51–60 of 188 posts
The UK has a relatively strong chance of creating decent competitive challengers to Apple if the UK market opens up with their exit. Even if a few consumers are frustrated in the short term this could lead to a fantastic outcome for a competitive consumer marketplace over the long-term.
I don’t know about your politics, but regardless, “the UK will be able to build an Apple competitor” sounds like a level 99 brexiteer delusion.
Alas, the money is too sweet and hard to say no to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well as you say it's "leave the market for mobile phones", ie., it'll be iPhone which goes -- rather than Apple as such. If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return. Also, my issue is exactly with "validity" conditions. Regardless of what they are , my view is we need…
> If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return And loose the customers base who would otherwise be locked into iOS/Apple ecosystem? It’s not just profits from iPhones they would be loosing.
Trade in used devices would be brisk, fed in part by what is brought in.
Then, Apple begins running ads for sympathetic members of parliament, with astonishing levels of cash.
Hmm, I wonder what the patents are about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return And loose the customers base who would otherwise be locked into iOS/Apple ecosystem? It’s not just profits from iPhones they would be loosing.
E.U. countries are very close by. Apple products would likely be in duty free in force. Trade in used devices would be brisk, fed in part by what is brought in. Then, Apple begins running ads for sympathetic members of parliament, with astonishing levels of cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would create quite a power vacuum, and it would scare people in other countries as well. But I'm not convinced that it would cause a new competitor to exist. I think it's more likely that existing companies will eat up that market instead, and I don't think there are any UK companies poised to take over that market segment.
People will simply import iPhones from elsewhere, or buy Samsungs instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important issue. Optis 'won' $506m in the US as well, but the supreme court reverted the decision on Apple's appeal. The UK court has decided that it is valid (for now). Something very important to not…
> Something very important to note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next yea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that leaving the market will absolve Apple of paying the judgement, so staying in the UK market will help them recoup the cost. Leaving would be unlikely to improve their bottom line, so the judge was right - no evidence Apple will leave. This is just posturing, which won't go down well in front of a High Court judge.
Why would Apple pay the fine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important issue. Optis 'won' $506m in the US as well, but the supreme court reverted the decision on Apple's appeal. The UK court has decided that it is valid (for now). Something very important to not…
> Something very important to note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next yea…
Court: Pay $x fee
Apple: No
Court: Your punishment is that you're no longer to allowed to sell iPhones
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important issue. Optis 'won' $506m in the US as well, but the supreme court reverted the decision on Apple's appeal. The UK court has decided that it is valid (for now). Something very important to not…
In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the British system well enough to understand what reaction public opinion would have on members of parliament, but some censure of the judge and reversal of the patent decision could happen.
Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.