material non-public information, Apple isn't opening itself up to insider trading accusations.

All that said, it is all but certain that Apple at all times - not just, e.g., near the end of quarters - either buys back shares in accordance with a trading plan or has someone making the short-term buyback decisions who is effectively firewalled from any material non-public information.

Berkshire Hathaway now reports dispositive power over 250.9 million shares of AAPL. Most of those are reported on Berkshire's 13Fs; about 5.7 million are reported on New England Asset Management's 13Fs.


EDIT: To add, Berkshire's self-reported stake in Apple was, as of the end of last year, 5.6%.

EDIT 2: I checked my math, and 3.7 million shares is right. I previously posted that it was 4.4 million.