mikethemartian

rob53 said:

beowulfschmidt said:

It's not "troll" behavior if the patents are legitimate and are legitimately being infringed.  And the proper place to determine legitimacy is in the courts.  Not in a clickbait headline.

Disagree. BlackBerry’s patents were created for Blackberry devices. Why should a different, non-practicing company benefit from them? I wouldn’t have any problem if Blackberry sold their patents to a company (new or old) who is involved in cellular communications.  

verne arase said:

Picture you're TSMC.

Apple has been using TSMC to produce their Apple Silicon chips for the better part of a decade. They help finance development of new cutting edge nodes, and have been a critical partner in TSMC's advancement and evolution into the world's best (and possibly largest) fab.

At first, TSMC was reluctant to take on Apple's business because they didn't want to put so many of their eggs into such a large basket, but eventually the two got together and have been working with each other ever since. Apple likes doing business with TSMC because they not a competitor, and their IP won't accidentally leak into some other subdivision's competing products.

Now, along comes this new Johnny-Come-Lately with a fist full of dollars and wants you to produce their CPUs while they're upgrading their own fab to more modern standards.

Do you go with with Intel for the fast cash grab, of stick with the partner who's been working with you all this time?

Of course, when Intel gets their own fabs up to snuff, you know you'll suffer the double whammy of losing not only the business of fabricating Intel CPUs, but Intel will then try to take as many of your other customers as they can.

What's a body to do ... ?

rob53 said:

Shows how dumb the judge is. No way Apple can reconfigure the App Store that fast. Plus there will be plenty of lawsuits against Apple for changing it. If Apple is forced to open it up I’m filing a lawsuit against Apple for damaging a secure system, putting my devices at risk. 

jeff fields said:

Anyone else getting a bit weary of complaints that seem to be supported by Cher Scarlett and...basically nobody else and no other evidence?

Also, asking someone to sign an NDA does not equate to "silencing" them. This should be blatantly obvious from the get-go, right? But in this case it's even more blindingly obvious: she refused to sign, and here she is complaining to her heart's content.

So perhaps I am just dim or obtuse, but I'm having trouble seeing what the actual problem is, here. She wants to be an Apple critic, she apparently planned to be an Apple critic starting about fifty milliseconds after getting hired by Apple, and, lo and behold, here she is being an Apple critic, unhindered. Great. Have at.