|
Post by phoebear611 on May 1, 2014 3:14:08 GMT -8
Good Morning
While you were sleeping...Asia was mixed and most of Europe was closed to commemorate May Day. The UK and Ireland were open and are green. US futures are slightly green but a bunch of economic numbers coming out which may dictate direction here this morning.
Economic Numbers today: --- 8:30 Jobless Claims and Personal Income --- 9:45 PMI Mfg Index ---10:00 ISM and Construction Spending for March
No needle moving news on Apple this morning as far as I can tell. Currently, AAPL is +1.84 in PM @$591.93 (was as high as $592.42 earlier)
Good luck to all ... enjoy the day!
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on May 1, 2014 4:25:56 GMT -8
Today is the first of a new month. Could see some nice volume and + in apple with new institutions getting monthly allocations to invest. Plus - verdict may get banged out today.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on May 1, 2014 5:04:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by zzmac on May 1, 2014 7:03:25 GMT -8
The questions the jurors asked make me think they are leaning in Samsung's favor. Any lawyers on the forum with insight on this?
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on May 1, 2014 7:11:14 GMT -8
It shows that these jurors have little or no experience on previous juries… or if they did, even worse, as they should know better than to ask these questions. The foreperson would presumably be chosen by the jury as the most experienced. Apparently the foreperson doesn't understand the basics of how the jury is supposed to interpret the evidence and function. And apparently, there's no one else on this jury who understands how this works, otherwise they'd have shot down the questions before ever being sent to the court. Seriously, anyone who's previously been on a trial (as well as these jurors, if they'd paid proper attention to the judge's instructions) would know that they are ONLY to consider the evidence presented in the courtroom; nothing more, nothing less. They "can" do whatever they want in deliberations, including discussing, among themselves, fanciful questions about who might have said what, or done what, or what the CEOs of two companies directed their companies to do… But these are -fanciful- questions; not evidence. If they're going to deliberate and decide based on this kind of thought process, who knows what will happen. The answers to these questions, even if in evidence and if they ever existed, have -nothing to do- with the evidence, which shows that Samsung willingly and knowingly infringed on the patents.
|
|
|
Post by qualitywte on May 1, 2014 7:18:10 GMT -8
The questions the jurors asked make me think they are leaning in Samsung's favor. Any lawyers on the forum with insight on this? Yeah, as stated above, it seems the jury is trying to determine the CEO motives in bringing the suit rather than whether a given patent was infringed. I agree this doesn't appear to favor Apple, but maybe it doesn't favor either side. It could be they are wanting this information to use in determining the damages or how severe to punish one side or the other monetarily.
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on May 1, 2014 7:47:56 GMT -8
The questions the jurors asked make me think they are leaning in Samsung's favor. Any lawyers on the forum with insight on this? Yeah, as stated above, it seems the jury is trying to determine the CEO motives in bringing the suit rather than whether a given patent was infringed. I agree this doesn't appear to favor Apple, but maybe it doesn't favor either side. It could be they are wanting this information to use in determining the damages or how severe to punish one side or the other monetarily. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been on juries (which deliberated to a verdict) on several trials, and I've also been involved in litigation (which was successful on my part). Motives aren't facts, but in reality, they become part of the jury's decision making process. On one or two of the trials I was on a jury for, we all had questions, among ourselves, in the jury room about things that were "missing" in the evidence presented at the trial that would have helped in our decision. One trial had to do with a break-in, and we weren't told anything of the defendant's past… but the evidence itself was clear enough to convict. After the trial, we learned of the past record and it made our careful thought process worthwhile - we all felt we'd decided correctly, and knowing this backed up the decision. With that said, we never sent notes to the court asking for information about evidence that hadn't been presented at the trial, or that would indicate the kinds of questions we had in our own minds. What's happening with this jury strikes me as unusual (and unusually amateurish). If they're going to look at motives, then Samsung's motives are obvious, as in, against them and in Apple's favor… IF the jury understands what went on here… based on Samsung's internal documents, behavior, etc, which should carry all of the weight. If I'm on the jury: this is what their documents said at the time; this was their decision making process. It's quite clear. Here's what they're saying now, which is, no, we didn't mean that, no, it's being taken out of context, pay no attention to any of that. We didn't copy, because… just because. We didn't. If anyone copied, Google did. They forced us to use Android. Not our responsibility. They forced us to use these patented features (which we didn't copy) in Android, instead of using these simple workarounds which were available to us, but which we decided not to use anyway. Because it was all obvious. Those patents aren't even valuable. Obvious. We didn't infringe. Google did, if anyone did. We don't owe them a cent. This is the same as any crook, saying, I didn't do it. He did it. It's not my fault. Even if I did it, it's not my fault. They made me do it. Even if I did it, I'm not responsible. I have the money, but I didn't steal it. I just took it. I don't owe them anything. Yup. Sure. Regardless of how the verdict goes…. sure. If they're able to weasel out of this by shielding themselves with Google, they'll have gotten away with it. (And Florian Mueller will be crowing, but that's another story).
