41–50 of 65 posts
"His ownership of stock neither affected nor impacted his decisions in this case." Like any human can ascertain this about themselves.
I just checked. I own Apple stock through my RRSP mutual fund. Looks like 0.5% of my investment is Apple. Can I ascertain, about myself, that this wouldn’t affect my decision making?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nokia were doing well developing their new platform Meego based on Linux, but then Stephen Elop came from Microsoft and decided to put a stop to it and instead concentrate on Windows Phone. I believe that is what ultimately killed Nokia's phone division.
While the “ one outsider came in and ruined everything ” narrative might be a soothing one (especially for the people of Finland), I’m not sure it’s actually true. Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? I don’t think it’s a mistake that the only true competitor to Apple ended up being Google. At the time, they were the…
Fans even somehow ported Valve's Counter-Strike to Symbian, along with a bunch of other games, it was really great.
Then when Elop memo came out, stores took Nokia phones out of the shelf, all of them, 2 months later their market share dropped from 68% to something like 30%'s or so, and next year instead the dominant market share was chinese shitty phones, like hiOS, android with google services removed, and so on. hiOS in particular was hilarious, a lot of people bought it thinking it was iOS from Apple (and to my surprise with a quick googling, hiOS is still a thing).
EDIT: just saw hiOS now is Android based, dunno where is information about old version, there was tons of hios phones here around 2011, thus preadating the 1.0 of current hios, that is from 2016.
Correction: I got the time line wrong. Comment below is right.
>Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin disclosed the potential conflict of interest in a letter to both parties dated Aug. 27. It’s hard to “Assume goof faith”[0], because it looks like you avoided adding the next 3 words to your sentence because it makes it seem like the judge disclosed it before the trial and not four days ago. I feel like this context is vitally i…
This article doesn’t answer the real questions: How much stock did he own, how did he own it, and what percentage of his portfolio was it? Apple is one of the biggest companies in the US, so it comprises a significant portion of large-cap index funds. If any of your 401K or other portfolio includes an ETF or other fund with large-cap US companies, you own Apple stock. If you’re invested 100% in a simple S&P 500 index…
I really don’t think how much ownership is the real question now. 1. The judge disclosed it. Presumably he wasn’t doing anything sneaky because he is the one raising the issue. 2. Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Thus (3) 3. (The real takeaway) The verdict of the case between Nokia and Apple is on much less strong legal grounds now. This is the real point.
Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the “ one outsider came in and ruined everything ” narrative might be a soothing one (especially for the people of Finland), I’m not sure it’s actually true. Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? I don’t think it’s a mistake that the only true competitor to Apple ended up being Google. At the time, they were the…
> Do we honestly think Nokia would have been able to compete in the same mobile OS space that not even Microsoft could carve out a space in? At the time.. sure. Symbian was great back then, and in many many countries, there were no large data plans back then, and a phone that needed to be online for a lot of the gimmicky features to work was not something a lot of people wanted or needed, because of data costs... app…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don’t think how much ownership is the real question now. 1. The judge disclosed it. Presumably he wasn’t doing anything sneaky because he is the one raising the issue. 2. Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Thus (3) 3. (The real takeaway) The verdict of the case between Nokia and Apple is on much less strong legal grounds now. This is the real point.
> Any ownership required the Judge to recluse himself. Where does this requirement come from? Citation please.
The apple insider article.
"His ownership of stock neither affected nor impacted his decisions in this case." Like any human can ascertain this about themselves.
If he wasn't aware he owned it at the time seems a pretty reasonable supposition.
I'm not saying this is the case - I am saying you need rules that work for that specific case.
How did he only find out about it 10 years after? And how do you find out about something like that so long after?
How did he only find out about it 10 years after? And how do you find out about something like that so long after?