en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3728047 Comments by AmericanStig http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/30/tim-cook-improves-on-steve-jobs-approval-rating-at-glassdoor-ceo-survey#IDComment327940413 I have a strong feeling Tim Cook will continue to surpass Steve Jobs in approval rating if for no other reason then he tends to seem more level headed and far less prone to the legendary Steve Jobs outbursts. Steve was legendary, the reason why Apple still exists today... However Steve's greatest gift to Apple was his visionary views on the staff at the top around him. Steve knew that Tim Cook could run Apple as good or better than he did or else he wouldn't have named him for the job... Hopefully in the years to come, Tim can continue to move beyond the legacy and legend of Steve and continue to show the world why he is the best CEO the company could hope form. Good work Tim! Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:10:46 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/30/tim-cook-improves-on-steve-jobs-approval-rating-at-glassdoor-ceo-survey#IDComment327940413 http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/30/fla-president-says-applefoxconn-agreement-raises-bar-but-will-it-raise-prices#IDComment327874709 The funny thing is...the people who have complained the loudest about the 'Conditions' at the Foxconn plants and how evil Apple is for how they were 'making' the workers work such overtime and in such 'awful' conditions will be the first people to step up and complain if prices go up at all. Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:03:05 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/30/fla-president-says-applefoxconn-agreement-raises-bar-but-will-it-raise-prices#IDComment327874709 http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/07/and-the-new-ipad-is-officially-called/#IDComment310690073 It'll be iPad (Early 2012) versus the newer model iPad (Mid 2013). Even the original iPad and iPad "2" were only branded 'iPad' on the back of the devices so we'll just see the adoption to a Mac style system where your device is referred to by it's name, iPad, and it's release generation (Early 2012). Wed, 7 Mar 2012 20:00:17 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/07/and-the-new-ipad-is-officially-called/#IDComment310690073 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/23/proview-brings-the-ipad-name-battle-to-the-us#IDComment300559095 "...and that its future products wouldn’t compete with Proview’s products." How do you compete with a bankrupt company that isn't going to be producing any products in the near future (ever)? Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:59:03 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/23/proview-brings-the-ipad-name-battle-to-the-us#IDComment300559095 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/23/apple-prevails-in-shanghai-showdown-with-proview-ipad-sales-allowed-to-continue/#IDComment299762013 Ok, so it isn't related but reading this headline all I can think of is the title from the old 80's Cult Film... "Big Trouble in Little China" Seriously though, I think this is the scene where Apple starts winning victories over the bankrupt patent troll... Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:00:59 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/23/apple-prevails-in-shanghai-showdown-with-proview-ipad-sales-allowed-to-continue/#IDComment299762013 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/3-million-apple-tvs-in-2011-1-million-last-quarter#IDComment292559093 Apple's hobbies are more successful than most people's products... Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:49:10 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/3-million-apple-tvs-in-2011-1-million-last-quarter#IDComment292559093 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292328685 "In 2006 Proview agreed to sell the global iPad trademark to US-based IP Application Development (IPAD) for £35,000 ($55,104), at which time Proview didn’t know had connections to Apple." Apple was lead to believe by Proview that they were purchasing the GLOBAL iPad Trademarks owned by Proview, without direct access to the contract between the two companies it's impossible to state that the Chinese rights were or were not included in those, however, given the caliber of Apple's legal team I find it very unlikely that they would sign a document without reviewing the owned property they were purchasing. "The Chinese trademarks, filed as far back as 2000, were apparently not included in that agreement, leading Apple and IP Application Development to sue Proview." Apple sued Proview after the claim was made that they didn't own the Chinese Trademarks, thus, Apple was filing for legal action to prove that this IP had already been sold to them and was owned by them. Evidence to this fact was presented already once in a court in Hong Kong, (again, this is a CHINESE territory), in which the claim of Apple, Inc.'s ownership rights of the Chinese name was substantiated. One can turn any article around to feed their own purposes, you tend to think Apple did some wrong to Proview by purchasing their IP (Purchasing, not stealing), and thus are trying to twist the items around to show Apple having had some form of wrong doing here when the facts just don't substantiate it. