And yet both companies' business strategies are primarily known for those things
I don't think they are and really, it's the thing I'm asking you to defend which I don't think you can do very well by just repeating it.
As to the other thing, ok, Apple was involved in a lawsuit? Lots of big companies are involved in lawsuits. What you are saying is that Apple and Oracle's business strategies are marketing and suing people and that they are known for this. That doesn't sound right at all.
> What you are saying is that Apple and Oracle's business strategies are marketing and suing people and that they are known for this. That doesn't sound right at all.
The reason I repeated what I said is that you keep repeating what I said incorrectly, even after I emphasized the part that you left out. The key phrase is relative to R&D.
> As to the other thing, ok, Apple was involved in a lawsuit?
Is that what you got out of it? The (maybe too subtle) point is that Apple is so quick to litigate that it even threatened to bring lawsuits against another company for not participating in its illegal wage suppression agreement. Jobs would rather spend money on lawyers than on poaching engineers away from competitors or paying his own engineers enough to stay.
Again, lots of big companies are litigious. The salary-fixing thing involved a veritable who-is-who of big SV companies. Good thing? No. But Apple doesn't stand out more or less than the rest with its badness. Your claim isn't that Apple did some lame thing but that Apple and Oracle make that bad thing a central part of their business strategy.
I don't think they are and really, it's the thing I'm asking you to defend which I don't think you can do very well by just repeating it.
As to the other thing, ok, Apple was involved in a lawsuit? Lots of big companies are involved in lawsuits. What you are saying is that Apple and Oracle's business strategies are marketing and suing people and that they are known for this. That doesn't sound right at all.