They are arguing over what, $2 millions? Isn't this far less than what they already paid for lawyers?
Also, I thought that the copyright claims had largely been considered bogus?
3442 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I suppose audio books do cost money to make, and have such a small audience that they need to get the money back [i]some[/i]how...
That said, what happened to these reader apps that automatically read e-books aloud? Last I remember, copyright owners were claiming this was illegal because it amounted to giving a public performance, which merely owning the book does not give you the right to do. Did that ever get resolved?
Why not ask Google to also remove from their results all mention of web pages that might make him look bad? After all, if autocomplete shows these words, I assume that results for his own name show web sites related to the same words...
I can only assume that all the people whose name is George Zimmerman are pretty unhappy with what they see on the web these days. They should sue Google, too.
In the first one, each post comes with a link of type "Posted in Blizzard ponders World of Warcraft for iPad", which leads straight to this post in that forum.
In the second one, each post comes with a link of type "In forum Blizzard ponders World of Warcraft for iPad", which only leads to the top of the forum, which is less useful – you have to search for your own post. It is possible to click instead on the permalink Posted Tuesday 20th March 2012 15:37 GMT, and then click again on the link to this post in that forum, but it is a slight annoyance. And it is inconsistent.
In much of the US, gas stations close during the night, unless there is an employee inside. This was baffling to European me, considering petrol stations over here are regularly open all night. This is not a payment issue, every pump has its card reader. I was told it was for security reasons.
I am always surprised by the people who consider that not paying a dividend means it is not possible to make money on the stock.
The point is: IF Apple ever wanted to give back a dividend — which they technically could at any time, even if they prefer not to — they would be able to pay a dividend corresponding to the current stock price. That is enough to justify the stock price.
You might as well wonder why people try to accumulate these little pieces of paper called "money", considering they do not give back a dividend either — and do not even give you a right to anything tangible like a piece of gold. What proves that the barman will be enough of a sucker to accept it in exchange of a beer?
I find the number highly doubtful... The analyst got this result by assuming that TWO THIRDS of what Google pays in traffic acquisition costs is for the iPhone. That would be a hell of a weight just for the iPhone... Considering Google pays $300 millions a year to Mozilla, that would mean about 90% of what Google pays in TAC is just for these two.
It is quite funny from Apple to claim they had no market power, and so could not have influenced the publishers. A bit like, when the iPhone came out, they clearly did not have any market power, since they were a new entrant and had never sold a phone; so they could not POSSIBLY have forced AT&T to sell the iPhone without carrier branding, and on terms vastly less advantageous than any other phone.
Yet, they clearly did. You have to admire them for that. But I do not think their "we are new entrants without market power" is going to convince anybody.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019