vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:37 AM
You have to wonder how tenuous Apple's position was considering that they have settled so early (in huge lawsuit time). 100 million dollars is a lot of money to spend to get Creative off their back.
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
Hardly any at all. Apple has $10 billion in cash in the bank.
Even at a measily 3% interest, Apple will make $300 million in interest alone, not accounting for the fact that they are adding about $3 billion to their cash horde per year.
To look at it another way, iPod will generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue going forward for Apple. For Creative to settle for a measily $100 million out of tens of billions means they were desperate/forced to settle. Considering Creative all but accused Apple of stealing their design to make the iPod, settling for pennies on the dollar is not a sign that Creative was bargaining from a position of strength.
Rather, it was Apple probably dictating the terms.
Look at it another way. RIM - the makers of Blackberry - settled with NTP for $450 million after spending tens of millions of dollars and years fighting NTP in court. NTP, like Creative, claimed RIM infringed on important patents in making the popular Blackberry device.
During fiscal RIM made $2 billion total revenue. That's about as much iPod makes each quarter.
In other words, NTP was able to extract 4.5 times the licensing fee for a product that generates just 1/4 of the iPod's revenue.
I don't think it was Creative who won here. Creative, most likely, was desperate to settle so it could move onto other, more important battles, like figuring how it can survive the Zune onslaught (which is why becoming a paying member of the "Made for iPod" club is suddenly significant).
mondesi43
May 3, 11:47 AM
So where do I buy a TB cable to hook-up my MBP to the new iMac so can transfer files, use the iMac as a second screen, and hook up my drobo to the iMac for storage? Or are all the peripheral and cables coming in summer?
lmalave
Oct 27, 10:15 AM
In that case I would love to know what happened to other half-dozen or so companies that handed out leaflets outside of their allotted "zone", or the chaps that went around spotting people who had red badges on, and handing out free USB Flash-drives to whoever they found! :D
Ok, granted, I wasn't there, so I was basing my comments on tech conferences I've attended here in the States. But those people were probably violating their terms of contract as well, and maybe MacExpo had less tolerance for GreenPeace because they had already been forewarned not to use their normal sidewalk tactics at the Convention (especially considering GreenPeace probably received their space pro-bono and thus should be expected to even more scrupulously adhere to the rules).
Ok, granted, I wasn't there, so I was basing my comments on tech conferences I've attended here in the States. But those people were probably violating their terms of contract as well, and maybe MacExpo had less tolerance for GreenPeace because they had already been forewarned not to use their normal sidewalk tactics at the Convention (especially considering GreenPeace probably received their space pro-bono and thus should be expected to even more scrupulously adhere to the rules).
wnurse
Aug 24, 08:48 AM
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
ksz
Jul 14, 10:07 AM
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
You can already overclock 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz Pentiums to 4.0 GHz.
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.
The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.
In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
You can already overclock 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz Pentiums to 4.0 GHz.
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.
The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.
In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
leroypants
Apr 19, 10:34 AM
If Samsung breached the supply contract, they would be sued again. The difference is that in the infringement suit, Apple has a moderate case and the remedy if they win will be $100M-$2B range. In a contract infringment, Apple would have an ironclad case, and the remedy would be $100B-$300B-- in other words, Samsung would become a division of Apple.
Could you please link the contract (since you seem to know everything about it), and out of curiosity where did you get your law degree?
Could you please link the contract (since you seem to know everything about it), and out of curiosity where did you get your law degree?
PlipPlop
Apr 28, 05:31 PM
Then Microsoft will surge to the top again when they release Windows 8 and a new version of Office.
balamw
Aug 23, 05:33 PM
I guess Creative just broke even. :)
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
And it probably ended up costing Apple less than litigating the 5 lawsuits.
What's most interesting about the settlement is that it doesn't seem like Creative got much in the way of cross licensing out of it.
B
cube
Apr 14, 12:27 PM
Meh. AMD is ready with USB 3.0 .
Eidorian
May 3, 10:25 AM
Still USB 2.0
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
Meh.Time for a break out box! :D
Which goes against the stark minimalism Apple was going for. Wait, what?
aly
Sep 14, 08:50 AM
I love the way we all jump on even the slightest glimmer of hope that updated MBPs will be released soon. With every hint of an annoucement everyone figures a way that it must be the perfect oppurtunity for apple to release the MBPs. Don't get me wrong though, I'm right there with you!!!:D Bring on Photokina!! It just seems too perfect, two annoucements with in a day of one another :)
bassfingers
Apr 21, 12:13 PM
We need unions to protect people from abusive BS like this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/walmart-contracted-warehouse-workers_n_848262.html). Either that or we just need to have a limit on how big a company can get before it has to become the property of the employees.
