I don't think anyone, in the entire world, pays more in taxes than the law requires. If Apple followed the law, which they did, then they paid "full taxes". If one takes issue with the law one should act to have it changed, not blame those who stick to it as written and allowed.
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.
Biometric Sensor Company Valencell Accuses Apple of Stealing Technology for Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If this is true, that stinks for Valencell. I hope they get the rightful royalty. The Apple Watch seems rushed thought as a whole. 300 calories a day... my ass. If Apple is gonna steal something, at least improve it to the point where it works. The sensor is just 1 part of many of the Apple Watch - but in honesty, the only part that's really different from the phones that the phone can't do.
The Stella Liebeck case is another one where people made snap judgements based on little information.
She originally wanted McDonalds to cover only her medical expenses--she required two years of treatment and rehab, including skin grafts, which amounted to $20,000. She asked this based on the fact that the average person wouldn't expect to be served a drink capable of causing third-degree burns in as little as two seconds of exposure. Also, McDonald's coffee had injured some 700 people over the previous years which resulted in an unknown number of other lawsuits.
Please, if you are going to debate others, do it **AFTER READing** their statements carefully. His question was clearly focusing on "before the Apple Watch even existed". Fitbit has existed for years, they could have filed the suit against Fitbit long time ago!
At the same time, most people in the world don't bend over backwards to create clever new tax avoidance methods.
I agree with you that the countries affected should change their laws and/or investigate Apple's methods of avoiding taxes. (And Google's methods, and those of other companies, for that matter.)
And sure enough, some countries are. In fact, the European Commission is investigating to see if Apple got a special deal in Ireland.
More recently, Italy charged Apple with moving over a billion dollars in Italian subsidiary revenue to Ireland, and just got a $350 million back payment from Apple.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg, and we'll see other countries wanting back payments and trying to get these loopholes closed.
In addition, at the time McDonald's offered free coffee refills, and employees in many places were ordered to make the coffee as hot as possible so that people would take very long to drink the coffee and not have time to get the refills. People would have many more free refills with coffee served at 160F than with coffee served at 190F.
And, after her case, now I could no longer get hot-enough coffee, as a result having to change my taste, adding less milk into my coffee.
Stupid people blame others not treating them as careless little kids, and the invisible hands make use of the incidents, turning more people into stupid mass. (Hint: the "safe society" concept is a dangerous illusion, the injection of this wrong concept is only to make people easier to manipulate.)
You probably want to check your sources on that "expose". First, Apple contracts with manufacturers and assemblers in China and has been pushing forward on a number of human rights initiatives to increase pay and improve treatment. The issue is that the supply chain is huge with a lot of companies supplying materials. Apple demands a certain level of accountability which nearly no other company does. However I'm not seeing how some company in China that is found to be guilty of slave labor (I've never heard that claim honestly) suddenly makes Apple culpable and guilty. I've read a report that fish flavored cat food uses fish scraps harvested on boats that employ slave labor too... but I'm not boycotting Purina over it. They didn't know that's where it was coming from. At that rate, you should blame all first world countries for demanding products are cut rate prices. What do you think is going to happen?
The "Double Irish" loophole has been employed by many corporations over the years. However, that doesn't mean that Apple has an offshore account or that they are somehow being illegal in what they are doing. The loophole is just that... if the governments of the world want to close the loophole, then they should. But Apple pays the taxes they owe in the countries they operate according to those country's laws. Right now many of these countries are finding that their laws were not that good (or the loopholes weren't meant for American companies) so they are trying to cash in. Apple has already paid millions to Italy in back payments now that the law has been clarified and I imagine they will do the same elsewhere.
Remember, it's an accountant's job to minimize the tax burden of a corporation and Apple can pay for the best accountants and financial minds in the world.
Stealing technology is an interesting take on this. It sounds like the evaluated the technology and may have gone with the part, but may have just found a way to avoid the patented technology and made their own part instead. Remember that patents are finicky things and only cover a narrow scope. This company can't patent light and heartbeats.
