or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform - Page 3

post #81 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So why did Apple cave?

Apple has no case against Android because Android was inspired by iOS and not copied. It is totally legal to be inspired but it's illegal to copy. When Apple sued Samsung it was because they have "slavishly copied Apple's technology".

So Google has also done everything it can to tiptoe around Apple's unique UI, they have even warned Samsung to not copy Apple's UI. Google can only be sued on very specific patents, the only danger for Android at the moment is if the multi-touch patent holds out.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #82 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


So is it Amazon to be blamed for asking for one or the USPTO for doing so? If the patent office actually does their job properly then claims in Amazon's filing are unique and inventive enough to qualify, Big if. . .

The USPTO's many failures to do its job are the major reason for the push behind patent reform. But, really -- why did Amazon spend so much time and money patenting a technique that has been in use by so many for so long? The USPTO would not have so many failures if companies like Amazon did not file frivolous patents. One wonders if Amazon web sites like Digital Photography Review will now start sending demand letters to photographers who use white backgrounds. I doubt it, but that is the trouble with this system. Some patent troll might acquire the patent and start doing just that, costing everybody a lot of time and money to fight it.

post #83 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I prefer war over peace.

I also think that most people who comment on the internet about patent cases and come with the cliched comment and talking point that the whole patent system needs to be reformed, what they really mean is that it should be made even easier for everybody to steal from Apple, as those people don't really view many of Apple's patents as being valid.

No, such people want the patent system to make sense and do what it originally was established to do, not be a game playing tool for the super rich corporations to hold over the heads of new businesses and be a barrier to entry for new entities and products. Such people also want the system to protect the inventor, not create money making schemes for trolls and other non-inventing entities that happened to accumulate ownership of a pile of patents they don't use for anything but lawsuits and strong arm tactics.

Basically, the system is horribly broken and the only reason you could have to disagree is that you're somehow benefitting from the way the system has been perverted (by computer industry lobbyists), or you are not fully educated as to the reality of what is going on today in patent-land.

"Land of the free" is a misnomer.
post #84 of 136
I suspect that both companies realized that a lot of self-incriminating evidence would come out, detailing their abuse of not only each other's property but also the legal system and patent law itself... which might encourage a more popular movement toward truly reforming it... and of course much money would be consumed and business secrets revealed fighting each other in the open legal system, and have decided to find a way to collude. This way they can keep all the facts hidden about why the USA needs a critical and drastic reform of patent law in the first place (which Apple and Google would not benefit from financially). This is basically a "don't worry about the law; we will take care of everything", with full intent on maintaining the broken system they screwed up for their own benefit.
post #85 of 136
The USPTO originally rejected software patents. They were forced to accept them by political pressure and lobbying from the computer industry. Don't blame a department for being ruined by the overlying political games of those in power above them.
post #86 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


So why did Apple cave?

In more than 50 months of "holy war"patent infringement lawsuits against Android device makers, Apple has not proved its ownership of any feature (in terms of a feature that end users would define as a feature, as opposed to secondary aspects of features) other than rubberbanding. The overscroll bounceback is the only recognizable feature that had to be removed from Android devices as a result of Apple's lawsuits. Google and its device maker partners have been able to work around Apple's patents in ways that don't materially adversely affect demand.

 

Apart from the limited strength of Apple's portfolio, there is another reason for which Apple would only have wasted time and money by further pursuing the Motorola lawsuis. Google recently entered into an agreement under which Lenovo acquired Motorola Mobility's handset business. Even if Apple had won something against Motorola in the future (for example, a Florida trial was scheduled to take place later this year), it would not have had direct impact on Google's business. By contrast, Google could have continued to use Motorola Mobility's patents against Apple, but those turned out too weak anyway.

 
At first sight one would assume that this Apple-Google agreement makes a near-term Apple-Samsung settlement much more likely, but this depends on whether Apple's decision-makers have fully realized just how non-thermonuclear their patent portfolio is. If the decision to dismiss all Google lawsuits was primarily driven by Google's Lenovo deal, then Apple may still have unrealistic expectations with respect to the terms of a settlement with Samsung. Apple's 2012 settlement with HTC, which unlike the Google agreement did involve a cross-license (for ten years, in fact), was apparently also driven by the fact that HTC was no longer a priority target, and that settlement changed nothing about Apple's Android-related lawsuits against Samsung and Motorola. If Apple now just decided that Lenovo wasn't worth suing, then this may mean even more of a focus on Samsung -- but it's reasonably optimistic that Apple is smart enough to know that Steve Jobs was wrong when he thought he could destroy Android with patents.
post #87 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
Do people even read anymore? 

