When I read this Bloomberg report I wanted to punch a hole through my wall. Earlier this morning, the 126 year institution, dubbed ‘The Wall Street Journal’, went head to head with some fucktard tech reporter on CNBC, dubbed ‘Josh Lipton.’
The WSJ reported that China had suspended the sale of the iPhone 6 because it was too similar to an existing Chinese phone, who had already stole IP from Apple. The stock was hit and everyone was pissed off. Then, some asshole from CNBC, threw cold water on the story, claiming that his ‘sources’, who are obviously nobody, said the story was bogus. CNBC spiked the story and everyone took to Twitter to talk shit about the venerable WSJ.
Lo and behold, once again, the Journal was right.
Beijing’s Intellectual Property Office said the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus infringe on patent rights held by the company Shenzhen Baili because of similarities to its 100C phone, according to its ruling Friday. China’s largest smartphone makers, by unit shipments, were Huawei Technologies Co., Oppo and Vivo in the first quarter, with Lenovo Group Ltd. and Xiaomi Corp. close behind, according to research firm International Data Corporation.
While the decision covers only Beijing, future lawsuits against Apple could take the case as a precedent, potentially influencing the outcomes of litigation elsewhere in China. Baili is one of scores of smartphone brands trying to cash in on the country’s mobile boom. Xu Guoxiang, the inventor who holds the patent and listed as a Baili representative on yellow-pages site czvv.com, did not answer calls seeking comment.
“IPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus as well as iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus and iPhone SE models are all available for sale today in China,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said in an e-mailed statement. “We appealed an administrative order from a regional patent tribunal in Beijing last month and as a result the order has been stayed pending review by the Beijing IP Court.”
Tim Long, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets in New York, said he doesn’t think the Chinese ruling is meaningful for Apple.
“We believe there have been several prior cases against U.S. companies ruled in favor of local companies by lower courts that were later overturned by higher courts,” Long wrote in a note to clients. “We have seen dozens of court decisions banning different smartphone products over the years in many different countries. We are not aware of one ever that has resulted in an actual injunction.”
I promised to toss Lipton onto the Catherine Wheel in the city square if his story was bogus. That is exactly what I am about to do right now.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
That’s what happens when you get your news from Twitter.
Twitter’s motto: first to the story, last to the facts.
Rule of thumb for the veracity of news stories:
print > broadcast > web > CNBC
print>broadcast>web >comic books > CNBC
LOL
America loses, again.
Vix livening up.
Nq has been week allday.
Jpm must be shorting gbp. 3-5% lead for brexit.
Can I give it a crank?
Fly just a month ago found that the WSJ was wrong about a different matter.
http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/05/20/david-faber-vs-the-wall-street-journal-fight/
WSJ is certainly no better than CNBC. In fact overall it is worse.
If there is no Right and Left, if it’s all one, then why bash Left leaning sources constantly? The CNBC guy made one mistake. Fox and WSJ have gotten plenty of things wrong themselves.
Murdoch’s media empire bashed Trump for a long time on Fox news. Then when they realized they couldn’t beat him, they joined him. So I guess everything is now sweetness and light again between Trump supporters and Murdoch’s media empire, including Fox and the WSJ.
frog,
While it’s understood the WSJ editorial board leans slightly right, the newspaper itself sits center to slightly-left. Despite its ownership, it is far more Fair and Balanced than the junk-rated consumer product that is Fox News.
Well, you are right in that WSJ sure could not be any worse than Fox.
I guess we may see the political bias of a publication, from the viewpoint of where we are ourselves. WSJ seems very Right Wing to me. But I am not Right Wing. And almost everyone in the U.S. is, as shown by the fact that Republicans have the majority in both Houses of Congress. And yet somehow people still see voting Republican as some kind of anti-establishment vote. Strange.
Bloomberg is killary friendly and unreadable now.
If your best argument against her policies consists of calling her a name, then she must be a pretty darn good presidential candidate.
But the U.S. is tribal politically, and the Right Wing has bashed Hillary constantly for decades now, needing no reason to do so.
frog. You are dead to me now. Supporting that thing is wrong and you know it. Wrong frog on a human level. Shill on kid.
I am not shilling for anyone. I am trying to understand issues.
