Don't be silly. This subtopic began as a question about how much $ aapl had on hand to pay out to nok if necessary; i.e., how rich/liquid. From that financial perspective, familiar to and used in common parlance by the entire investment community, aapl is considered to have around @34B in cash.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to 'Vigorously' Defend Itself in Nokia Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't be silly. This subtopic began as a question about how much $ aapl had on hand to pay out to nok if necessary; i.e., how rich/liquid. From that financial perspective, familiar to and used in common parlance by the entire investment community, aapl is considered to have around @34B in cash.
To quote the article you posted the link to...
I understand what the word AND means. Apparently you do not.
Their filings are very clear as to how much CASH they have.
Outstanding receivables, tax deferments and securities are not cash.
They are assets. Volatile ones at that. Their value can change at any moment.
Anyone hedging their bets on a company's asset portfolio understands this.
Apple's stock is grossly over inflated based on their overall P/E reports.
They should be hovering in the low to mid $40's per share, not nearly $200 per share. But you gotta love the hype that Jobs generates. He can drive his stock to 5 or 10 times it's earnings potential with a simple speech.
Great for day traders or short term investors, but not so good for the long haul.
Their last stock split was back in Feb of 2005 (2:1). They were only trading at $44 a share back then. Why no split now?
Apple's board is also one of the stingiest when it comes time to payout dividends. They haven't payed one out since Nov 1995.
They would rather hold earnings than pay out dividends to their investors.
Apple's +/-100 point swings in stock price over the last 3 years is insane.
Well, it's hard to ignore now.. But, if you talk to a corporate/patent attorney, one thing they'll usually tell you is that if you're developing a product, *don't look for patents*.
1) You'll probably find them
2) If you DO end up getting sued in the future, *knowingly* infringing a patent (even a frivolous one) will end up biting you.
3) It's likely that you'll never get sued anyway. Apple's just making a lot of money so they have a big target on their back. Much like Google.
So Europe is composed of third world countries is it?
Nokia is a huge company, certainly one of the big players in the GSM world.
I'm not going to comment on the suit itself because I have not read the submission or the patents in full, nor Apple's official response to the court (because that hasn't been filed yet), however it is obvious that both sides feel this is worth fighting, so I suspect the validity of the patents is not in dispute, more likely this is a case of an argument over what is "fair reasonable and non discriminatory"
If that's the case.
How come Qualcomm (who don't manufacture phones as far as I know) pay so much in fees to Nokia?
C.
Thank you rjohnstone for coming out and clearly identifying yourself as a troll. Same for your partner. It makes it easier not to have to read all posts.
For anyone not familiar with the financial aspects of aapl, Per Lindberg, the biggest aapl bear who no one wearing long pants takes seriously, values it around $90. Almost everyone else values it above where it now trades, and the target price is anywhere from around $210 to $300. Here's one writer doing a FUD piece that discusses (without explaining) some valuations:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2009/tc20091026_920361.htm
Further, while aapl's forward P/E is in fact not very high compared to other players in its space, its going to be much lower when the FASB changes are adopted, probably starting this quarter with the beginning of the new fiscal year.
They don't. You got it backwards.
Nokia just paid $1.7 billion in patent fees to Qualcomm as part of a settlement.
You might have been thinking of Qualcomm having to pay $890 million to Broadcom over patents.
It's one big circular patent fest. That's why everyone's now agreeing to patent sharing.
Does that mean I get to be on your ignore list?!?!
Not a troll... just not a kool-aid drinker.
Not a troll... just not a kool-aid drinker.
Everyone recognizes the difference between someone who is "just not a kool-aid drinker", and someone who goes out of his/her way to intentionally disseminate misleading information and engage in specious arguments. There's nothing wrong with not being a kool-aid drinker. The same can't be said of a troll.
Is it just me? or are others tired of apple thinking they can just do whatever they want, when they want, how they want, etc, etc, etc!!!...TAKE EM TO THE BANK NOKIA!!!!
It's just you. Apple creates, others copy, then try to sue them first. Think back, what existed before the iPhone, junk, now everyone is seeing the light. You should be falling on your knees and thanking Apple for what you finally have.