Doesn't seem like it, does it?

Quote:
The word 'if' clearly indicates that I know that there isn't a cross license.

Yet you still posted...

 

Quote:

just because they were unable to agree on that at this moment in time.

Where did you read they were unable to come to an agreement about this?

Was it even discussed by either side? I doubt it but the article doesn't say.

It simply states, "there would be no cross-licensing agreements between the to companies," 

post #88 of 136
Isn't this the case where posner was sent back to repeat a grade,
totally re-opening Apples case to move forward (no sep plz)?

Hasn't giggle sold this company already?

Who would buy a company so encumbered?

I am thinking giggle wanted to settle more than Apple.

I am thinking Apple got something they wanted in the agreement,
maybe brin comes to wash cooks self driving car ; )
post #89 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Maybe Apple has something pretty revolutionary in the lab and doesn't feel the costs justify protecting 'old' technology. Some kind of cost/benefit analysis was done and I, too, wonder what they're thinking.

This "cease fire" is not a guarantee against future legal actions.

IMO, for Apple to win going forward they must offer luxury product that is essentially not reproducible in smaller volumes or because it requires extremely costly and proprietary technology to manufacture... and they certainly seem to be going in that direction with the fingerprint reader and the sapphire coating.

It will soon result in visibly superior products that cannot be cheaply copied by any company.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #90 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

You're projecting your extremist views onto others.  Most Google fans (myself included) don't hate Apple or their products.  Just like most Apple fans don't hate Google or their products.  It's actually a small, vocal minority of people that fall into those extreme categories.

So you think "most Google fans" are misrepresented by this so-called "vocal minority"? Do I see "most Google fans" arguing against the "vocal minority"? Or do I see "most Google fans" clicking the "Like" button on their posts?

Most (let's call them moderate) Google fans aren't astroturfing here. They're enjoying their own communities. Google fans who are here aren't here for that reason. They're here because Apple fans are wrong on the Internet 1wink.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #91 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Doesn't seem like it, does it?
Where did you read they were unable to come to an agreement about this?
Was it even discussed by either side? I doubt it but the article doesn't say.
It simply states, "there would be no cross-licensing agreements between the to companies," 
It says the agreement doesn't include a cross license. I'm not implying that it has been talked about, all I'm saying is there is no agreement on it at this moment in time. Which is factually correct. Granted I might not have expressed this clearly (the use of 'unable to agree' was a mistake on my part). But had no intentions of insinuating that there were talks about it just that there isn't an agreement on that at this moment in time.
Edited by Chipsy - 5/17/14 at 10:39am
post #92 of 136

   The Lawyer Bill for the Apple-Samsung trail just arrived.

Apple realizes it is to big.  And the courts will continue keeping the amount owed to Apple small.

  It would be even harder to collect from Google.

post #93 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

   The Lawyer Bill for the Apple-Samsung trail just arrived.
Apple realizes it is to big.  And the courts will continue keeping the amount owed to Apple small.
  It would be even harder to collect from Google.

Oracle Bill is coming
to make andude really open.

Giggle's gonna want
all the friends money can buy.
post #94 of 136

This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freely spends. Five billion dollars maybe?


Edited by city - 5/17/14 at 11:19am
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #95 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post
 

This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freeing spends. Five billion dollars maybe?


10c perhaps /s

post #96 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

This is possibly a matter of Google just paying Apple an amount greater then Apple expected to win in court. The courts don't seem to be banning infringing products and Google freeing spends. Five billion dollars maybe?

Apple don need no stinkin billions.

How about the HTC special
no copykat in the new chrome book fone.

Just like android only better.
post #97 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

The USPTO originally rejected software patents. They were forced to accept them by political pressure and lobbying from the computer industry. Don't blame a department for being ruined by the overlying political games of those in power above them.

What would be the logic for disallowing patents for software, as opposed to hardware? In what fundamental ways is the intellectual property qualitatively different?
post #98 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What would be the logic for disallowing patents for software, as opposed to hardware? In what fundamental ways is the intellectual property qualitatively different?

HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #99 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's.

