Burnley have announced that midfielder Jeff Hendrick has signed a contract extension to stay at Turf Moor until the summer of 2020.Hendrick has made 91 appearances and scored five goals since joining Burnley from Derby County in August 2016.The 26-year-old started 29 Premier League games last season to help Burnley finish seventh in the Premier League and qualify for Europa League.The Ireland international is known as versatile midfield man and has been deployed centrally and in a more attacking role this season.His current deal was due to expire at the end of the season, but the club has today exercised their option to extend his stay by 12 months.Match Preview: Burnley vs Liverpool Boro Tanchev – August 30, 2019 Premier League leaders Liverpool travel to Burnley for the Matchday 4 of the 2019-20 Premier League campaign.LATEST: Clarets Extend Hendrick Stay https://t.co/Cw6rxRxjB5— Burnley FC (@BurnleyOfficial) December 20, 2018“He’s done well for us,” Burnley manager Sean Dyche told the club’s website.“We have asked a lot of him. We have used him in a number of different positions that sometimes aren’t natural to him and over time he has delivered good performances for us.”
WILMINGTON, MA — Here are highlights from the Wilmington Police Log for Saturday, August 18, 2018:Police dragged a large tree branch blocking the roadway on Taplin Avenue and contacted DPW. (10:19am)Vehicle spun out on 93 South, before Exit 39. Vehicle in tree line. State Police to handle. (11:48am)A detail officer reported a paving truck pulled down old telephone lines on Ballardvale Street. (2:41pm)A resident on Adams Street reported 15-20 teens were congregated in the high school parking lot. Police responded. Teens were marching band students. (8:56pm)A train was blocking Route 62 at North Wilmington station. (10:39pm)(DISCLAIMER: This information is public information. An arrest does not constitute a conviction. Any arrested person is innocent until proven guilty.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip?Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedPOLICE LOG for August 11: Incidents Not What They Seem; Marijuana Confiscated From Vehicle; Missing Woman FoundIn “Police Log”POLICE LOG for August 14: Missing Teen Located; Trash Left Behind At Yentile FarmIn “Police Log”POLICE LOG for August 23: Break-Ins on Ballardvale Street; Ride-On Lawn Mower vs. Parked Car; Erratic DriverIn “Police Log”
Apple, which initially filed suit against Qualcomm in January 2017, argued that it essentially pays Qualcomm twice, first by purchasing processors and then by paying royalty fees. The tech giant said it should pay fees based only on the cost of the wireless chip inside its iPhones. Apple partners Foxconn and Pegatron, which assemble its devices, agree and have joined the lawsuit. Qualcomm countered that it isn’t a monopoly and said its technology is more than modems so it should be compensated based on the selling price of the phone itself.”In the summer of 2016, Qualcomm went too far,” Cordell said during Tuesday’s opening arguments. “Apple was asked questions by the government. Apple answered the questions, and that enraged Qualcomm.” Then Apple “had the audacity to buy products” from another company, which also “enraged Qualcomm,” he said. At stake in the case are tens of billions of dollars. Apple’s manufacturing partners want a refund of $9 billion for allegedly overpaying royalties since 2013. Under antitrust law, that amount could be tripled. Qualcomm wants damages of its own for breach of contract, though it hasn’t detailed the amount. An even bigger concern for Qualcomm: whether it will have to change its entire business model, collecting far lower royalties based on the price of its chips, not the phones they’re in.The contract manufacturers paid Qualcomm $31 billion for chips from 2010 to 2016 and overpaid $7 billion to $9 billion, Richard Doren of Gibson Dunn said Tuesday during opening arguments on behalf of Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron and Compal. The overpayment is what could have been tripled under antitrust law. “Why didn’t the contract manufacturers step up?” Doren said. “The reality is they didn’t dare. They are literally between a rock and a hard place” — between their customers and Qualcomm demands. “It’s a delicate and difficult balance. But if you don’t maintain it, you will not survive, and so they stayed quiet,” he said. For consumers, the battle could have resulted in iPhone connectivity speeds that can’t match up to those of Android devices. Apple’s current modem supplier, Intel, doesn’t