NYS Entity Status
NYS Filing Date
JUNE 13, 2013
NYS DOS ID#
NYS Entity Type
DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
2013 - DOUBLE IMAGE EVENT PRODUCTIONS INC.
AROUND THE WEB
- Lincoln-Sudbury Claims State Title to Round Out Final Nike/USL HSB Top 25
By mschneider - Tuesday Jun 20, 2017
- 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
- Growbots raises $2.5M for its machine learning-based sales automation platform
By Frederic Lardinois - Wednesday Jun 21, 2017
Growbots uses machine learning to provide sales teams with the right leads to kickstart their outbound sales process. The service, which argues that its product can save each member of a sales team a few days of work every month, today announced that it has raised a $2.5 million funding round from Buran VC, Lighter Capital and a number of angel investors. This brings the company’s… Read More
- Fleet management tracking provider Samsara raises $40M
By Matthew Lynley - Wednesday Jun 21, 2017
Rapid changes in the shipping industry has caught the attention of investors who are starting to pour large sums of money into the industry. And likely for good reason: as a future where trucks are run autonomously becomes ever clearer, the sensors and software behind that is going to have to be able to keep up. One company, Samsara, is working on just those kinds of sensors and products to… Read More
- Kik CEO explains why they’re doing an ICO instead of venture fundraising
By Katie Roof - Tuesday Jun 20, 2017
Ted Livingston, CEO of messaging app Kik, spoke on stage at TechCrunch’s event in Shenzhen, China on Tuesday. Moderator Jon Russell asked him about why the company is doing an initial coin offering (ICO), a newly popularized method of fundraising.It’s”a way to raise funding” and “a way to get money into the company,” he said about the ICO. Read More
- Are You Having Too Many Fundraising Events?
By Gail Perry - Friday Jun 9, 2017
Are you having too many fundraising events?
Love ‘em’ or hate ‘em, fundraising events are a fact of life for most nonprofits.
Here’s the challenge: Fundraising events are our most inefficient way of raising money.
In general, when you consider the true cost of events - many fundraising professionals feel they are not worth it.
Here’s a well-known chart of “cost per dollar raised” for various fundraising strategies. It compares the efficiency of events versus direct mail versus major gifts.
Cost Per Dollar Raised
How much does it cost you to raise a dollar?
(Data comes from James M. Greenfield.)
When you consider fundraising strategies, there are clearly many other much more efficient and profitable ways to raise money.
Let's educate the board and leadership about the true cost of too many fundraising events.
Often board members and volunteers are not familiar with the financial model of event fundraising.
They don't realize fundraising events take up so very much staff time.
Events pull valuable fundraising staffers away from other, far more productive and profitable strategies.
So devoting too much time to events means that you are not deploying your staff resources at their highest and best use.
Every minute a staffer spends on events means that they are not able to call on major donors - where the money really is.
Board members and other leaders are often unfamiliar with -- or personally uncomfortable with -- the other fundraising strategies at our disposal.
Particularly major gifts when we are face to face with donors.
That’s probably why board members too often zero in on EVENTS as the life-saving panacea for fundraising.
Events may be the only thing in their sphere of reference. Or it's their personal preference.
Create an honest conversation with board members:
When is the best time to have a calm and rational conversation about what's working and what's not working?
It's when you're creating your Fundraising Plan for the year.
It's a great time to discuss the smartest ways to raise the money your mission needs. It's a time to suggest that we cut back on events.
That's why I created my Highly Profitable Fundraising Plan Toolkit, - to create a format to plan out the fundraising strategies that are best for your organization.
I included a video module called "The Board Member's Guide to Fundraising Planning," where I discuss the consequences of having too many fundraising events.
The Toolkit can help you put together a plan to maximize staff time and resources, and max out your fundraising potential.
Here are 3 reasons you should DITCH your next event:
1. Events are not very efficient fundraising strategies.
As I've mentioned, the return on investment you get from an event is far less than other fundraising options.
Looking at the chart above, compare the costs of raising money with an event that to a mailing campaign like the annual fund – the cost per dollar raised is only $.25-.30 cents on the dollar.
And the most efficient way to raise money of all is major gifts - when you are developing personal relationships with major donors.
That’s only $.05 -.10 on the dollar.
2. Too many fundraising events wear out your volunteers and staff.
The last thing your hard-working staff needs is another event.
Just consider - many fundraising staffers are working really long hours for not a lot of pay.
They DO want to raise lots of gifts and contributions for your cause. But why ask them to spend so much energy on strategies that have such a low return?
That's when they feel like their time is wasted - when it could be spent so much more productively.
And consider your organization's wonderful, dedicated volunteers. How hard do events work your volunteers?
Let's not run your lovely volunteers ragged either. Or they will abandon you.
3. You can raise more money with one annual event than with 3, 4 or 5 events.
Why? The real money from an event typically comes from sponsorships.
And it takes months to organize a great sponsorship campaign.
You need time to develop sponsorship materials, identify prospects, organize a committee and make the asks.
Then you need the lead time to close the gifts and get the correct names on the invitation.
By having too many events, you never have time to really max out your sponsorship potential. You simply don't have the lead time.
But if you only have one event - then you can focus all your efforts on smart sponsorship fundraising -and really bring in some serious sponsorship funding.
Five benefits of only staging one major event a year:
1.Your volunteers can focus and go all out in spreading the word and generating attendance, because they are only going to work on one a year.
2. You can have the lead time you need to identify, cultivate, and ask sponsors. And, as I noted, that’s where the money is.
3.. You’ll have greater attendance and attention from your supporters.
4. You’ll be able to raise more money overall because the staff now has time to focus on other, more productive and more efficient fundraising strategies.
5. You’ll have a happier and more productive staff.
Bottom Line - Too Many Fundraising Events?
Are YOU having too many fundraising events? At what cost?
Leave a comment and let us know!
- This Morning with Gordon Deal March 27, 2017
By firstname.lastname@example.org (Compass Media Networks) - Monday Mar 27, 2017
Republicans turn to Democrats after health bill failure, what happens to the ACA now and Double amputee, Marine veteran sworn-in as N.Y. police officer.
- Paid Search And Social Ad Spend Continues Y-O-Y Double Digit Growth
Friday May 5, 2017
Social ad spending increased 41% year-over-year supported by substantial (153%) growth in video ads, and Dynamic Product Ad (202%) spending. Increased spending on mobile ads (45%) resulted in a 10%rise in total search spend YoY.