I find that argument to be as persuasive as saying that all hardware can be reduced to atoms and molecules.
post #100 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I find that argument to be as persuasive as saying that all hardware can be reduced to atoms and molecules.

That's perfectly fine, because at the end SW is inherently different from HW so it shouldn't be defined exactly the same way, just we don't define published works as patents. SW shares elements from both so I think its rules needs to borrow from each and to have its own category.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #101 of 136
Well, it was about time.
post #102 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

The first patent (the one about routing calls between mobile and voip networks) seems to concern the same functionality that the new Republic Wireless carrier claims to have implemented in-house (http://www.lightreading.com/mobile/carrier-wifi/republic-wireless-revamps-its-wifi-handoff/d/d-id/706570).

 

If you'll note the Apple patent, it directly sources the Nortel patents going back to 1997 and Apple also notes Sprint's patent.

 

I'll wager you won't ever see Sprint attempting to claim infringement, what with Apple holding the Nortel patents.

post #103 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


So you think "most Google fans" are misrepresented by this so-called "vocal minority"? Do I see "most Google fans" arguing against the "vocal minority"? Or do I see "most Google fans" clicking the "Like" button on their posts?

Most (let's call them moderate) Google fans aren't astroturfing here. They're enjoying their own communities. Google fans who are here aren't here for that reason. They're here because Apple fans are wrong on the Internet 1wink.gif

 

1) Yes, very much so.

2) I have no idea what you see, but I do suspect that you're trying to apply what you see from a vocal minority to a majority.

3) See #3

 

It looks like you're still projecting your own extremist views onto others.  One can be a fan of Google AND Apple at the same time.  Just look at lists which show the most popular iOS apps and you'll find one developer who consistenly rates among the most popular, Google.  It's very common for someone to use both and be satisfied.

"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
post #104 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


HW patents are more tangible. SW patents can be reduced to a series of 1's and 0's. Personally, I think SW patents need their own classification with it's own set of rules that falls somewhere between copyrights, since they are written, and patents, since it does have a specific function.

Say goodbye to all the "standards essential" mobile network patents.

 

All communications from a phone are just a series of 1's and 0's.

 

So now we've cleared that up, where are the incentives to push the boundaries?

 

Given that without patents anyone can take the work and use it for free.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #105 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Say goodbye to all the "standards essential" mobile network patents.

All communications from a phone are just a series of 1's and 0's.

So now we've cleared that up, where are the incentives to push the boundaries?

Given that anyone can take the work and use it for free.

Huh?! Can you explain how that would be the case? Rather, why would you not want any protection for innovative code?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #106 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Huh?! Can you explain how that would be the case?

What would be the point of licensing a way to send 1's and 0's over a network if they aren't patent protected?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #107 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

What would be the point of licensing a way to send 1's and 0's over a network if they aren't patent protected?

I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you against protecting networking communications? If so, why?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #108 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I still have no idea what you're getting at. Are you against protecting networking communications? If so, why?

 

Most of the standards essential patents are software patents.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #109 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Most of the standards essential patents are software patents.

OK. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. What does that have to do with anything I've said?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #110 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
That's perfectly fine, because at the end SW is inherently different from HW so it shouldn't be defined exactly the same way, just we don't define published works as patents. SW shares elements from both so I think its rules needs to borrow from each and to have its own category.

Below is a link to a rather lengthy article from the Oxford Press which basically supports your position. I think it should be required reading for anyone who wishes to enter the debate of software patents and whether they should be changed, abolished or left as is. The author makes some very logical arguments. Good reading.

 

http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/13/1543.full

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #111 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

I suspect that both companies realized that a lot of self-incriminating evidence would come out, detailing their abuse of not only each other's property but also the legal system and patent law itself... which might encourage a more popular movement toward truly reforming it... and of course much money would be consumed and business secrets revealed fighting each other in the open legal system, and have decided to find a way to collude. This way they can keep all the facts hidden about why the USA needs a critical and drastic reform of patent law in the first place (which Apple and Google would not benefit from financially). This is basically a "don't worry about the law; we will take care of everything", with full intent on maintaining the broken system they screwed up for their own benefit.

Not at all. I imagine that Apple took pity on Google, realising that they were going to blow them away in the coming years, and so they simply didn't need to pursue them in the courts.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #112 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

This "cease fire" is not a guarantee against future legal actions.

