loquitur

About

Username
loquitur
Joined
Visits
209
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
233
Badges
0
Posts
141

Reactions

124Like2Dislike24Informative

  • Apple ordered to pay $625M in revived VirnetX patent trial

    loquiturloquitur
    e39dinan said:
    Guys, to set the record straight here are a few facts.

    - VHC originally won $368 Million from Apple. Apple appealed on 3 levels (1. the patents are invalid. 2. we did not infringe 3. we don't think we owe that much). The court of appeals (CAFC) struck down Apple on #1 and #2 (the patents are valid, and Apple does infringe) and they kicked the monetary award (#3) back to court. Today's outcome was the result.

    - VHC is comprised of the inventors of the patents while they worked at SAIC. This isn't some NPE that just bought someone else's patents that were lying around. The guys suing AAPL have their names on the actual patents. 

    - Apple was found to wilfully infringe today. In other words, they knew they infringed and they kept doing it. 

    Please educate yourselves before painting VirnetX as your typical money grubbing NPE. 

    And remember: "Good artists copy, great artists steal" -Steve Jobs
    Has this judgement gone thru "least salable unit" analysis, or an analysis of what percentage of an iPhone's value results from having this single feature, out of the hundreds of features and thousands of patents on iPhones, just by Apple?   In the industry, no party generally pays more than a few hundred million in cross-licensing fees to another, also holding hundreds of patents.   Witness Samsung, Ericsson, etc.   Also, what percentage of iPhone users even use FaceTime audio, either via the SAIC "stolen property" or the workaround?   Or the SAIC implementation going forward after *final* appeals, which may just hold the idea of VPN unpatentable?   Sorry, but the Supremes have already hinted that NPEs cannot just say that a company violated just one patent, so "give us X% (X huge) of your profits", even for a "chokehold" patent which this is not.
    wetlander

  • Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Pope Francis in the Vatican on Friday

    loquiturloquitur
    sog35 said:
    lkrupp said:
    Err, ummm, Tuesday’s announcement will be staggeringly, massively positive. That’s a fact. The current hand wringing and stock drop is about next quarter, not the one to be reported on the 26th. You do understand that don’t you?
    AT this point Apple is better off deferring Billions in Dec revenue and saving it for March quarter.

    I think Apple could actually do this if they split their revenue between software and hardware on the iPhone. They could actually spread the software portion of the iPhone revenue over 2 years.

    $300 hardware revenue - 100% revenue in quarter sold
    $350 software revenue - revenue split over 24 months.

    That way Apple could have spread over the massive revenue growth from the iPhone6 over 2 year period.  So instead of a 30% revenue growth last year it would be only 20% growth last year and then 10% this year.  Which looks better to Wall Street?

    Option A
    2015 revenue growth 30%
    2016 revenue growth 2%

    or 

    Option B
    2015 revenue growth 20%
    2016 revenue growth 12%

    This is the type of high level accounting that i feel Apple lacks right now. The CFO and Cook should have know the iPhone6 cycle would be a ridiculous explosion. They should have spread out that explosion over 2 years.  Also spliting iPhone revenue between hardware and software will show the true nature of the company. Apple is not a hardware company. They are an intergrated hardware, software, services and life style company.
    Apple already defers revenue, ala:
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/28/3-things-you-missed-from-apple-inc-earnings-1-of-w.aspx
    This is largely governed not so much by Monday morning quarterbacking, but by international accounting rules:
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-new-revenue-recognition-rules-its-ready-vs-not-1422316175

    palomine

  • Apple suppliers expect iPhone 6s orders to be cut by 30% this quarter - report

    loquiturloquitur
    sog35 said:
    Can someone give a rational explanation why Tim Cook isn't disputing these reports?
    Yes, from an interview with the Irish Independent -- Cook: "I don't even look at what the analysts say", videlicet:
    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/tim-cook-says-he-doesnt-read-what-analysts-write-about-apple-2015-11

    icoco3chianolamacguy