Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Chargers departure could hit U-T where it hurts
It would be interesting to see how the Chargers/Raiders kept this under wraps for so long. Wouldn't there be public records of the land sale? I would have thought someone in the media or in the mayors office would have noticed.— February 21, 2015 5:44 a.m.
Chargers departure could hit U-T where it hurts
Yeah I would think if the Chargers bolt (bad pun intended) then either 1360 or 1090 (or both) would shut down.— February 21, 2015 5:42 a.m.
Chargers departure could hit U-T where it hurts
Judging from the complete state of panic the XTRA 1360 AM sports radio guys were in it seems people are taking the Chargers' Carson plans very seriously.— February 20, 2015 7:44 p.m.
South Korea is investigating Qualcomm
QCOM doesn't have a monopoly on any type of chip. QCOM does have a monopoly on certain wireless technologies because it has critical patents for many (if not all) of the 3G and 4G cell phone standards (CDMA in particular). So any cell phone made using those standards will result in QCOM royalties - with or without QCOM chips. I'm not really sure what exactly the dispute centers on - seems maybe China felt QCOM's licensing fees were unreasonable. "The NDRC’s main allegation was that Qualcomm had a “monopoly” on modems for cell phones, particularly those using the CDMA standard, and had “abused its dominant position,” presumably by overcharging on licensing fees." https://gigaom.com/2015/02/09/qualcomm-to-pay-975…— February 16, 2015 8:24 p.m.
South Korea is investigating Qualcomm
"When an anticompetitive merger is OK'd, there is usually a token subsidiary sale to appease critics. Best, Don Bauder" So apparently Albertson's bought Vons and for some reason they are changing many Albertsons' in San Diego to something called Haggen. I think that is an example of what you mean.— February 14, 2015 4:43 p.m.
South Korea is investigating Qualcomm
I sure don't understand the way anti-trust laws work in the U.S. They don't seem to work the way I would expect. I think most of the major sports leagues (AFL merge with NFL, ABA merge with NBA) exploit their monopolies to encourage taxpayers to provide generous benefits. As I understand it the argument has been made that there are several major sports leagues so each one isn't really a monopoly on all sports entertainment - but that seems like a pretty absurd argument to me. I also don't understand how Ticketmaster was able to win an antitrust suit from Pearl Jam after Ticketmaster had basically forced most venues to stay away from Pearl Jam which wanted to sell tickets independently of Ticketmaster. Certainly there have been mergers galore in the utilities and telecommunications areas.— February 14, 2015 4:40 p.m.
Holy Ram nation, Mr. Spanos
Thanks for the great reporting as always Don. Here's a couple of things I don't quite get - sorry if you've already covered this elsewhere and I'm being slow. 1. I thought that it was likely 2 teams would likely share any LA stadium - the Rams and either the Chargers or Raiders. Is that not true anymore? Will it only be 1 team in L.A. 2. Hypothetically, why couldn't the Spanos family get financing to build a stadium? If the Spanos net worth is roughly $1B and a new stadium would increase the value of the Chargers by at least $500M then shouldn't they easily be able to get financing for a new stadium? (Not that that would ever happen but in theory it would seem to me there shouldn't be any fundamental reason they couldn't get financing).— February 14, 2015 4:14 p.m.
San Diego attorneys pursue case against Dollar Rent A Car
Good advice. I've checked my auto insurance several times because the car rental sales clerk always do their best to scare the bejeesus out of me every time I decline coverage.— February 11, 2015 8:45 p.m.
San Diego attorneys pursue case against Dollar Rent A Car
Consumer electronics vendors play this game too. I don't ever get protection plans on Tv's, cell phones, etc. The purpose of insurance is to protect me from catastrophic expenses. I can afford to pay a $500 deductible if I crash a rental car. I can afford a new iPhone if I break mine. It would bum me out if I had an unexpected expense for something like this but it wouldn't break me. So I don't get insurance on these things. I can't afford to buy a new house if mine burns down. I can't afford a complicated surgery if I need it. I can't afford to pay for someone's medical bills if I seriously hurt them in a crash. That's what insurance is for.— February 11, 2015 6:10 p.m.
San Diego attorneys pursue case against Dollar Rent A Car
Just based on ballpark estimates I always assumed that the car rental itself is a loss leader for virtually any car rental company (at least assuming the customer does at least some shopping around for a decent rate). Although I don't have any proof it would seem to me that most of the time the rental agencies lose money on the car rentals themselves but they obviously make a huge profit margin on insurance, gas refils, gps rentals, etc.— February 11, 2015 6:03 p.m.