If that was their plan, then their lawyers suck at vetting.
Apple has a long storied history of drawing out legal action for as long as possible before settling. See: trying to take the "look and feel" lawsuit to the US Supreme Court.
Okay, so we'll stop calling it a "sale" and instead, we'll enter an irrevocable "license" agreement for the patent to a separate entity, with exclusive rights to use and relicense said patent to other entities; for a one-time monetary payment and the contractual obligation to defend the patent legally.
Happy? It's no longer being sold, though every single use of patent ownership is being transferred.
All of the Apple employees that come to enterprise business meetings paired up with Verizon and AT&T talking about mobile device management solutions, and how to better integrate iPad and iPhone into your corporate IS infrastructure seem to disagree.
You see what I did there? I alluded to something that is actually happening in the real world, rather than just spouting some one-liner that may have been true 5 years ago, but most definitely isn't the case today.
The mobile I had when I was a kid years ago could only handle GSM data (i.e. 9600 bps at best at the time). If that speed had increased 20,000%, I'd have a 230Gbytes/s phone today.
You're off by several orders of magnitude, as well as being wrong with simple integer multiplication.
You have to remember that a politician, especially this politician, is going to reach for the solution that puts more votes into his pocket. Expanding government workers, and thus the government unions, does this for him.
Except that the same agreement that you're alluding to with your mention of being Apple's largest shareholders (which, by the way, they are not), also included a cross-licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, in order to make the QuickTime lawsuit go away.
Microsoft sold those shares long ago, at a nice profit.
While I agree in principle, it's a good idea for the more affluent to help out paying the way of those that can't afford to pay as much. Without such a social compact, you end up without essential government services, and ultimately with revolt and an overthrown government.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Republican, said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
However, putting arbitrary limits on things doesn't bode well for future policy. See: the upper middle class that's getting squeezed by the AMT due to inflation, because Congress can't stop bickering enough to adjust the AMT.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
So, you're complaining that you don't have enough money to give a substantial chunk of it to a charity, in order to decrease your tax liability.
Did you forget that while they are paying less taxes, they are also paying the substantial chunk of money out to charity too? Using Mitt Romney as an example, add his effective tax rate (~15%) to his charity payout (~16% according to this) and you see that he actually paid out 31% of his income in taxes and charity.
What was your effective tax rate with charity added, on your income again? I'll bet it's less.
Don't worry, he'll still get nailed on capital gains taxes on the sale.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Actually, your property tax is based on assessed value, which isn't necessarily equal to market value.
There's a couple states out there that have legislatively limited how much the assessed value can increase per annum, because the county tax assessors loved hiking up the numbers, so that they could collect more tax. Oregon actually had a couple referendum measures on ballots that were approved to reset property tax rates to the lesser of (1994-1995) or (1995-1996 less 10%) levels, and then cap annual increases to 3% without new construction or additions. California has a similar law, except that if the property is sold, it can be re-assessed to current market value.
I leave space between me and the guy in front of me, because it's how you're supposed to drive.
However, some nitwit always tries to cram their car into said space, and in more than a few cases, right when the first car in the line starts to apply the brakes. The nitwit now brakes sharply. I have a choice between the following:
1. Also brake sharply, and get a financial rogering from my insurance company due to the GPS tracker 2. Don't brake, and smash into the nitwit, and get a financial rogering from my insurance company for an at-fault collision 3. Attempt to ditch to another lane or the shoulder, which then causes me to be some other driver's nitwit, which will likely show up on the GPS as a "badly managed turn", so I still get the financial rogering.
No thanks, I'll go with my current insurance, which doesn't cause me to get screwed in the wallet by nitwits (as much).
So, car A goes way too slow around a sight-impeded turn in order to avoid "badly managing" it, causing car B to "brake sharply", right before car A and car B have a mutual crash?
Car A gets the discount, and car B gets a colossal fiduciary rogering. What a great system they've come up with.
This would eat into their profit model in the same fashion that they are crying about here. Here's why (using numbers that are by no means exact):
$200 for a phone, contract for 2 years with subsidy ($450) $70/month * 24 months = $1,680
$1,680 - $225 = $1,455 / year without overage charges for service.
