|
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Deals like this are where I think publicly held companies should be required to
make the details public. Some information, like methods, compositions (within
limits depending on health, safety, and environment), and ideas should be
privileged and confidential. However, terms of a deal like this seem to me to
be more essential than officer compensations and terms... and those are required
to be public information. That deals like this are kept confidential is a
problem, in my book, since the terms reflect the assets and liabilities of the
companies involved. And, before anyone points this out, I don't think that the
settlement terms in a deal like this are at all like a pricing deal. Here, the
companies are basicaly setting fees to stay out of court, rather than to move
products.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 01:17 PM EST |
Which makes the Samsung point.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|