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:54:44 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292328685 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292321771 No, it means that Apple purchased the Global Rights to the iPad name that Proview owned. It is very possible in other countries and/or jurisdictions the "iPad" name was trademarked by another company outside of proview as there is no 'World Wide' trademarking authority. What Apple is contending, and have proven to the legal requirements in Hong Kong (A Chinese Territory), is that they purchased the IP (Trademark) that was owned by Proview and that it included the Chinese registration as well. Apple simply was negotiating with other individuals at the same time in other locations for the iPad trademarks in those locations. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:43:41 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292321771 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292315913 Not you again. If by truth you mean completely fabricated fiction, then you're right...however, if you mean truth as in factual statements then you've failed (yet again.) Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:34:41 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292315913 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292303601 Solution is for Apple to call up Foxconn and inform them that they are moving production to another (non-Chinese) facility due to this... That information filters up to the Chinese government who, no doubt, makes a considerable amount of money off Foxconn's production of Apple products... The Chinese government grants exclusive rights to the iPad trademark to Apple and orders Proview's CEO to a public lashing. The world is right again. Right or wrong, the thing about the ruling class is that they don't like anything that interferes with their remaining the ruling (wealthy) class and Proview is starting to do just that. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:15:54 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/#IDComment292303601 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/13/chinese-authorities-in-shijiazhuang-begin-snatching-up-ipads-from-retailers-over-ipad-name-trademark-dispute#IDComment291513370 Since when would I consider $55,000 for the iPad name to be fair? Since right now. The price was set and negotiated with the original owner, agreed upon, and happily sold the property who in turn presented that property to Apple. Originally Proview thought the deal was fair or else they wouldn't have sold it. For example, if I owned www. ipad .com and someone had come to me wanting to buy it, then I sold it for $500 then it turned out that Apple used it in marketing because I had sold it to a holding company wouldn't make my original price any less fair. Both parties agreed on the sale, thus, both parties felt they were getting fair market value for their product/money. That simple. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:35:07 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/13/chinese-authorities-in-shijiazhuang-begin-snatching-up-ipads-from-retailers-over-ipad-name-trademark-dispute#IDComment291513370 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/13/chinese-authorities-in-shijiazhuang-begin-snatching-up-ipads-from-retailers-over-ipad-name-trademark-dispute#IDComment291379704 When someone sells you a used car, they don't ask you what you plan to do with it, this is no different. A company registered a brand, they sold that brand to a company who has no obligation to disclose their client was Apple. The reason Apple and other companies use external companies to purchase trademarks and other items is quite simple, the minute someone sees 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' or even 'Google' they raise the price to extort a huge payday out of the company where normally they would charge a reasonable (fair) amount of money. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:12:17 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/13/chinese-authorities-in-shijiazhuang-begin-snatching-up-ipads-from-retailers-over-ipad-name-trademark-dispute#IDComment291379704 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/08/apple-pressuring-regulators-to-set-frand-licensing-rules/#IDComment287091082 I still think that regulators should throw down the gauntlet to these FRAND Patent holders. "Abuse them and lose them." Anyone found to be abusing a FRAND Patent for personal gain should lose the patent to public-domain, that would sure give companies reason to avoid litigating in the hopes of extorting more money out of a FRAND patent and just respecting the 'Fair' part of FRAND when negotiating with potential licensees. Googlerola and Samesung would both be losing quite a few patents if that law was in effect today. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:22:51 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/08/apple-pressuring-regulators-to-set-frand-licensing-rules/#IDComment287091082 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285503779 Not to challenge you on that but I challenge that. I'd need to see real numbers and figures to believe that all the workers at the plant can afford BMW's, it doesn't make logical sense... I know people in the US who make 2,500 a month (really low actually given my mortgage alone is over 1,000 a month and the Euro to Dollar version would make it even less) can't even afford to look at a BMW, let alone drive one... I pull in about 2,400 per pay period (4,800 per month) and a BMW would not be a 'cheap expense' to me. Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:17:42 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285503779 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285439600 China is a selective capitalist communist country. There are plenty of people in China who lined up to buy iPhones (as the recent news indicated) so your argument that China's system of government is the reason why people can't afford things doesn't really hold water. No, the Chinese people can't necessarily form Unions, however, I can promise you that if Foxconn wasn't filling their factories with workers they would start offering more money or benefits to fill those positions thus indicating that it's a supply and demand issue with their labor force, not anything in relation to their government, contributing to the fact that they can pay so little for their labor. Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:37:43 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285439600 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285432915 Unions in the US are a great concept. When used properly, to protect workers and ensure that they are treated fairly and receive a fair and honest wage, I fully support them. The problems with many unions in the US is they are no longer there to protect the honest, hard-working individual and more used as a crutch by many to just protect the jobs of those who do very little or to try and force companies into unrealistically high salary ranges which ultimately cause the exact problems which unions were originally created to prevent... Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:26:17 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285432915 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285398040 "The interview starts off with Grant showing Miss Chen, who’s name was changed at her request, the finished iPad she helps assemble on a daily basis but had never used." You know, this type of crap is completely misleading and prejudicial, there are quite a few people in the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Europe in general who do not have the funds or ability to get an iPad and that means nothing! How many people in a BMW Factory in Germany can't afford to drive the product they make? I'm sorry but all this press about how evil Apple and other tech companies are because they use cheap Chinese labor is just bad journalism, it is the fault of the Chinese people for allowing companies to come in there and pay half pennies on the dollar for labor, if it was such a huge deal to them and to their Government then they would DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. The media seems to think that these companies should just offer to pay people more because it's the right thing to do instead of realizing it's the law of supply and demand, if workers demanded more from their employers and didn't work at the ones who didn't give them what they wanted, we wouldn't have these situations of low pay or overly long hours but instead 30,000 people line up for 1,000 jobs in these places. Its a shame that things are this way, but until the workers decide to do something about it (including walking out on these companies) nothing will get done, and it's not Apple/Microsoft/HP/Dell's jobs to try and micromanage their suppliers so long as their contractual obligations are being met. May not be popular to say that, but it's the truth. Anything these tech companies do about 'Conditions' at the factories is PR, they aren't their factories, Foxconn isn't their company and they are the largest manufacturing group in the world for these type of products...they aren't going to change until the workers themselves take it upon themselves. Let it be known I would personally pay a premium for my products if instead of Chinese labor these tech companies would use American Workers in American Factories, however, that era for America is pretty much gone sadly. Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:26:13 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/06/another-publication-investigates-foxconn-cnn-interviews-an-ipad-assembler-apple-responds#IDComment285398040 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/17/samsung-requests-apple-reveal-terms-of-qualcomm-partnership-could-infringe-samsung-owned-patents#IDComment266859130 Then Samsung's complaint should be against the license holder, Qualcomm, not the customer Apple. If Qualcomm is putting the technology into their product under license and selling it (in whole, not the technology separate but as part of an integrated product) they would be liable for the licensing breach, not Apple given Apple is (in good faith) purchasing a product which is licensed (supposedly) by the vendor. That would be like Ford making a car with GM's technology, selling it to you and then GM suing YOU for buying a Ford product that contains incorrectly licensed equipment. Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:15:19 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/17/samsung-requests-apple-reveal-terms-of-qualcomm-partnership-could-infringe-samsung-owned-patents#IDComment266859130 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/17/samsung-requests-apple-reveal-terms-of-qualcomm-partnership-could-infringe-samsung-owned-patents#IDComment266828316 "But Judge, they are innovating new things and not telling us, you have to let us have these new things to copy!" -Sam(e)sung's lawyers Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:32:18 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/17/samsung-requests-apple-reveal-terms-of-qualcomm-partnership-could-infringe-samsung-owned-patents#IDComment266828316 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/12/samsung-apple-television-is-old-news-smart-tv-is-the-future-and-already-here/#IDComment262607715 Samsung is demonstrating games, Apple will bring forth an experience. I'm so sick of reading about the Copist, just because Copysung sees Apple going a direction and racing to try and slap their half hearted shitty experience ontop of it doesn't make for news... Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:44:40 +0000 http://9to5mac.com/2012/01/12/samsung-apple-television-is-old-news-smart-tv-is-the-future-and-already-here/#IDComment262607715