Now, the customer doesn't realize they have a subsidy in that monthly charge, and after the two-year period they don't upgrade, and continue paying the $70/month. The carrier then gobbles up the part of that $70/month that should be repaying the subsidy that no longer exists as profit. They do this for a year, the carrier gets the whole $1,680. That's a 15.4% increase in profit from that customer for that year.
That is what they are missing out on right now, because people are upgrading as soon as a new model comes out, or whenever their contract allows them to - which ever comes last / cheapest for the customer.
In fact, your data shows that it is exactly equal, at $450 per unit. They're just getting miffed because people are switching phones faster, which doesn't allow them to continue charging subsidy-reclaiming monthly rates after the contract expires like they could with shitty dumbphones from Motorola that people would hang on to, because the new dumbphone wasn't any better than the one you already had.
Sorry ATT and VZW, you don't get to screw your customers sideways (as much) anymore. But only just, since you're only screwing them 1.5% less according to your own statement.
You mean, besides the mid-west, or as it's properly known in US Census circles, the Great Lakes Megalopolis including Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, the Cincinnati - Dayton corridor, Cleveland, Detroit, Louisville, and Pittsburgh.
I mean, there's only 60 million people there. C'mon now.
This would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the regional carriers.
When it comes to who actually coughs up a dial tone and an IP address, I couldn't give two shits as long as the service is reliable and available where I am. If Cincinnati Bell has good service wherever I go, and I don't have to pay some 1997 roaming fee for it, what the hell do I care?
Slashdot Mirror
If that was their plan, then their lawyers suck at vetting.
Apple has a long storied history of drawing out legal action for as long as possible before settling. See: trying to take the "look and feel" lawsuit to the US Supreme Court.
Okay, so we'll stop calling it a "sale" and instead, we'll enter an irrevocable "license" agreement for the patent to a separate entity, with exclusive rights to use and relicense said patent to other entities; for a one-time monetary payment and the contractual obligation to defend the patent legally.
Happy? It's no longer being sold, though every single use of patent ownership is being transferred.
Why was this noise posted in the first place?
The article summary makes it sound like this is a Slashdot front page retweet of some guy named "Rasiej"
Man, have the mighty fallen.
Like they don't already? Sure, there's a 1970s law on the books, but that only stops direct lobbying.
Well, it falls to the SEC now because the FCC tried, and got bitchslapped by Congress.
If the proper way doesn't work, use the half-assed back door. That's the way of the United States Government.
All of the Apple employees that come to enterprise business meetings paired up with Verizon and AT&T talking about mobile device management solutions, and how to better integrate iPad and iPhone into your corporate IS infrastructure seem to disagree.
You see what I did there? I alluded to something that is actually happening in the real world, rather than just spouting some one-liner that may have been true 5 years ago, but most definitely isn't the case today.
The mobile I had when I was a kid years ago could only handle GSM data (i.e. 9600 bps at best at the time). If that speed had increased 20,000%, I'd have a 230Gbytes/s phone today.
You're off by several orders of magnitude, as well as being wrong with simple integer multiplication.
9600 bps = 9.6 Kbps
9.6 * 200 = 1920 Kbps
1920 Kbps = 1.92 Mbps.
1.92Mbps != 230GB/sec. Not even close.
You have to remember that a politician, especially this politician, is going to reach for the solution that puts more votes into his pocket. Expanding government workers, and thus the government unions, does this for him.
You're not that far off the mark.
Except that the same agreement that you're alluding to with your mention of being Apple's largest shareholders (which, by the way, they are not), also included a cross-licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft, in order to make the QuickTime lawsuit go away.
Microsoft sold those shares long ago, at a nice profit.
Well, for one thing, we have hundreds of years of law that says that your assets are distributed per your last will and testament.
Apple pays taxes. The people Apple employs also pay taxes. Foxconn pays import duties and berthing fees for the shipping. Etc.
Why is only Steve Jobs responsible for what all these other entities are doing again? Oh, it's because you haven't been thinking clearly.
While I agree in principle, it's a good idea for the more affluent to help out paying the way of those that can't afford to pay as much. Without such a social compact, you end up without essential government services, and ultimately with revolt and an overthrown government.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Republican, said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.
However, putting arbitrary limits on things doesn't bode well for future policy. See: the upper middle class that's getting squeezed by the AMT due to inflation, because Congress can't stop bickering enough to adjust the AMT.
