MSU Red Cedar Message Board

Maybe the investors didn't foresee the increases? It's kind of like a winning streak in sports. When MSU basketball had the 15 game win streak this year, did anyone truly see that coming? And then when we were sitting on 14 or 15, would you have put money down that we'd win the next 14-15? I know, more difficult schedule at that point and everything, but even if the schedule was equivalent to the schedule during win streak, would you have put money on making it 30 in a row, considering that 15 was so unusual?

Then again, Intel may very well low ball themselves. It definitely happens.

But, as I think you kind of indicated before, there's not always a correlation between sales and stock prices. Ultimately, stock prices just depend on what people decide to buy or not to buy, so theoretically a company doing poor in sales could have their stock prices soar if people still bought the stock for whatever reason.

You guys know that apple isn't the only one suing in this space, right? They've all literally been at each other's throats for years. The current patent system is a mess. There's a lot of people who think that the main reason Google bought Motorola was to obtain their patents, and limit the amount of things someone could sue them for.

See attached "lawsuit thicket" diagram.

http://dcipattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/smartphonepatentticket.jpg

And btw, I think apple fairly did invent the ultra-thin wedge form factor for a laptop with the MacBook Air. And a lot of companies are ripping them off. Look at the new HPs. Wy shouldn't apple be allowed to defend its IP?

Oh, and that must mean that Samsung is scared.

Apple and its competitors (whether it be for mobile or computers) are constantly doing research, focus groups, polls, etc. to determine what customers want. As a result, they're likely going to come up with a lot of the same things. Just because one company executes it before others, doesn't mean that they stole the concept. That's probably why Apple keeps losing these injunctions, because the other companies can provide proof that they were already developing theirs before Apple released it.

Apple does seem to scream louder in the media about it, probably as a marketing ploy to make it sound like everyone is stealing from them (which seems to be working based on the Apple fanboy's reactions in this thread). I've read that Google has tens of thousands of patents that they could roll out complaints on if they wished. But as Trevor so often points out, Google makes money off Apple products.

But if anyone thinks that these recent attempts at injunctions against the EVO LTE and the Galaxy SIII are purely about intellectual property and not a business ploy to hurt a competitor, they're being naive. It's no coincidence that these two phones both blow away the specs on current iPhones, and will take away a lot of the "wow factor" of the next iPhone.

Right, because Apple's PR team has nothing to do with the articles and blogs that you read talking about this.

Can I interest you in a tinfoil hat today? I have all sizes.

You have no idea how the PR side of marketing works, do you? Nothing wrong with that if it's not related to your field. Most people don't understand it, which is why it works.

It's not conspiracy. It's simply how marketing/business works. PR teams are constantly feeding information to publications and blogs, trying to talk them into writing articles about certain things, etc. And that doesn't even take into account the social media aspect.

If other companies are also filing these patent lawsuits, why do you think that those don't get nearly the media coverage as Apple's lawsuits?

I don't get it.

It's funny how people reconcile what they see with what they want to believe.

Apple is not driving all those articles. It's also quite an accusation at some reputable journalists.

And you contradict yourself at the end as Apple isn't the only company with a PR department.

It makes money. And why so many so much more coverage of Apple lawsuits? Volume and perception.

Those three bullet points are far more compelling than some elaborate Machiavellian operation. Trust me, there's no grass knoll here.

Its funny because its not "why shouldn't", per patent law the winner of the patent HAS TO enforce protecting it. If they do not and other companies use it without restriction, ownership of the patent is revoked.