spheric
About
- Username
- spheric
- Joined
- Visits
- 283
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,238
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,737
Reactions
-
Apple must pay EU $14 billion over Ireland tax arrangement
Why does Apple get a tax credit on the $14b it has to pay to Ireland? The money was not repatriated; it's in escrow. These $14b are tax payable on overseas profits, which were never taxable by the US gov't in the first place. These extra $14b in local taxes do not affect Apple's US-taxable income, AFAICS.radarthekat said:
Credit for foreign taxes paid. US is party to many tax treaties that prevent double taxation. Ergo, if Apple instead paid the US government when it repatriated a ton of overseas profits back when the US government gave businesses a favorable tax rate to do so, then Apple will get a tax credit on the $14b it now has to pay to Ireland. This will reduce its US taxes in the next tax year or years (until the credit is fully utilized). Thus it’s the US government that will take a hit for this decision.mongobongo said:
How is the money effectively coming from the US government and not from Apple?carnegie said:I suppose the U.S. government could again try to get involved, filing a complaint of some sort, since that's where the money that Ireland will collect will ultimately effectively be coming from.
Or am I missing something?
-
Apple may have to give up $14B escrow account to satisfy EU court on Tuesday
You are familiar with the concept of appeals?beowulfschmidt said:gatorguy said:
One EU court already did side with Apple.beowulfschmidt said:There was zero chance that the EU court was ever going to rule in Apple's favor and forgo that 14+ billion dollars.
But not the one that actually counts, apparently.
-
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
My comment had to do with the fact that THE INTERNET is a global thing, and this website and its articles are being read OUTSIDE the United States of America, and have been for MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.dewme said:
You're going far beyond the scope and context of the feature in question. If an Apple Watch buyer lives in the US and buys any Apple Watch that is impacted by the ongoing legal dispute the oxygen sensor is inaccessible. Whether the oxygen sensor is still present in the device or whether the US-banned feature is available in other countries does not matter at all. Knowing that one of my German, Canadian, or Singaporean colleagues has that feature activated in the same Apple Watch model that I own doesn't help me in any way. That's just a fact.spheric said:
Maybe some day, Americans will finally grasp this „global“ concept and understand the whole internet thing.
This topic has nothing at all to do with American's perspectives about global markets, global economies, or other countries.If you write that "Another health element users will miss out on is blood oxygen sensing. Following Masimo's legal fight and the successful ban on Apple using the technology, Apple stripped it out of the Apple Watch." then that's simply misinformation for the vast majority of people on the internet who have access to this article (who outnumber USAians about 10:1).
It is just a "health element AMERICAN users will miss out on". The US patent dispute between Apple and Masimo does not affect me or any Apple Watch I could buy in any way. They all have blood oxygen measurement. That's just a fact.
-
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
The two patents I looked up had a „priority date“ of 2008 and actual application dates of 2020, two years after the AW4 was released. The grant date was 2021, a year after application.gatorguy said:
I think the patent you're referring to has a priority date of 7/3/2008. That's way before the Apple Watch was even a thought. Am I mistaken? If so, what's the patent number for the one you're talking about?tht said:
The US Trade Court said the Apple Watch violated a Masimo patent for a blood oxygen sensor that is housed in a convex surface with a chamfer. This patent was filed after Apple started selling watches with a blood oxygen feature.kellie said:Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
EDIT: I think you're getting confused by the grant date, which can be years after the patent application was filed. Those are two different things; Apple wasn't submarined.Does the priority date — the effective date of the claim of novelty — require extra proof, or is this legally clarified as the original date of patent validity, even if the actual application wasn’t submitted until twelve years later?Does the patent office keep track of priority dates before an actual patent application, so that a potential violator (like Apple) has the chance to look them up when creating their own products? -
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
It’s a sales ban, not an import ban. Imports are affected because you can’t import something with intent to sell that you’re not actually allowed to sell.longfang said:
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?pulseimages said:Why doesn’t Apple want to license the patent?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
