sacto joe

lkrupp said:

...Apple’s stock and reputation fell because of this story? That’s nonsense. No one but tech blogs care. The market is in a pull back right now and this story has nothing to do with it. In the end, though, stories like this are short seller’s manna from Heaven.

Sorry, lkrupp, you don't get to have it both ways. If you say short sellers hugely benefitted from this story, then you're literally saying the stock and reputation fell because of this story.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase your statement?

Pretty stupid on the part of India. They don't get that Apple doesn't need them as much as they need Apple.

They'll get a trickle of government income by taxing "luxury" goods, but lose the productivity enhancement that comes with opening the doors to cooperation. Slicing their noses off to spite their face, IMHO.

6502 said:

tommikele said:

This is typical termination case, not patent infringement. When you go to work for Apple or any other tech company you sign a document agreeing that they own everything you invent, code you write, underlying idea, etc. This is just a beef because they fired him and he didn't get his bonus. There is a clear inference from his own filing that he whined and complained until it interfered with work getting done so he got fired. Firing him was what any company would do in this case.

Owning a patent and being listed as an inventor on a patent are two different things. Yes, Apple owns the patent but all inventors, by patent law, must be listed on the patent or it can be invalidated. Apple can't simply pick and choose who it wants to list as inventors as a reward or punishment.

You are correct. If he originated the concept that was subsequently patented, his name should have been on the patents. Next question; whose names are on the patents? Did that person take credit for this person's inventiveness? 

Because there is also the issue of "fairness" here. A squishy term, to be sure, but Apple apparently did well for itself off of this person's creativity. The 735 shares (5,145 shares if offered pre-split) shows two things: First, it shows that someone at Apple thought he had extra value, or he wouldn't have been awarded the opportunity to acquire them in the first place, which basically reinforces the probability that he contributed something of real worth to Apple. Second, it represents, in itself, a reason for his supervisor to fire this person, thus permitting the supervisor to say he saved the company a handsome sum.

Crappy bosses are everywhere, including within Apple. I know that for a fact.

brucemc said:

From the article:
"According to data compiled by Neil Cybart of Above Avalon, Apple's iPhone installed base is now around 750 million users. Yet over the last fiscal year, Apple's total iPhone sales were just above 216 million. That's a lot of phones, all of which are "premium" by industry standards."

I subscribe to Above Avalon and so get all of this data from Neil.  Just to note that his definition of "installed base" is those who have purchased their iPhone new direct from Apple or reseller.  It does not include those who get hand-me-downs, or purchased from the used market.  He lumps those into the "iPhone user base" (number of persons who own/use an iPhone regardless of how acquired) which is estimated at over 900M now.

So in the next year or so, Apple is likely to cross the threshold of having over 1 billion active (unique) iPhone users...

Thanks, Bruce! I just quoted you on ped30.com. REALLY great point!

You’re kidding, right? The whole point of the HomePod is good quality sound at a reasonable price that doesn’t impact your personal privacy.