Yay for more unions and government intervention!
Dear government, at somepoint sinss the 18th centory, we've become completely incapable of taking care of owwselves. Wood you pweez do evwyting for us? I don care iv you suk at it, cuz we are helpless wichout u
Yay for more unions and government intervention!
Dear government, at somepoint sinss the 18th centory, we've become completely incapable of taking care of owwselves. Wood you pweez do evwyting for us? I don care iv you suk at it, cuz we are helpless wichout u
Stella
Mar 30, 12:25 PM
I thought the poster I was referencing referring to the word "App"... apparently he wasn't. Yes, I know Apple are trading marking "App store".
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
Hattig
Mar 29, 11:32 AM
The issue is that people don't care about Nokia phones any more.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
Back in the day they had a big market in feature phones - what Symbian did quite well back in the day. However Symbian hasn't migrated to the SmartPhone era well. In that same vein, neither have Nokia's traditional customers, who have no reason to stick with Nokia if forced to get a SmartPhone.
And I think this research drastically underestimates HP's efforts with WebOS, which should start seeing results later this year.
jz1492
Nov 13, 03:25 PM
So they "knew" they were Right after being told otherwise. :rolleyes:
If I remember correctly, apps that get rejected multiple times experiment unusual delays in the approval process.
Maybe they have never developed software for a client and so it is their way or else. Sad.
If you want to develop for the highly rewarding AppStore you have to come to grips with the fact that it is a combination of both models -there is a client, Apple, and there are customers. Fail to please any of them at your own risk.
On the other hand, new openings in a crowded marketplace are more of a good thing for everybody. Farewell, strong-headed developers! :D
If I remember correctly, apps that get rejected multiple times experiment unusual delays in the approval process.
Maybe they have never developed software for a client and so it is their way or else. Sad.
If you want to develop for the highly rewarding AppStore you have to come to grips with the fact that it is a combination of both models -there is a client, Apple, and there are customers. Fail to please any of them at your own risk.
On the other hand, new openings in a crowded marketplace are more of a good thing for everybody. Farewell, strong-headed developers! :D
DVK916
Jul 19, 03:21 PM
Allendale is not faster than Merom. Benchmarks show it is slower.
mazola
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
It could be no other thing.
Multimedia
Sep 9, 02:48 PM
I think it might be in Windows 2000 as well. It's found via Task Manager under Processes. Right click on a process in the list and you can assign its affinity. Some programs crash when the encounter hyper threading or multi core machines. So you have to assign the process to a single CPU/core. More then likely on a dual processor machine from back then a multi-core one.Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 13, 09:25 AM
I was expecting more....but I'm a 'glass half empty' sort of fella
I was hoping for a colour choice from the new iPods, but so of the new features are cool.
I was hoping for a colour choice from the new iPods, but so of the new features are cool.
cube
Mar 22, 01:20 PM
Another crippled machine. I doubt Apple will show how bad their connector overloading is.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 20, 09:10 AM
You're right. Apple doesn't use an Apple for their logo. :rolleyes:
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
Lynxpoint
Aug 31, 11:32 PM
I'm thinking of an Apple/Canon merger? I was hoping for a buyout of leica or kodak, but I think a Canon merger might work. We haven't seen any large mergers buyouts since HP/Compaq and something is going to happen soon. Though I don't know if this is true or not Steve Jobs and Canon have had close ties for nearly 15 years and I've noticed this recently with the Canon products being given first priority in there digital/video store. At one time Canon even invested something like $10 million into NEXT. Snapping(excuse the pun) Canon would help with a huge amount of patents and might be easier then starting from scratch with a camera or camcorder.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Rigby
Apr 20, 11:52 AM
Unless I'm missing it in the thread, I didn't see anything on this particular question. Does anyone know if this database on the iPhone is accessible by apps? ie. can you download some app that then scans the database and uploads your information elsewhere behind the scenes?Only if the device is jailbroken. Normally, there is a "sandbox" in place that prevents apps from accessing system files (and files belonging to other apps). Jailbreaking effectively disables this sandbox.
ciTiger
Apr 19, 07:59 AM
The normal reaction... Counter lawsuit, however Samsung will have a hard time justifying it given it's "deep" knowledge of Apple products to which it provides displays...