yet have a 5G chip ready. Qualcomm is the only option for handset makers that want to tap into the ultrafast wireless network this year. We may not see a 5G iPhone until 2020 or even 2021. And if Qualcomm and Apple didn’t resolve their problems, it was unlikely Apple would have Qualcomm modems in its iPhones again anytime soon. Originally published at 10:39 a.m. PTUpdate at 11:11 a.m.: Adds comments from contract manufacturers’ attorneyUpdate at 3:45 p.m.: Adds details about Qualcomm opening argument and settlement. Apple, Qualcomm go head-to-head — with billions at stake • Now playing: Watch this: Apple 4 Aug 31 • iPhone 11, Apple Watch 5 and more: The final rumors Apple and Qualcomm settle licensing dispute amid trial’s opening arguments Apple v. Qualcomm jury includes pilot, former MLB pitcher, retired nurse Apple, Qualcomm head into latest legal battle, with billions at stake What the Apple-Qualcomm battle means for your next iPhone Qualcomm can’t get back the billions it paid Apple, judge rules Cordell noted that 20% of mobile standard essentials patents come from Qualcomm, while 40% come from Ericsson, Nokia, LG, Huawei and InterDigital combined. Those companies together get paid royalties of $3.34 per iPhone, he said. Qualcomm demands $13, Cordell said. “Does that make any sense?” Cordell says. “Is that fair and reasonable?”While Cordell said Qualcomm asked for royalties of $13 per iPhone, Apple testimony during an FTC trial against Qualcomm in January revealed that discounts lowered the Qualcomm licensing fee to $7.50 per iPhone. During the trial, Apple said it should pay only $1.50 per device, a 5% fee for the cost of each $30 modem used in an iPhone. Chesler, meanwhile, argued that Apple’s contract manufacturers were fine with its licensing terms for about 20 years before Apple instructed them to stop payments to Qualcomm.”After all that time, almost 20 years, in April of 2017, all four of the contract manufacturers stopped paying anything for our technology,” he said. At the end of 2018, they owed Qualcomm about $8 billion. “In fact, they have not paid us a dime in the two years since then. Literally billions of dollars.”He noted that because of the battle, Qualcomm’s “stock has plummeted. People have been laid off. Research and development to develop new technology have been canceled.”Duking it outApple has long made the processors that act as the brains of its iPhones, but the company has relied on Qualcomm’s modems to connect its devices to cell networks. From the iPhone 4S in 2011 to the iPhone X in 2017, Qualcomm was the sole provider of 4G chips that helped Apple’s devices access Verizon, AT&T and other wireless services.Qualcomm is the world’s biggest provider of mobile chips, and it created technology that’s essential for connecting phones to cellular networks. The company derives a significant portion of its revenue from licensing those inventions to more than 300 device makers, mostly handset companies. Some patent holders license their intellectual property on an individual basis; Qualcomm licenses all its patents as a group. For a set fee, a device maker gets to use all of Qualcomm’s technology.Because Qualcomm owns patents related to 3G, 4G and 5G phones — as well as other features like software — any handset makers building a device that connects to a network must pay it a licensing fee, even if they don’t use Qualcomm’s chips. Apple licenses Qualcomm’s technology through its manufacturers, like Foxconn, rather than purchasing a license of its own. See also See All Qualcomm 4G LTE Foxconn Apple 3:14 Tags Aug 31 • Your phone screen is gross. Here’s how to clean it Phones Components Tech Industry Qualcomm’s no license, no chips policy — in which it wouldn’t provide processors to a phone maker until the company signed a licensing agreement — meant it effectively charged Apple twice for its patents, said Ruffin Cordell, an attorney with Fish & Richardson who’s representing Apple.”No license, no chips allows them to double dip,” he said during opening arguments. “They get paid twice for the same product. … The other thing it does is allow them to charge patent royalties that are far in excess of that fair and reasonable level.”Qualcomm’s lawyer, meanwhile, argued during his opening statement that the chipmaker was the one harmed in the situation and that it commanded higher royalty fees because its technology was more valuable than its peers.”The reason they pay us more is because what we created is worth more,” said Evan Chesler of the firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore.Monday