flydog

netrox said:

That is so ridiculous. As long as shareholders are making money, what's the problem???? 

Thanks for that absurdly illogical and generic comment. 

First, the stock dropped 30% during the period in question. Whether Apple stock went up 3 years later is irrelevant to those who sold at a loss.

Second, to the extent that someone was able to mitigate that loss by "making money" over the long term, that would a question of damages, not whether any misleading statements were made. 

Third, even if the shareholders at issue were "making money," the question is whether they would have made more money. 

ApplePoor said:

Apple can well afford paying their employees. They could cut Cook's wages to 5 million and pay the folks that actually do all of the work. 

Zero relevance of this nonsense to the article.  Zero. 

The API charge noted in this article is incorrect. Reddit charges $0.24 per 1,000 API calls, not "$0.02 per user." 

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditdev/comments/13wsiks/api_update_enterprise_level_tier_for_large_scale/

JP234 said:

If you look up "frivolous lawsuit" in your legal dictionary, this is the one it references. At least in the private sector.

Apple spent half a billion dollars replacing batteries, which is far more than it would have cost to get "frivolous lawsuits" dismissed. 

Wow so many clowns who claim to know somethign about copyright law.

camber said:

The document itself contains no Copyright—the word Copyright does not appear in the document nor the © symbol, no date of copyright and no individual/company who owns the copyright. These are three more impediments to a successful copyright suite against Apple. Furthermore, although Apple has deep pockets and is therefore a 'good' target for such a suite, copyright provides the least protection of all the intellectual property laws. He can threaten all he likes but a successful suit is highly unlikely!

Wrong. It is not necessary to include the (c) symbol to sue someone for infringement. Including the symbol is beneficial to the copyright holder because, among other things, it precludes certain defenses.

spliff monkey said:

because an unused sample white paper appeared in macOS? FFS Attention seeking, fame fucker. Even if he had proof he was the author it would still be a very dubious case. Without proof it sounds like a grift from a former president who's about to be a convicted felon. Humanity really needs a reboot. 

What makes it "dubious" if he can prove he is the author?  What element of a copyright infringement claim is missing here?  

AppleInsider said:

Although Wright has yet to file a formal lawsuit against Apple, it's unlikely he will succeed since he still has to provide irrefutable evidence that he is indeed the creator of Bitcoin. Given the nature of the document, it's also unclear if any copyright law applies.

No, he only needs to prove he is the author. Fictious names and pseudonyms may be used, and the author is still entitled to copyright protection.  

He also doesn't need to prove that he invented Bitcoin. All he needs to prove is that he wrote the article.