ceto contracting, inc.

po box 286
port jefferson, new york 11777

NYS Entity Status
ACTIVE

NYS Filing Date
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014

NYS DOS ID#
4637142

County
SUFFOLK

Jurisdiction
NEW YORK

Registered Agent
NONE

NYS Entity Type
DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION

Name History
2014 - CETO CONTRACTING, INC.









Buffer



submit to reddit

Telephone
n/a

Fax
n/a

Website
n/a

Email address
n/a

LinkedIn
n/a

Facebook
n/a

Google+
n/a

Twitter
n/a

Pinterest
n/a

Instagram
n/a



  • AROUND THE WEB

  • Food & Wine Magazine Will Leave New York for Alabama
    By STEPHANIE STROM - Friday Jun 23, 2017

    The move reflects a changing business in which traditional food magazines, and a Manhattan address, are less important.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • How a Conspiracy Theorist’s Call About a Dirty Bomb Shut Down Part of a Port
    By CHRISTOPHER MELE - Thursday Jun 15, 2017

    A section of the Port of Charleston was closed for more than seven hours as nearly a dozen federal, state and local agencies searched a container ship.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • The Forgotten War that Changed American History
    Thursday Jun 22, 2017

    How Thomas Jefferson became acquainted with Muslim hospitality and repaid it with force.

    Source: American Thinker
  • Rescuers Search for 7 Sailors as Damaged U.S. Destroyer Reaches Port
    By JONATHAN SOBLE and MOTOKO RICH - Saturday Jun 17, 2017

    Aided by tugboats and with water pouring into its hull, the destroyer returned to an American naval base after colliding with a cargo ship off Japan.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • Apple Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
    By Joe Rossignol - Tuesday Jun 20, 2017

    Apple has expanded its lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing the wireless chipmaker of "double-dipping" by way of unfair patent licensing agreements, according to an amended complaint filed with a United States federal court in San Diego today.


    The complaint broadens the claims Apple made in its original lawsuit against Qualcomm in January, when it sued the chipmaker for $1 billion in alleged unpaid royalty rebates. Apple also accused its longtime supplier of the iPhone's wireless chip of engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices.

    Since the original iPhone, Qualcomm has supplied Apple with modems that enable the smartphone to, for example, connect to a Wi-Fi or LTE network. But as the iPhone has gained more features, Apple argues that Qualcomm has been unfairly "levying its own tax" on those innovations through "exorbitant royalties."

    Apple said Qualcomm wrongly bases its royalties on a percentage of the entire iPhone's value, despite supplying just a single component of the device.

    As Apple innovates, Qualcomm demands more. Qualcomm had nothing to do with creating the revolutionary Touch ID, the world’s most popular camera, or the Retina display Apple’s customers love, yet Qualcomm wants to be paid as if these (and future) breakthroughs belong to it. Qualcomm insists in this Court that it should be entitled to rely on the same business model it applied over a decade ago to the flip phone but while that model may have been defensible when a phone was just a phone, today it amounts to a scheme of extortion that allows Qualcomm unfairly to maintain and entrench its existing monopoly.
    The licensing agreements are in addition to paying for the wireless chips themselves. Apple said Qualcomm's "double-dipping, extra-reward system" is precisely the kind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently forbade in a lawsuit between Lexmark and a small company reselling its printer cartridges.
    If that were not enough, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., condemned Qualcomm’s business model as a violation of U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court flatly rejected Qualcomm’s business model, holding that a patent holder may demand only “one reward” for its patented products, and when it has secured the reward for its invention, it may not, under the patent laws, further restrict the use or enjoyment of the item. Qualcomm, by its own admission, will not sell chips to manufacturers who do not also pay separate royalties and enter Qualcomm licenses at usurious rates. This is precisely the kind of double-dipping, extra-reward system that the Court’s decision in Lexmark forbids.
    Apple said it has been "overcharged billions of dollars" due to Qualcomm's so-called "illegal scheme," including the $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates that led Apple to sue Qualcomm in January.

    In its countersuit, Qualcomm accused Apple of failing to engage in good faith negotiations for a license to its 3G and 4G standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

    Apple, however, argues that Qualcomm's monopolistic licensing demands violate its FRAND obligations.
    By tying together the markets for chipsets and licenses to technology in cellular standards, Qualcomm illegally enhances and strengthens its monopoly in each market and eliminates competition. Then, Qualcomm leverages its market power to extract exorbitant royalties, later agreeing to reduce those somewhat only in exchange for additional anticompetitive advantages and restrictions on challenging Qualcomm’s power, further solidifying its stranglehold on the industry.
    Apple also claims that Qualcomm has never made it a worldwide offer on FRAND terms for a direct license to its patented technologies.

    Apple said Qualcomm subsequently filing lawsuits against iPhone manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal reveals "its true bullying nature," calling it "a blatant attempt to exert pressure on Apple to acquiesce to" its "non-FRAND royalty demands" by attacking its smaller contract manufacturers.
    Qualcomm knows that these are companies who have been effectively coerced by its monopoly practices in the past. Qualcomm knows that these companies merely pass through the usuriously high royalty demanded by Qualcomm and so have little incentive to resist its monopolistic tactics.
    Apple has called for the court to declare Qualcomm's patents in the lawsuit unessential to 3G/4G standards used in the iPhone and its other products, and to prevent Qualcomm from taking any adverse or legal action against Apple's contract manufacturers related to the allegations in today's amended complaint.


    Discuss this article in our forums

    Source: MacRumors : Mac News and Rumors
  • Soupman Inc. of 'Seinfeld' Fame Seeks Bankruptcy Protection
    Tuesday Jun 13, 2017

    Soupman Inc., of “Seinfeld” fame, filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday, just weeks after a top company executive was charged with tax evasion.

    Source: The Wall Street Journal: U.S. Business
  • A Slump in Tech Stocks That Leaves Some Investors Mystified
    By LANDON THOMAS Jr. - Monday Jun 12, 2017

    Shares of Netflix, Apple and other giant technology companies that have powered a market rally have taken an uncharacteristic pause.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • Apple's Thunderbolt Display doesn’t work with a 12-inch MacBook’s USB-C port
    By Glenn Fleishman - By Glenn Fleishman - Wednesday Jun 14, 2017

    While the USB-C connector type has a lot of advantages and it’s now guaranteed with Intel’s full support at being the dominant peripheral format for the next many years, there’s still a lot of confusion about the difference between USB-C and Thunderbolt 3.

    That comes up in an email from Simon Shaw, who can connect his 24-inch Apple Cinema Display to a 12-inch MacBook (2016 release) using a Mini DisplayPort to USB-C, but finds his 27-inch Apple Thunderbolt Display doesn’t have a solution. It probably seems even more arbitrary when MacBook Air models dating to 2011, including the ones still on sale, can work with both Cinema Displays and Thunderbolt Displays with no problem.

    To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

    Source: Macworld