We are saturated with Right Wing views, as if they are the only possible views, both on this site and everywhere else. That is why both Houses of Congress are Right Wing dominated, and will not even give a hearing to the president’s nominee for SCOTUS.
Hard as it may be to believe, there are actually a few people left who so believe in progressive ideas.
do believe, I meant to type.
frog, I voted for obama. I used to be bleeding heart liberal. Now I am for ron paul, but will roll the dice with trump.
all killary care about is winning. she does not give a fuck about anybody.
the e-mail are all coming out.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/sanders-supporters-vindicated-proof-dnc-used-media-rig-election-hillary
Some media outlet owners or managers or writers are for Hillary, just like some are for the GOP candidates. No surprise. Media outlets are for who they are for.
Somehow it doesn’t bother you that Fox, Clear Channel and numerous Right Wing Internet sites are slanted all the time. And that they lie a great deal.
But there is nothing here in this article you cited that says anyone lied to promote Hillary– just that they are promoting her. Lots of media outlets promote various candidates they like. When they do, they steer the narrative in that candidate’s direction. There is nothing here that every other politician’s campaign doesn’t do also.
you must work or DNP or cant read. the DNP rigged the primary!
Roundwego, I guess I would use different terms for this. I wouldn’t call it rigging the primary but slanting election coverage. The article you cited says the DNC saw Clinton as their eventual nominee and promoted her in the media. It also sounds like they were unfair to Bernie.
I was for Bernie and I did already notice that a lot of the media gave him very little coverage. It was indeed unfair to Bernie and it does piss me off that it happened.
No one expects the media to be fair any more. I don’t know if there was any media outlet that gave fair coverage to Bernie, considering how he filled up stadiums full of supporters at his rallies.
I can’t see why people like you and Fly voted for Obama and then decided to believe only Right Wing media’s coverage of him. This is the Right Wing media procedure:
–Obama or Hillary does something
–No matter what happened, find a way that this proves that the government/Obama/Hillary are weak, incompetent, corrupt, evil, the Anti-Christ, and trying to destroy America.
How could that procedure possibly be fair to the candidate you voted for?
frog if you take some meds maybe you can distill you thoughts and focus. Killary is lustful of power. She is corrupt. The Democratic Party is captured by the Clinton Dynasty. You want to gloss over a rigged election? frog, you seam like you care. but you gloss over that she can get more people killed because of her lust for power.
I rather have our young build a fence than fight a war!
I don’t know whether Trump would or would not build a wall or fight a war if elected. Now he’s saying that everything he’s said so far is “just a suggestion.” He seems to get angry easily, so I would not rule out him fighting wars at all.
Hillary is indeed more aligned with neo-cons than I am comfortable with.
Hillary wants power. So does everyone who has ever run for president. I wish Bernie could win the nomination. And I prefer him.
What do you mean when you say “a rigged election”? If you mean more than slanted media coverage, then that is not what is in the article you cited. The article cited slanted media coverage, which is bad, but it is not a new thing. It has been happening for decades. I don’t know in this case if it is illegal, or is even considered unethical. It’s been obvious for many months that media has not given Bernie fair coverage.
If you see reason to believe that Hillary is more corrupt than other people running for president, then why do you think that? Congress found no evidence of wrongdoing in Benghazi. And nothing illegal has been proven in the email server issue.
Unless you just choose to believe Right Wing sources, who think Hillary is guilty until proven innocent, I see no proof that she is corrupt.
frog you said the swiss were smart. they would build a fence than fight no?
I don’t know what the Swiss would do. That’s up to them to decide, of course.
I guess some people in Europe think that if they topple Assad then Syria will be at peace, and all the refugees can return. Maybe they are wrong, but they are probably good intentioned in their desire to solve problems and have peace for themselves and others.
That being said, every media outlet promotes whom they choose to promote. And every candidate’s election strategy is to promote themselves in the media. Trump has by far been the biggest beneficiary of this. He promoted himself and the media let him do it for free.
$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html
BTW, if Hillary attempted to steer media coverage in her favor, she failed to do so.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders
roundwego, speaking of the Swiss and other folks who don’t want to be in the EU, Paul Krugman at the NYT agrees with you.
“So maybe the woes of the euro reflect a bad system..”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/when-virtue-fails/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body