Re: seen this before?

[Bob <sp@xxxxxx>]

Frank Olson wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=7434&eeid=5981891&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne
>>
>>
>> court is being consistent with binky ruling.
>
>
> I see that happening with the "little guy", but it appears that at least
> one company has argued (the story doesn't state "successfully") that the
> software in the phones is not the property of a particular provider. I'd
> be more interested in hearing the results of *that* particular
> argument.  It would blow "Binky" out of the water because they do *not*
> manufacture their own panels.

that will be veerryy interesting.