marked the start of the five-week, $27 billion trial that was expected to determine whether Qualcomm operates a smartphone modem chip monopoly that charges too much in licensing fees. The jury trial was being argued before US District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of California in San Diego. The outcome could’ve affected what wireless networks your phone taps into. But Qualcomm attorney Chesler hadn’t yet finished his opening arguments when news broke that the two companies had reached a settlement. (Check out our full report on that here.)Licensing spatQualcomm engaged in four anticompetitive acts, Cordell said Tuesday. It had a policy of not licensing patents to competitors, which he said broke Qualcomm’s vow to the standards body. Qualcomm’s no license, no chips strategy made customers pay twice, Cordell said, while its exclusivity agreements locked out competition. Qualcomm’s agreements with companies also included obstruction/gag clauses that reinforced Qualcomm’s “illegal scheme.””This case is about the fact that Qualcomm has used its monopoly … to set unfair prices and stifle competition and dictate terms to some of the biggest, most powerful companies in the world, that rational companies would never agree to in a million years,” Cordell said. From 2010 to 2016, the iPhone maker paid Qualcomm $16.1 billion for chips and $7.23 billion for licensing fees. But the amount should have been much lower, Apple said. No license, no chips allows them to double dip. Ruffin Cordell, an attorney with Fish & Richardson who’s representing Apple Share your voice Aug 31 • Best places to sell your used electronics in 2019 Comments reading • Apple, Qualcomm make opening arguments just before settlement is unveiled Aug 31 • iPhone XR vs. iPhone 8 Plus: Which iPhone should you buy? Lawyers for Apple, its contract manufacturers and Qualcomm made their pitches Tuesday morning to a jury about why their side was right in the licensing dispute. But before the opening arguments even finished, the parties had reached a settlement. So marked the end of a battle that had the potential to change the mobile industry. Apple had accused Qualcomm of anticompetitive practices that have raised chip prices, restricted competition and hurt customer choice. Qualcomm had countered that Apple’s iPhone wouldn’t be possible without its technology, and it deserved to be paid for its innovation. Apple and its contract manufacturers have paid Qualcomm billions of dollars for chips and licensing, but the bill should have been much lower, their attorneys said Tuesday in opening arguments at the trial that was to determine the future of Qualcomm’s licensing business.
IBTimes VideoRelated VideosMore videos Play VideoPauseMute0:01/2:25Loaded: 0%0:01Progress: 0%Stream TypeLIVE-2:24?Playback Rate1xChaptersChaptersDescriptionsdescriptions off, selectedSubtitlessubtitles settings, opens subtitles settings dialogsubtitles off, selectedAudio Trackdefault, selectedFullscreenThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window. COPY LINKAD Loading … Representative ImageReutersUS President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 was to spite his predecessor Barack Obama, according to a leaked memo written by the UK ambassador to the United States.Kim Darroch claimed that Trump was guilty of “diplomatic vandalism” and abandoned the Iran deal due to “personality reasons” and hostility with Obama, reported Daily Mail citing the cache of leaked documents.Darroch also said that the former UK foreign minister, Boris Johnson, had appealed to the Trump administration last year to reconsider backing out of the international nuclear deal with Iran.The leaked papers revealed that the decision to abandon the crucial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) also called the Iran nuclear deal, was disputed among the officials. Darroch also claimed that the White House did not have a “day-to-day” strategy regarding the aftermath of the withdrawal from the deal. Close Is Trump Destroying Obamas Foreign Policy Legacy? Darroch’s confidential memo, reported by Daily Mail last week, also contained the UK ambassador referring to the Trump administration as “clumsy and inept.”Trump slammed Darroch as “a very stupid guy” on Tuesday and said the White House would no longer deal with the UK ambassador. Darroch submitted his resignation a day later.The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was…— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2019The decision to step down was also due to Boris Johnson’s, the Tory frontrunner to become the next Prime Minister of UK, failure to support Darroch during Tuesday night’s leadership debate, a British official told CNN.A criminal investigation for the leaked documents was opened by the UK police. Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said the leaks caused damages to the UK’s bilateral relations with the US.FREEDOM OF PRESSNeil Basu’s claimed the leak as a criminal matter which is “the clear public interest in bringing the person or people responsible to justice.” Warnings issued by the UK police to journalists for facing prosecution if further leaks get published is said to have sparked furore over limiting press freedom.Such prosecution of journalists “would amount to an infringement on press freedom and have a chilling effect on public debate,” countered Boris Johnson on Saturday.Jeremy Hunt also criticised that UK police’s decision to curb press freedom and said he defends “to the hilt” the right to press freedom.These leaks damaged UK/US relations & cost a loyal ambassador his job so the person responsible MUST be held fully to account. But I defend to the hilt the right of the press to publish those leaks if they receive them & judge them to be in the public interest: that is their job— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 13, 2019The Director of Society of Editors, Ian Murray said that such cutbacks on press freedom give rise to totalitarianism, “I cannot think of a worse example of a heavy-handed approach by the police to attempt to curtail the role of the media as a defence against the powerful and those in authority,” reported The Guardian.However, former Defence Secretary Michael Fallon defended the Met police’s decision and said that curbing the publication of such confidential information violates the Official Secrets Act.”As soon as we find who did it, we should have them investigated and prosecuted,” Fallon said on BBC Radio. “We have press freedom … but we also have laws. We have the Official Secrets Act and it is important that law is upheld,” he added.
While Houston Matters continues to keep a close watch on Harvey as it reaches the coast, we’re also aware there were other developments in the news this week. As usual, we turn to our rotating panel of “non-experts” to parse The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of it all.So, if you need a break from Harvey, listen in as Mary Flood, a blogger and consultant for Androvett Legal Media and Marketing, Charles Kuffner, author of the Off the Kuff political blog, and Marco Roberts, president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston, discuss a federal judge issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the City of Houston from enforcing an ordinance that bans homeless camps in public places, and a school turning away a 4-year-old boy whose mother won’t cut his hair. Share
Travelweek Group Tags: Contests, Royal Caribbean International, TravelBrands Play TravelBrands’ Tic-Tac-Know to win a Royal Caribbean cruise Share Posted by MISSISSAUGA — Game on! TravelBrands is once again inviting travel agents to play its popular Tic-Tac-Know game, running from now until Sept. 8.Agents who book and guarantee any Royal Caribbean cruise will be eligible to play. All eligible players will be entered to win up to 10,000 Loyalty Rewards Points plus a chance to win the grand prize of a Royal Caribbean Cruise for two.“The response we had to our first Tic-Tac-Know game in July was fantastic,” said Nathalie Tanious, Vice President, Cruise Division, TravelBrands. “We decided to bring this game back by showcasing the great product Royal Caribbean has to offer, and to make the prizing bigger than before as a thank you to our loyal agents.”Qualifying agents will be entered into the Grand Prize draw to win a six to eight-night cruise for two with Royal Caribbean Cruise Line. The lucky winner will get to choose their cruise destination out of the following destinations: Caribbean, Bermuda, Canada & New England, Alaska and Europe. The Grand Prize Winner will be announced by the end of September.More news: Marriott Int’l announces 5 new all-inclusive resorts in D.R. & MexicoIn order to be qualified, the agent must book any Royal Caribbean Cruise Line product with a minimum net booking value of $500 before taxes and fees. When a qualified booking is made, the agent will receive an email seven days later inviting them to take part in the game.Agents must be registered with and book through travelbrandsaccess.com. They can also book via phone to be entered. << Previous PostNext Post >> Thursday, August 17, 2017