So, you're complaining that you don't have enough money to give a substantial chunk of it to a charity, in order to decrease your tax liability.
Did you forget that while they are paying less taxes, they are also paying the substantial chunk of money out to charity too? Using Mitt Romney as an example, add his effective tax rate (~15%) to his charity payout (~16% according to this) and you see that he actually paid out 31% of his income in taxes and charity.
What was your effective tax rate with charity added, on your income again? I'll bet it's less.
Don't worry, he'll still get nailed on capital gains taxes on the sale.
Actually, your property tax is based on assessed value, which isn't necessarily equal to market value.
There's a couple states out there that have legislatively limited how much the assessed value can increase per annum, because the county tax assessors loved hiking up the numbers, so that they could collect more tax. Oregon actually had a couple referendum measures on ballots that were approved to reset property tax rates to the lesser of (1994-1995) or (1995-1996 less 10%) levels, and then cap annual increases to 3% without new construction or additions. California has a similar law, except that if the property is sold, it can be re-assessed to current market value.
This is exactly what I don't understand.
I leave space between me and the guy in front of me, because it's how you're supposed to drive.
However, some nitwit always tries to cram their car into said space, and in more than a few cases, right when the first car in the line starts to apply the brakes. The nitwit now brakes sharply. I have a choice between the following:
1. Also brake sharply, and get a financial rogering from my insurance company due to the GPS tracker
2. Don't brake, and smash into the nitwit, and get a financial rogering from my insurance company for an at-fault collision
3. Attempt to ditch to another lane or the shoulder, which then causes me to be some other driver's nitwit, which will likely show up on the GPS as a "badly managed turn", so I still get the financial rogering.
No thanks, I'll go with my current insurance, which doesn't cause me to get screwed in the wallet by nitwits (as much).
You misspelled "drive on I-95 in South Florida"
So, car A goes way too slow around a sight-impeded turn in order to avoid "badly managing" it, causing car B to "brake sharply", right before car A and car B have a mutual crash?
Car A gets the discount, and car B gets a colossal fiduciary rogering. What a great system they've come up with.
They aren't losing money. They are losing margin.
In other words, they are "losing" money they feel they are entitled to. And not a single shit was given by any person who understands this.
This would eat into their profit model in the same fashion that they are crying about here. Here's why (using numbers that are by no means exact):
$200 for a phone, contract for 2 years with subsidy ($450)
$70/month * 24 months = $1,680
$1,680 - $225 = $1,455 / year without overage charges for service.
Now, the customer doesn't realize they have a subsidy in that monthly charge, and after the two-year period they don't upgrade, and continue paying the $70/month. The carrier then gobbles up the part of that $70/month that should be repaying the subsidy that no longer exists as profit. They do this for a year, the carrier gets the whole $1,680. That's a 15.4% increase in profit from that customer for that year.
That is what they are missing out on right now, because people are upgrading as soon as a new model comes out, or whenever their contract allows them to - which ever comes last / cheapest for the customer.
In fact, your data shows that it is exactly equal, at $450 per unit. They're just getting miffed because people are switching phones faster, which doesn't allow them to continue charging subsidy-reclaiming monthly rates after the contract expires like they could with shitty dumbphones from Motorola that people would hang on to, because the new dumbphone wasn't any better than the one you already had.
Sorry ATT and VZW, you don't get to screw your customers sideways (as much) anymore. But only just, since you're only screwing them 1.5% less according to your own statement.
You mean, besides the mid-west, or as it's properly known in US Census circles, the Great Lakes Megalopolis including Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, the Cincinnati - Dayton corridor, Cleveland, Detroit, Louisville, and Pittsburgh.
I mean, there's only 60 million people there. C'mon now.
This would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the regional carriers.
When it comes to who actually coughs up a dial tone and an IP address, I couldn't give two shits as long as the service is reliable and available where I am. If Cincinnati Bell has good service wherever I go, and I don't have to pay some 1997 roaming fee for it, what the hell do I care?
You mean it's unfair that they got the bill put in a drawer through mobilization of constituents, rather than the RIAA's mobilization of currency?
Don't you have something better to do, like filing more lawsuits against your customers?
FYI: Airplanes (1910s), guided missiles (1940s), and espresso (1905) all existed prior to computers.
What was your point?