seen this before?

[Bob]

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?b...atid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=1&ck=&ch=ne

court is being consistent with binky ruling.

 

[Frank Olson]

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?b...atid=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.

 

[Bob]

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.

 

[Crash Gordon]

'tis interesting indeed, the difference is that Binky doesn't sell "their"
alarm panels.



--
**Crash Gordon**

 

[Frank Olson]

'tis interesting indeed, the difference is that Binky doesn't sell "their"
alarm panels.

The problem is that Brinks *does* sell "their" alarm panels.

 

[Bob]

really? is this another bassism?