CloudTalkin

larryjw said:

I know nothing about Kia. 

So a quick scan of Kia website was in order. I can't image Apple producing a car that was not at least a Hybrid. If it's to be made in Georgia, that's only the Sorento, if a commenter above is correct.

The only other such vehicles is the Niro brand: Niro EV, Niro plug-in Hybrid, and the plain Niro Hybrid. Where are these made?

Sounds as if you're looking at this as if it's a co-branding project.  As in an Apple branded Niro for example. Apple isn't looking to simply attach their tech to a Kia.  I don't think that's what either company has in mind.  I think the relationship will be Kia serving as an OEM Manufacturer, like Foxconn or Wistron.  Kia as a contract manufacturer makes sense.  They are located in the US, have capacity, and can scale tooling and machining to contract manufacture Apple's design specifications without affecting Hyundai's growing reputation.  

Another example of a OEM manufacturing by an established automaker is General Motors is going to build 2 eSUV's for Honda (1 Honda, 1 Acura).  No co-branding, just an OEM platform partnership.  https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35141150/gm-honda-acura-electric-car-building-plans/

lkrupp said:

Proposed models include Puma, Leopard, Mojave, Catalina, and the flagship of the line Big Sur which will have all the bells and whistles. Sure sounds better than Tesla’s S, X, Y, 3.

Jokes aside.  Tesla's model designations are intentional.  Listed properly, they would spell "sexy" in leetspeak.  S 3 X Y.  Fun fact, Model 3 only exists because Ford wouldn't let Telsa use Model E as a designation.  Rumor has it all of Tesla's vehicle together spell SEXY CARS.   
Models S, 3, X, Y.  C- Cybertruck, A- All terrain quad, R- Roadster, S- Semi truck.  No idea if it's true, but it does seem like something 420 Elon would do.

razorpit said:

mike1 said:

If this is all true, I'm very surprised to learn that Hyundai uses separate plant(s) to manufacture essentially the same car(s).

I also doubt that Kia would need to "agree to take control of production". They'd be told they are producing the car.

I don’t know the Hyundai/Kia models that well, is there a Kia made that Hyundai doesn’t offer? Maybe it is a Kia plant that also makes Hyundai’s? Just a wild guess but I could see where the minivan plant would have plenty of spare capacity right now due to the SUV craze. Not saying this is where minivans are made, just an example.

Kia's plant in Georgia makes the Sorento, Optima,Telluride, and made the Hyundai Santa Fe (2010-16). 
Hyundai's plant in Alabama makes the Sonata, Elantra, and made the Santa Fe (2007-10).  Will start making the Tucson and Santa Cruz in 2021.

Since 2016, the Santa Fe production has been shared by both facilities. 
Info from Thanks Obama! Wikipedia.

SpamSandwich said:

Used to be that a CEO who manages to lose a company $1 billion would be fired and replaced. Doesn’t matter if he was directly responsible or not. It happened during his watch.

Technically, the company won't lose a billion.  Their insurance company will just make an E&O (Error & Omissions) payout.  It's a blanket business policy.  I have a $5 million E&O for my small company.  It's not that expensive for me, and for a company like Apple I'd imagine an E&O premium would be an even smaller expense, comparatively speaking.  

killroy said:

CloudTalkin said:

killroy said:

Ok what does the mobile carriers and the FCC have to say. And the frand rules.

FRAND is the acronym for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. FRAND is the acronym for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. It generally arises in antitrust cases where an owner of intellectual property rights (IPR) refuses to grant a licence or refuses to grant a licence on FRAND terms.

Based on a cursory search, none of the patents in question are Standards Essential Patents (SEP), so FRAND licensing wouldn't be applicable in this case.  FRAND terms are  usually in cases where SEP's are being debated.  Again, a quick glance says this case has no SEP's so FRAND isn't applicable.  The FCC has nothing to say in a legal matter that isn't under their purview.  AFAIK, this issue isn't.

So that would mean there is more than one way to do LTE 4 and G5. Well the FCC regulates the LTE and G5 bands.

I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to make.  Of course there's more than one way to implement LTE and 5G.  That's not in question.  What Neo is claiming is Apple's implementation violates their 5 patents.  Again, the FCC has nothing to do with the patent litigation in this case.  Whether or not they regulate the bands is irrelevant as it relates to this issue.  Go back and look at almost any patent litigation involving Apple and assertions involving cellular networks/technology.  You will find no FCC involvement in any of it.  You will find FCC involvement in almost no patent litigation, regardless of Apple's involvement.