No, it's a case where the jury had the opportunity to "stick it to the man" rather than have people take responsibility for their own actions. Sorry, but if I buy coffee, I don't expect it to be warm. I expect it to be hot. If I make a stupid mistake of spilling it on myself, I have only myself to blame. Similarly, if you stab yourself with a knife, would you sue the manufacturer of the knife? Defending such a case just makes you look foolish.
"Meanwhile, new products and services designed to diversify the company's revenue, such as Apple Music, Apple Pay and the Apple Watch, have failed..."
According to me and USA Today who published the article today. I mean... it is so obvious, Apple is selling trash. Without Steve Jobs, Apple is like Hollywood... just doing remakes, sequels and prequels... nothing new to offer. The company has become so freaking shallow.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/01/05/apple-stock-drop/78309422/?ref=yfp
Nice theory, do you think girls that wear short skirts deserve to be raped too then? Same principle as your ridiculous comment! You just said Apple rightfully "stole" from Valencell!
Ah this is true in the USA, it's an interesting way to excuse stupidity, like the person who sued McDonalds I think it was as their coffee burnt them whilst they were driving and drinking it...
This may or may not be true; unless you were on the jury your guess is as good as mine. However, the hundreds of incidents where McDonald's seriously hurt people yet continued to serve the drink dangerously hot may have had some bearing on their decision.
But do you expect it to burn you so badly that it kills nerve cells? Do you expect it to char your skin, turning it black and crunchy like a burnt steak if even a small amount is spilled? Do you expect two years of rehab as a result of spillage?
Maybe you do but most people, I believe, don't think that they are literally taking their lives in their hands when the reach for a cup of coffee.
If I bought a knife that was advertised as being essentially like every other knife, but it turned out to be a scalpel--with no prior warning as to how intensely sharp it was, and it sliced my skin off to the bone from a mere touch--I might.
Not understanding the fact of the case will do the same.
[doublepost=1452047350][/doublepost]
True, but I firmly believe that any average person would if they could afford the accountants to figure it out, and it would be worth the time and effort.
And that's the right way to do it. I don't agree, however, that any of the companies should have to "pay back" anything. Since everything the companies do is legal and aboveboard, I don't think it fair to take what was "lost"; just fix the laws and move on.
[doublepost=1452047708][/doublepost]
I don't see why not: McDonald's didn't change the temperature of their coffee, they added a disclaimer to the cup.
So accidentally spilling something, coffee, in this case, is enough to classify one as "stupid"? Seriously?
[doublepost=1452049040][/doublepost]
Sigh. She wasn't driving, her grandson was. The car wasn't in motion, he had pulled over and stopped. She wasn't drinking, she was adding cream and sugar.
She asked McDonald's to cover only her medical expenses. When they refused the case went to a jury. The jury found her to be 20% at fault. (They also award her ridiculous punitive damages which were reduced by the presiding judge.)
Last edited:
Hilarious to see this thread stalled on the old Xerox PARC myth. It's true Xerox neither wanted to nor new how to develop their computer technology and the staff were unhappy they sold it to Apple, but let us not forget PARC didn't even have a trash can… and many other innovations Apple copyrighted. It only worked on a server based office computer system, not a personal computer. That doesn't sound very impressive these days, but it was a stunning achievement at the time. This is the invention that Apple/Jobs are rightly credited with.
As for the Watch, all they need is a few smoking-gun emails and they're made-in-the-shade. With Jobs gone, there's less likely there will be any of this kind of evidence, but it's how Apple lost the ebooks case, whether they did anything wrong or not. That Kevin Lynch is an arrogant pr-ck and he had a lot to do with Watch technologies. If I were them, I'd start with his emails.
It'll be interesting to see how their patents hold up. It might be another case of Apple deciding to go ahead and pay the legal costs later.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer tries to sellout to Bill Gates and he just has homer beat up and tells him he didn't get rich by writing cheques to every idiot.
Business is tough and companies go through that kind of discovery process, in hopes of a sale, at very high risk.
It's up to Apple to either invalidate the patents or prove they didn't violate the patents, now that the allegation has been made. Might be the one to watch in 2016.
