131–140 of 510 posts
Arbitrage opportunity on Ultra 2? I’d love to have one of these and thought about running out today to get one before I’m locked out. Will others be willing to pay more next month when that lock is in effect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the price will shoot up drastically as soon as the market is aware of someone Will that still happen if you put in a single order to buy 51% of all the shares at a price a little above the current market value ? That trade will be complete before the market "sees" you are trying to buy a ton.
That’s kind of what I had in mind, I don’t really know if it’s feasible or not but if I had billions of dollars deposited in my Robinhood account just made the order for that many shares, would it not go through?
> Bid [500 x $64.39], [$64.42 x 100] Ask
It means that someone currently offers to buy 500 shares at the price of $64.39.
It means that someone currently offers to sell 100 shares at the price of $64.42.
In practice, it means that you can buy 100 shares at the price of $64.42, then, after, it will move to the next price level.
=> You can see the "depth" of offers, it's called Level 2 book:
Ask offers:
$64.42 x 100
$64.43 x 200
$64.46 x 100
$65.00 x 600
$97.00 x 100
$999.99 x 100
=> If you try to buy 400 shares, it will cost you:
100 shares x $64.42 = $6 442
200 shares x $64.43 = $12 886
100 shares x $64.46 = $6,446
Divided by 400 shares.
It means ~$64.435 per share, though you saw $64.42 as price.
If you send very large volumes, you quickly eat these price levels.
In our example, if you try to buy 2000 shares, you will get only 1200 shares.
You will have paid an average price of $145.39 per share.
So, yes it may not go through because, it is possible that there are not enough people interested to sell their share (that there is not enough depth, or not at an acceptable price).
And also, the SEC has certain rules (uptick rules, etc) that makes the stock to be frozen in case the price varies too much.
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.
(I don't think patents need to be entirely eliminated, but they need drastic reform. The patent system should be an incentive to small inventors, not a pay-to-play shield for big corporations. Obviously eliminating software/algorithm patents, eliminating "thing but with a computer" patents, shortening the entitlement period, mandating FRAND with full transparency around licensing fees, possibly even capping lifetime license fee revenue at $100m or so.)
This seems to be great marketing. https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/apple-halting-apple-watch-ser... > In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple has announced that it will soon halt sales of its flagship Apple Watch models in the United States. > The Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 will no longer be available to purchase from Apple starting later this week. And https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/tech/apple-halt-sales-ap…
nit: it's "brick and mortar"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Executives aren't usually the ones with specific technical skills about the arrangement of sensors and so on. If you were looking to infringe like this, it would be better just to poach engineers.
But how does Apple get access to those employees, when they have been dealing with the executives? Through the executives bringing a team over.
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
Countries with very lenient enforcement of IP laws have very minimal innovation. Brazil, Argentina, India. Countries who haven't signed TRIPS almost no innovation, North Korea, Somalia. Countries with the strictest patent laws and enforcement are the leaders in innovation. Germany, US, South Korea. Strict enforcement of patent laws ensures that capital will be invested in innovation.
If capital was allocated democratically rather than at the whim of companies (that end up chasing taxpayer subsidies anyways... SpaceX, Tesla, etc.) you wouldn't need to strictly enforce patent law. The risk is already being assumed mostly by the government for truly bleeding edge research. What we have in practice is a system where the cost is socialized and the benefit is privatized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From an employee's point of view, I'm 100% OK with that. If Apple wants to throw money at an engineer to do the same thing they were already doing, but for Apple, then by all means do so. I don't think it's at all unethical to hire away employees. If it were, that'd lead to bad outcomes for those people (i.e. artificially suppressed wages).
… which is in fact something Apple was doing in the past. It's somewhat ironic when a company that gets in trouble for their anti-poaching shenanigans now gets accused of poaching. To me, it's clear that hiring competitors' employees is not morally wrong, and for the most part it's not legally wrong either, PROVIDED those employees do not take along their prior employers' confidential information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries with very lenient enforcement of IP laws have very minimal innovation. Brazil, Argentina, India. Countries who haven't signed TRIPS almost no innovation, North Korea, Somalia. Countries with the strictest patent laws and enforcement are the leaders in innovation. Germany, US, South Korea. Strict enforcement of patent laws ensures that capital will be invested in innovation.
Conversely, I'm not going to need to ration insulin in Argentina, Brazil, or India. Can't speak to the DPRK or Somalia as I haven't been. If capital was allocated democratically rather than at the whim of companies (that end up chasing taxpayer subsidies anyways... SpaceX, Tesla, etc.) you wouldn't need to strictly enforce patent law. The risk is already being assumed mostly by the government for truly bleeding edge…
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
> IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. Would you be willing to invest your own savings into tech-centric startups if they wouldn't be able to legally defend the tech they invented?
Capitalism is a few centuries old. Statistically speaking it's most likely not the economic system we end up with forever. Optimizing for innovation under that constraint only seems premature. To channel Le Guin:
"We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words."
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
A lot of medicine requires $100's of millions of R&D, with a high chance of failure. No company would take that risk if their work wasn't protected. So at least in some fields, it spurs innovation.