1 - Apple gets patent
2 - Apple sells patent to Irish subsidiary for small amount of money
3 - Apple comes out with iPhone that incorporates patented technology.
4 - Apple pays subsidiary royalty on patent for each iPhone sold
In this way, Apple moves profit on iPhone sales from Apple itself to the subsidiary. The subsidiary is incorporated in Ireland, so it is not taxable in the US. The subsidiary's major operations are in the US, so it is not taxable in Ireland.
Patents are no longer an IP strategy. They're a tax avoidance strategy.
To be fair, the "NYT" didn't lie - Broder did. The NYT backed up one of their journalists. Which they should!
WRONG. The editor should have read the article, said "You're full of shit" and rejected it.
You don't throw your soldiers out into the enemies tender mercies, just 'cause.
No, the NY TImes did not blindly defend Broder. The NY Times has a "Public Editor" - an independent source who investigates and publicly discusses whether the Times did the right thing on controversial stories. She's been looking into this controversy pretty closely - see her blog. She hasn't finished her investigation, but she does say "I reject Mr. Musk’s central contention that Mr. Broder’s Sunday piece was faked in order to sabotage the Model S or the electric-car industry."
Like any organization, the NY Times makes mistakes. But they have enough integrity to own up to it when they do.
And Apple is free not to license those patents and come up with a new and unique way of doing it.
No. That's the whole point of a FRAND patent. Apple is not free to do it some other way. Apple needs to follow the standard. The deal is that Moto's tech gets to be in the standard because they agree to license it freely and relatively cheaply.
I'm not sure what you think inflation means, but it has nothing to do with whatever it is you think you're calculating. CPI blahblahblah...
Inflation can be measured both in terms of dollars in existence (which he is measuring) and in terms of prices, which the CPI purports to measure.
No. Inflation can only be measured in terms of prices. Tripling the money supply does not triple prices (at least not always). If you haven't learned that from the non-reaction of inflation to QE, then you must believe your "theory" trumps all evidence.
As far as the CPI all being a government conspiracy of some kind, if you don't believe it, just use the BPI. Still no price rise in reaction to expansion of the money supply. But maybe MIT is in on the conspiracy...
I guess your model is that price changes count when you say they do (VW bugs) but can be dismissed when you think they're not reflective of the "real" price (electronics and jeans).
I agree that wages for many have not kept up with inflation, but I have no idea what that has to do with the level of inflation itself.
Measuring prices for the CPI is hard and there are tons of papers arguing various aspects of the methodology but there's no reason to believe there's some kind of conspiracy to hide inflation. The BPI, which is privately produced and uses a completely different method of measuring prices, basically matches the CPI.
Sorry, yes it does. Not because of the impact on discrimination, but because the companies now have the added cost of documenting that they do not discriminate. This is one more cost that makes it more difficult for a smaller company to survive in the market.
No. This does impose a cost, but the cost is the same for all companies in the market, so it doesn't disadvantage the small company (well, possibly there are economies of scale in favor of the larger company but that's not necessarily true and, in any case, those economies of scale apply to lots of things that have nothing to do with regulation). In any case, the cost is really small. Documenting non-discrimination is basically documenting how the company came up with the rate. If they don't already document that, then they aren't going to survive long.
I happen to think that it is not the government's business to enforce anti-discrimination practices on private companies. What people seem to forget is that the segregationist policies that lead to the Civil Rights marches were not a result of lack of government regulation, they were a result of government regulation.
I think people seem to forget that because it isn't true. In what way was Woolworth's refusal to serve blacks at their lunch counter a result of government regulation? American General Life charged black customers more for insurance than white. In what way was this a result of regulation?
How about anti-trust laws? They require a whole bunch of regulations for corporate reporting approval of mergers, etc. The whole purpose of these regulations is to increase competition. You might try to argue that you have some brilliant new set of anti-trust laws that would do a better job (and maybe you do, though I doubt it), but you're insane if you think that fewer anti-trust regulations will, necessarily, lead to more competition. We know what happened before anti-trust.
So look at anti-discrimination regulations. Insurance companies, for example, are not allowed to price based on race, even if their research shows that race is a predictor of life expectancy. Does this reduce competition among insurance companies? No - the companies just adjust their tables to price for the average across races. There's an even playing field for the companies, so the industry is every bit as competitive as it would be without these laws. In fact, this is a case where regulation is essential (unless you think that discrimination by race would be OK). If you left this to the unregulated free market, then any insurance company that advertised that it didn't use race in rating policies would rapidly go out of business, as it would attract mostly high-risk customers but would need to price to the average. Government regulations help keep the playing field even.
Don't get me wrong - I like Cook, and I think he's smart and a really hard worker. But, honestly, do you really think that someone with hundreds of millions of dollars really finds the prospect of getting N hundred million more all that motivating?
Guys like Jobs and Cook work hard because that's what they want to do with their lives. The money gives them bragging rights over other CEOs but, really, I don't think Cook's going to do the job any differently, just because he has the prospect of an enormous payoff down the road.
This article describes ADD, including what its developers considered to be unique and different from other approaches.
My take on this is that ADD did come up with some clever ideas in implementation that solved the particular problems they were addressing (focusing on simple problems and fast detection). It's clear that what's unique is the particular implementation, not the idea of detecting phone numbers and such. They cite lots of other examples of the idea.
So, there are two possibilities. Either the patent covers the idea (and thus is inappropriately broad and will be ruled invalid) or the patent is about the particular implementation, in which case it should be simple to implement in a way that avoids violation. In either case, HTC and Android will be fine.