|
|
|
| Authored by: squib on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 02:57 PM EST |
| New pick link:Google India fined $13.8M for false
accounting
"If the order is upheld, the total advertisement
revenue of Google India will be taxed in India," a person familiar with the
case, told the Indian news site.
That reads like un-citatded PR
speak.
Thinks, in this case, PJ is being prejudgemental.
Tax
concessions are given to foreign companies so that they don't have to suffer
double taxation (i.e., both to their host country and home country). It was not
intended that they use these concessions to 'shop around' their taxation HQ's
to yet other counties in order to avoid paying any taxation at all.
The trade in physical goods are different from providing web services
(which is the bases of the debate). Merchants in physical goods can't take
advantage of these tax manoeuvring. So, in this case, I think India is entitled
to tax Google for the income Google is generating in India. Yes, India does
want Google's money on the same level playing field that other enterprises pay
their dues.
Signed
Disgusted of
Tunbridge Wells [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:52 PM EST |
I know a lot of people who use fake names on Facebook. I also know a lot
of four legged people who have FaceBook accounts (a lot of my friends
spoil there pets).
FaceBook makes a lot of noise about this, but unles you pick a name like
"Alias Fakename" they aren't likely to notice.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 07:36 AM EST |
After a 10-day trial, the eight-member jury sided with Belkin Inc.,
D-Link Corp., and NetGear Inc., deeming Fujitsu's claims under a patent for a
"card type input/output interface device" to be invalid.... Lead Belkin attorney
David Enzminger of Winston & Strawn in Los Angeles told jurors a computer
industry group published draft specifications for cards that would connect users
to the Internet prior to Fujitsu's first patent application in 1991. Moreover,
at least one company prior to 1990 sold a wireless communication card that
connected individual computers to printers and other devices through a network,
he said....
"They were very hardworking," he said. "They dug down
surprisingly deeply. They spent a lot of time going through documentary
evidence."
[PJ: Incidentally, this was another case presided over by
the Hon. Lucy Koh.] - Vanessa Blum, Law.com
I don't know the
details of what transpired, but is this adding to a trend? Fujitsu is a foreign
corporation, and the others are all US based companies. In fact, they're all
based right in Silicon Valley, just like Apple, which is Judge Koh's back yard,
so maybe Judge Koh was as biased in her allowing/disallowing of evidence in this
case as she was in the Apple v. Samsung case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 09:00 AM EST |
| ... this is the first known example of a court both allowing a
corporation to
sue anonymously, and agreeing to seal a
case, all so the company could protect
its reputation
Clicky and then a link to a
link to lawblog
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST |
Newspick
I had a good look at
that Concept Map, and I didn't see any concept for China,
component or supplier
so I guess that's OK then?
Full Speed
Ahead!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Apple Fanboys - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 02:23 PM EST
|
|
|
|
