- Last Active
rob53 said:clexman said:rob53 said:We’re talking about family so why wouldn’t each of them have written down essential account information and stored them in a safe? If they had the surviving spouse would have been able to access the deceased Apple ID.
it’s not Apple’s responsibility to do this. Forcing Apple to do it sets a bad precedent for other types of access by police and others.
WmH said:Something is amiss here, why did they not have photo library or iCloud library shared if they were married, passwords shared, the other husband should have all the photos between the two, no court order given or needed. Get down to the real reason!!!
I recently went through this with a parent passing and Apple was helpful and a specialist guided me through the process. We had to follow state procedures to get the court issue the order/permission. Each state handles digital property management in their own way. Some don't even offer it in a Will. Also there is no probate when there is a surviving spouse in community property states so there's no legal documents associated with passing digital property.
Good on Apple for protecting property and privacy.
anantksundaram said:MlorianFueller said:applemagic said:
Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!
That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:********
For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:
- the "no license-no chips" policy;
- incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
- the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
- past exclusive arrangements with Apple.
Incidentally then, how do we know you’re not being paid by Qualcomm?
tzeshan said:The federal agency that regulates media should act now.
seanismorris said:christophb said:I don’t see anything influencing Bloomberg into publishing tangible evidence until this impacts their bottom line. If they stick to their guns, we could see some changes to libel laws or SEC & FTC access to confidential sources and data.
Damages are easily quantified in the stock price plunge. We’re talking about 100s of millions. I don’t see how Bloomberg can “stick to there guns”. This was supposedly a year long investigation by them that ended in a bombshell report. They must have planned follow up articles. The fact we’re getting crickets is damning. I assume what we’re seeing is already covered by libel laws, but they’re generally ignored when it’s about companies. A complete retraction seems logical and would probably be good enough for everyone but Super Micro.
Bloomberg is probably also looking at a fine by the agencies. They generally give slaps on wrists...