|
|
|
Post by rickag on May 1, 2014 9:02:37 GMT -8
Well at least one juror is an ex IBM employee, maybe this will help Apple considering how many patents IBM has and whether this juror understands the value if patents.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on May 1, 2014 10:34:55 GMT -8
Beautiful reversal today on the 5sma on the dot.
Nibbled there.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on May 1, 2014 11:28:27 GMT -8
From the WSJ TODAY: Apple initially crossed above $600 in March 2012. Back then, the stock only needed 23 trading days to jump from $500 to $600. Prior to that it only took 34 days to go from $400 to $500. The stock ultimately peaked above $700 in September 2012 before embarking on a sharp move lower. The last time Apple traded at $600 was in November 2012 in the midst of its tumble. It fell as low as $385.10 in April 2013.
Lets Hope move from 600-700 is also super fast!!!!
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 1, 2014 12:41:07 GMT -8
From the WSJ TODAY: Apple initially crossed above $600 in March 2012. Back then, the stock only needed 23 trading days to jump from $500 to $600. Prior to that it only took 34 days to go from $400 to $500. The stock ultimately peaked above $700 in September 2012 before embarking on a sharp move lower. The last time Apple traded at $600 was in November 2012 in the midst of its tumble. It fell as low as $385.10 in April 2013. Lets Hope move from 600-700 is also super fast!!!! I'm more interested in how quickly we go from 100 to 200.
|
|
|
Post by mace on May 1, 2014 13:12:45 GMT -8
I'm more interested in how quickly we go from 100 to 200. You're in a good mood
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on May 1, 2014 13:31:41 GMT -8
I'm more interested in how quickly we go from 100 to 200. You're in a good mood Very disorienting isn't it?
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 1, 2014 13:57:12 GMT -8
I'm more interested in how quickly we go from 100 to 200. You're in a good mood When AAPL hits 200 (post-split!!!!! ), then you'll see a good mood. Drinks will be on me*. *Some restrictions apply.
|
|
icam
Member
Posts: 447
|
Post by icam on May 1, 2014 19:04:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by zzmac on May 1, 2014 19:09:57 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on May 1, 2014 19:19:14 GMT -8
It's not like Apple hasn't had celebs help out before. Malkovich with Siri. Jack Bauer's voice for the Intel Macs. Goldblum's voice with iMac, with a semi-awkward endorsement from will.i.am and Fergie for the iMac G5. But your point is well taken. Maybe celebs will tweet promotional tweets about iPhone and actually be using it. (Obviously I hope Apple never resorts to that.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 19:48:18 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on May 1, 2014 20:15:01 GMT -8
You work at Buzzfeed? I had no idea Apple had a Chief Buzz Marketer or something. So there MUST be a VP, Gold.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on May 1, 2014 20:21:06 GMT -8
Shu Qi would be better. Next to her you look like RusselL Brand
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 20:36:25 GMT -8
You two clowns crack me up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 20:38:51 GMT -8
Open interest suggest $585 - $590, though it could easily close $590 - $595 tomorrow. With a good market, I'm betting on the latter.
|
|