As for the Watch, all they need is a few smoking-gun emails and they're made-in-the-shade. With Jobs gone, there's less likely there will be any of this kind of evidence, but it's how Apple lost the ebooks case, whether they did anything wrong or not. That Kevin Lynch is an arrogant pr-ck and he had a lot to do with Watch technologies. If I were them, I'd start with his emails.
It'll be interesting to see how their patents hold up. It might be another case of Apple deciding to go ahead and pay the legal costs later.
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer tries to sellout to Bill Gates and he just has homer beat up and tells him he didn't get rich by writing cheques to every idiot.
Business is tough and companies go through that kind of discovery process, in hopes of a sale, at very high risk.
It's up to Apple to either invalidate the patents or prove they didn't violate the patents, now that the allegation has been made. Might be the one to watch in 2016.
Yeah their allegations of breaking a contract based on this is unlikely to hold up at all.
[doublepost=1452061204][/doublepost]
Not true. I suspect most lawsuits don't meet this criteria. Lawsuits against companies with resources are regularly filed in hopes of getting a settlement that is a cheaper option than legal fees for the company. It's legal system extortion.
I have read many of the posts here and have read all about the PARC debate and whether or not Apple 'stole' ideas from Xerox at PARC. I have looked into it and it seems to me that Xerox in all probability to me did sell the tech to Apple for an amount of money. Then they realised some time later that it was not enough and wanted more. they tried to sue Apple and lost for that very reason. I am then reminded of Microsoft and Xerox. Xerox created a project (I think it was called Small Talk) where they created a GUI and Bill Gates took that software and used it along with DOS (which he bought from the Seattle Computer Company for $50,000) and hey presto you have the basis of Windows. Many people said that Gates stole this from Xerox but at that time you could not copyright software. So in the eyes of the Law he did not steal anything. So what I want to know is did Xerox copyright this tech that Apple then allegedly 'stole'? I now wish to say that in relation to if Apple 'stole' the tech from Valencell that we do not know enough facts to judge either way. Did Valencell adequately protect their ideas from Apple? In other words when they handed over the samples for Apple to look at, did they get Apple to sign a contract forbidding them doing certain things with the samples. Things that would make it easy to reverse engineer and copy. If not then while it may not be very moral to do (if true) but would not be illegal. I think then that we should wait for more facts to emerge then make our minds up. I will leave you all with this statement, Apple is a company like all others in that it will make mistakes and will do things either not moral or are underhanded or even from time to time maybe illegal. However Apple is still a company unlike many others in that it is very successful and is there to make money and hopefully do so in a more responsible way than it's competitors.
The trouble with "common knowledge" is that it's also often wrong. For example:
Xerox never had a 20% stake in Apple. I'm looking at the original IPO offering right now, and Xerox with its pre-IPO 800,000 shares had only 1.6% of the 50+ million shares at the time, which dropped to 1.3% after the IPO.
(Xerox had bought 100,000 shares, but by the time of the IPO, shares had already split several times.)
Note: that is only a list of major pre-IPO stockholders who had put notice that they intended to sell some of their shares. It obviously barely scratches the surface of the ownership of most pre-IPO shares.
Again, looking at the actual court decision, Xerox's suit was dismissed because:
- The court felt that they had no power to cancel Apple's copyrights, as Xerox asked.
- Xerox could not prove that Apple suing others was a threat to Xerox at the time.
- Xerox did not show that anyone would be confused as to who made the Star and Mac.
Much closer, yep.
Many investors made millions off Apple, without giving anything extra in exchange.
Xerox paid $1.5 million for the shares, and later sold them for less than $7 million.
OTOH, Apple has made Hundreds of Billions from GUI based devices.
And they were smart for doing so!
LOL!! Confirmation bias much? You have all these overwhelming citations and court documents that demonstrates Apple never licensed Xerox's GUI, as had Sun Microsystem and Metaphor Computer Systems Inc done. All you have is some cherrypicked dubious claims by those few who have yet to provide any factual evidence to support their fiction that Xerox SOLD anything to Apple. And that's what you "choose" to believe. LOL!!
