given this is the “hometown” (of qualcomm) thought there would have been more local buzz on the topic, FWIW…
[quote] Here Are the Most Damning Parts of Apple’s Blockbuster Lawsuit Against Qualcomm
Jan 23, 2017
Just days after the Federal Trade Commission sued Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) 54.88 down $-8.00 (-12.72%) for antitrust concerns, Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) $120.08 up $0.08 (0.07%) took an unprecedented step of similarly filling suit against one of its most important suppliers. The complaints are largely the same, but Apple felt compelled to file its own lawsuit in part to get the nearly $1 billion it says it is owed. According to the complaint, Qualcomm gives Apple rebates that effectively serve as royalty relief, but in exchange, Apple has agreed to buy baseband processors exclusively from the company for the past five years. It’s these rebates that Qualcomm is now withholding since Apple has cooperated with antitrust regulators around the world.
AppleInsider’s Mikey Campbell unearthed the entire 104-page complaint and posted it on Scribd. I’d encourage Apple investors to give it a look, but for those who aren’t inclined to spend their weekends reading legal complaints…
* Qualcomm tried to get Apple to change its testimony
* There’s little enforcement of whether patents are actually essential
* Qualcomm has violated its FRAND commitments
* Rivals never had a chance
* Apple’s contract manufacturers are partially responsible
* Apple pays more for less
* Qualcomm used Apple to kill WiMAX
* This has been going on for nearly a decad
* Qualcomm makes money when you upgrade storage
* Apple has wanted to bring on competing basebands suppliers for years
These are the most interesting snippets within the filing, but there is a lot of other information about Apple’s contentious relationship with Qualcomm over the years. This case is going to be a big storyline for the two companies in 2017, and the legal process could even potentially drag on for years unless Apple and Qualcomm settle.
[quote] Despite Reforms, City and County Pension Funds Are Billions Short
January 20, 2017
San Diego county and city pension funds have nearly $7 billion less in the bank than they need to cover benefits already earned by current and former employees, a deficit that’s risen 90 percent in just two years, new reports show.
…The latest shortfalls mark new troubling heights for each pension fund, surpassing levels that rocked the city during the pension scandal of the early 2000s. San Diego was dubbed “Enron by the Sea” when news surfaced that city officials moved to underfund pensions while boosting benefits and failed to disclose growing liabilities to bondholders.
“The magnitude of the City’s unfunded liabilities was enormous,” a 2006 cease-and-desist order by the Securities and Exchange Commission said. “For example, the City knew that by 2009 the unfunded liability would reach $1.9 billion and its actuarially required contribution would be approximately $240 million compared to $51 million in FY 2002.”
Those once-alarming numbers seem a bit paltry today.
Despite annual contributions above $250 million in recent years, records show the city employee pension fund has remained more than $1.5 billion short in the last five years and now approaches the $3 billion mark. The city’s annual pension payment will exceed $261 million this year and $324 million next fiscal year, putting a pinch on the city budget.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer highlighted “skyrocketing” pension payments in his State of the City address earlier this month, saying, “Sales tax revenue, property tax revenue, and tourism revenue are all up. But all of this revenue growth – and more – will be entirely consumed by this year’s increased pension payment.”
…“The bottom line is taxpayers continue to pay for the financial mistakes of past city leaders,” said Craig Gustafson, a spokesman for Faulconer, in an email.