LOL
what I am tired of is folks assuming that Apple is guilty and that they did anything just to be a douche. Not just here but in all these patent and trademark cases.
patents, trademarks etc are not always black and white. Sometimes what one patent seems to cover is not what a court decides is valid. Sometimes what you think is NOT covered is. Sometimes you look at there's no patent but one was in process. So when you created your thing you were fine but then a patent is grated and it's retro'd back to the date of the original filing which was six months before you did your thing. oops.
sometimes it's a matter of interpretation. Like in the Cisco case where more than just Apple held the opinion that Cisco's announcement of an 'iphone' days before their trademark was expiring after almost 7 full years of nothing, was not strong enough to support continued ownership. Thus making the mark free for the grabbing.
You mean after Apple paid Cisco for the trademark and even after that both of them can use iPhone trademark?!?! The iPhone trademark wasn't free for the grabbing... well, at least not without paying Cisco for it.
No one except SJ thinks Apple can do whatever they want. He's been exposed too long to his own reality distortion field. The cancer proves it.
GSM/UMTS patents.
Nokia is being very modest saying only TEN patents involved. I would think over a thousand patents that were infringed. The proof is in proving this which should not be difficult because the patents are global filed in countries that matter (in law and enforceable, except in China probably).
The more Apple fights, the higher the price it will escalate. I guess between $1B and $2B for starters plus additional royalties per unit there after. Yes, it will make the future iPhone higher price but does that realy matter to the fan base ?. hardly. what is a few dollars more ?.
Nokia is just the "gatekeeper", the real giant is Ericsson and they even have more patents than Nokia and Qualcomm put together. I want to see that "battle of the giants" confrontation. Ericsson will have a new CEO next year, so he might want to make a name for himself.
Nokia is being very modest saying only TEN patents involved. I would think over a thousand patents that were infringed. The proof is in proving this which should not be difficult because the patents are global filed in countries that matter (in law and enforceable, except in China probably).
The more Apple fights, the higher the price it will escalate. I guess between $1B and $2B for starters plus additional royalties per unit there after. Yes, it will make the future iPhone higher price but does that realy matter to the fan base ?. hardly. what is a few dollars more ?.
Nokia is just the "gatekeeper", the real giant is Ericsson and they even have more patents than Nokia and Qualcomm put together. I want to see that "battle of the giants" confrontation. Ericsson will have a new CEO next year, so he might want to make a name for himself.
Just relax and live a little and you might find the concept of sarcasm and how it applies to this context.
Either does skipping in line to get an organ because of who you are when their are people who wait lifetimes for transplants.
Nokia is being very modest saying only TEN patents involved. I would think over a thousand patents that were infringed. The proof is in proving this which should not be difficult because the patents are global filed in countries that matter (in law and enforceable, except in China probably).
The more Apple fights, the higher the price it will escalate. I guess between $1B and $2B for starters plus additional royalties per unit there after. Yes, it will make the future iPhone higher price but does that realy matter to the fan base ?. hardly. what is a few dollars more ?.
Nokia is just the "gatekeeper", the real giant is Ericsson and they even have more patents than Nokia and Qualcomm put together. I want to see that "battle of the giants" confrontation. Ericsson will have a new CEO next year, so he might want to make a name for himself.
Regarding essential patents, according to Fairfield Resources International there are 158 essential patent families to GSM standard. 67 patents out of the 158 are Nokia's.
(refrence: http://frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf)
Therefore we may conclude that although Ericsson holds significant amount of patents many of them are not regarded essential to GSM standard. Regarding total number of patents, during the last decade Nokia has been consistently in top 10 of the companies with most new international patents when Ericsson has been somewhere in range of top 100 class. Anyway, if we examine the total number of patents the top telecommunications companies hold the numbers must be way beyond 50 000 if not closer to 100 000.
Could be lots more if a jury thinks that Nokia deserves extra because of unfairly losing marketshare to Apple over device prices.
Nokia's complaint doesn't push for damages, but does mention them as a possibility.