The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.
Was this before or after they declared that they will sue all their competitors
I'm guessing it was back before then, when all of their competitors were suing them. Or don't you remember when Apple was the patent whipping boy, and everyone from Nokia to Kodak to Creative was using patents to sue the crap out of them?
Or is it only a bad thing when it's a company you don't like doing the suing?
No, it's not. Take the tinfoil hat off. Everything in the patents is stuff that Samsung themselves have done. Nothing to do with Android. It's all things that Samsung has added to their phones.
They need to defend the idea that rounded corners are innovative
They never claimed rounded corners are "innovative". They did, however, claim that rounded corners are cornerstone of the iPhone/iPad design, and that Samsung blatantly copied that in a way that would confuse consumers.
Because most of the companies that promote Linux are nowhere near as powerful as Microsoft is in the legal arena. Further, most of Microsoft's stuff is not open source, making it much harder to actually prove infringement occurred.
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours?
My salary and work hours are not part of one of the biggest patent disputes in recent history.
Further, I think many people would benefit from having all of that information readily available, as it would force the companies they work for to justify the wages they're giving some people.
It doesn't do anything that you can't do just as well without it
You know you can say that for most of the companies you mentioned too, right? Beyond a roof, a loincloth to cover your naked (and perhaps a fur coat for cold climates), and some amount of basic food, you can do just as well without everything else too.
the "big problem" is for all those people who gambled substantial proportions of their life savings on Zuckerberg's 'Dot Com v2' scam, and will never get their money back
Why in the actual fuck would you be so fucking stupid as to do something like that without actually researching the company? And researching basic investment strategies, which explicitly say DON'T DO THAT!
Not in the US. He may have more money that someone over in an assfuck shithole country, but it doesn't really count when you take into account the cost of living over here.
No, he's got it pretty well explained. Wall Street doesn't care about long term profits or plans. In fact, they will punish companies that care about the long term in favor of companies that make highly short sighted short term moves.
No, the shares are voting. It's just that Zuckerberg controls something like 60% of the votes.
And I don't see this as a bad thing. Companies that go public tend to be purely about making a quick buck, and tend to lose sight of the long term, looking rather to appease the institutional hedge funds on a quarterly basis. That is one of the big reasons behind much of the shitty business we see today.
I would like to see shareholder "compensation" in the form of an investigation going on into the price fixing allegations, and someone very high level going to federal PMITA prison when the investigation shows that wrongdoing occurred.
You can always tell someone who has no idea what they're talking about, or has blindly drunk the Apple Hater Kool-aid (just as potent as the Apple Fan Kool-aid), when they talk about Apple being a "marketing company". If they were only marketing, then they wouldn't continue to be successful with each new iteration of the product. They might have one good run, but then people would decide they were crap, and not upgrade. The fact of the matter is, they make very good products, and many people believe they fit their needs better than the competition.
Any post like the parent's can be safely ignored, as it clearly has no rational basis and no actual content.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to mention who you believe he's talking about?
The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.
And licensing fees doesn't keep competition out?
Was this before or after they declared that they will sue all their competitors
I'm guessing it was back before then, when all of their competitors were suing them. Or don't you remember when Apple was the patent whipping boy, and everyone from Nokia to Kodak to Creative was using patents to sue the crap out of them?
Or is it only a bad thing when it's a company you don't like doing the suing?
It is the indirect target of all these lawsuits
No, it's not. Take the tinfoil hat off. Everything in the patents is stuff that Samsung themselves have done. Nothing to do with Android. It's all things that Samsung has added to their phones.
They need to defend the idea that rounded corners are innovative
They never claimed rounded corners are "innovative". They did, however, claim that rounded corners are cornerstone of the iPhone/iPad design, and that Samsung blatantly copied that in a way that would confuse consumers.
Because most of the companies that promote Linux are nowhere near as powerful as Microsoft is in the legal arena. Further, most of Microsoft's stuff is not open source, making it much harder to actually prove infringement occurred.
If they're that worried about those sorts of things getting out, maybe that's a sign to not do such things then, eh?
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours?
My salary and work hours are not part of one of the biggest patent disputes in recent history.
Further, I think many people would benefit from having all of that information readily available, as it would force the companies they work for to justify the wages they're giving some people.
Many VC deals require you to go public at some point, so the investors can cash out.
In addition, the shareholders have the option to boot existing management
Only if they have enough voting power. Zuckerberg has something like 60% of the votes.
It doesn't do anything that you can't do just as well without it
You know you can say that for most of the companies you mentioned too, right? Beyond a roof, a loincloth to cover your naked (and perhaps a fur coat for cold climates), and some amount of basic food, you can do just as well without everything else too.
the "big problem" is for all those people who gambled substantial proportions of their life savings on Zuckerberg's 'Dot Com v2' scam, and will never get their money back
Why in the actual fuck would you be so fucking stupid as to do something like that without actually researching the company? And researching basic investment strategies, which explicitly say DON'T DO THAT!
Not in the US. He may have more money that someone over in an assfuck shithole country, but it doesn't really count when you take into account the cost of living over here.
Investors are so stupid they believe a fashion business in a volatile industry is worth sackloads of money.
If this is a dig at Apple, may I remind you that Apple makes ass tons of money? Thus making it worth those sackloads of money.
No, he's got it pretty well explained. Wall Street doesn't care about long term profits or plans. In fact, they will punish companies that care about the long term in favor of companies that make highly short sighted short term moves.
He sold 30 million shares right at the outset. Which came out to about $1 billion.
No, the shares are voting. It's just that Zuckerberg controls something like 60% of the votes.
And I don't see this as a bad thing. Companies that go public tend to be purely about making a quick buck, and tend to lose sight of the long term, looking rather to appease the institutional hedge funds on a quarterly basis. That is one of the big reasons behind much of the shitty business we see today.
I would like to see shareholder "compensation" in the form of an investigation going on into the price fixing allegations, and someone very high level going to federal PMITA prison when the investigation shows that wrongdoing occurred.
However, 30 million shares out of 533 million is not a large chunk.
Technology wise, they could. Business model wise, however, not quite. The majority of Zynga's users are using their games on Facebook.
Their handling of the retina display was a major screw up that sacrificed the very reason to call the MacBook Pro a professional device
Except they didn't do that in any sense of the word.
They're still on the filesystem, so you can still get to them just like before. You can also change the program the file is associated with.
They are a marketing engine
You can always tell someone who has no idea what they're talking about, or has blindly drunk the Apple Hater Kool-aid (just as potent as the Apple Fan Kool-aid), when they talk about Apple being a "marketing company". If they were only marketing, then they wouldn't continue to be successful with each new iteration of the product. They might have one good run, but then people would decide they were crap, and not upgrade. The fact of the matter is, they make very good products, and many people believe they fit their needs better than the competition.
Any post like the parent's can be safely ignored, as it clearly has no rational basis and no actual content.
The point is that we usually don't have to
Thus putting yourself at the mercy of someone else.
Or Carpal Tunnel