Re: seen this before?

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.