IMO, for Apple to win going forward they must offer luxury product that is essentially not reproducible in smaller volumes or because it requires extremely costly and proprietary technology to manufacture... and they certainly seem to be going in that direction with the fingerprint reader and the sapphire coating.

It will soon result in visibly superior products that cannot be cheaply copied by any company.

I just cam across this on Twitter. These are all the CNC bits required to produce an iPhone 5/5S case. In the end this will be Apple's differentiator that will be extremely difficult and/or costly to replicate. That's why I hope Apple doesn't heed the call to start making cheap phones that can be easily copied (see Xiaomi tablets that are a cheap imitation of the 5C).

https://mobile.twitter.com/jimgoetz/status/467453467720548352



I see Samsung being squeezed by Motorola and Chinese brands offering good enough Android phones at cheap prices. And I don't see what benefits Tizen will have to entice people away from Android.
post #113 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've never seen any evidence that Google was ever p'ed off at Apple. No threats, no bombastic statements, no saber-rattling of any kind. The worst I can recall is one Google presenter making a "draconian future" comment several years ago for which he was chastised by Google's owners IIRC. That's it. It's obvious from various emails revealed in court cases that Google has tried to appease Apple over the years. They've extended olive branches even when they should not have (ie hiring practices)

As for warning Samsung against "copying" they've done so. That came out in the first Apple/Samsung trial and I personally suspect it's not the only conversation the two have had on the subject. I think the major thing preventing this laying down of arms from happening sooner was Apple holding out on offering that olive branch in return. Hopefully these two companies can agree to fix any future problems between them too without resorting to (semi) public threats or court filings. .

Yes I know that Google had warned Samsung already... I was thinking diplomatically and Google giving a "final" warning.

As for Google being p'ed off at anyone: I can't imagine that they were happy with Apple's statements or lawsuits against them, and Mr. "Messer" Schmidt's trite statements/attacks against Apple were surely not because he was happy with the situation. Also I can't imagine they were happy being pulled into the court fray the way Samsung did in the latest court hearings... considering that Google had already offered behind closed doors to subsidize their costs.

As clearly as I can... it is my opinion that Google should cut Samsung loose from the Open Handset Alliance. Period.

However they decide to do it, the many and varied reasons are there... and even if it's only because Google can (and should!) would be reason enough.

Allow Samsung to become the pariah of the industry that they have worked so hard trying to be. They are uncontrollable, and by their own actions are not a team player, nor one that I think Google should be associated with... technically or criminally by association.

NOTE: I am not a Google hater as many are on AI, and I follow a number of really great Google devs daily on other forums. They almost all are huge Apple fans.

This "thermonuclear war" was not well thought out by a very emotional and parochial Steve Jobs..... which I absolutely understand and probably would have succumbed to myself. Still... the adults among us can certainly agree that it wasn't the wisest statement or strategy, and has indeed taken a certain amount of mental energy out of Apple trying to defend their founder's honor. Time for closure on this chapter, and to get back to creating strategic partnerships with companies that offer tech and services that integrate well with Apple products. Apple needs to believe in their ability (once again) that whatever the competition can bring to market, they can do it better! 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #114 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


Yes I know that Google had warned Samsung already... I was thinking diplomatically and Google giving a "final" warning.

As for Google being p'ed off at anyone: I can't imagine that they were happy with Apple's statements or lawsuits against them, and Mr. "Messer" Schmidt's trite statements/attacks against Apple were surely not because he was happy with the situation. Also I can't imagine they were happy being pulled into the court fray the way Samsung did in the latest court hearings... considering that Google had already offered behind closed doors to subsidize their costs.

As clearly as I can... it is my opinion that Google should cut Samsung loose from the Open Handset Alliance. Period.

However they decide to do it, the many and varied reasons are there... and even if it's only because Google can (and should!) would be reason enough.

Allow Samsung to become the pariah of the industry that they have worked so hard trying to be. They are uncontrollable, and by their own actions are not a team player, nor one that I think Google should be associated with... technically or criminally by association.

NOTE: I am not a Google hater as many are on AI, and I follow a number of really great Google devs daily on other forums. They almost all are huge Apple fans.

This "thermonuclear war" was not well thought out by a very emotional and parochial Steve Jobs..... which I absolutely understand and probably would have succumbed to myself. Still... the adults among us can certainly agree that it wasn't the wisest statement or strategy, and has indeed taken a certain amount of mental energy out of Apple trying to defend their founder's honor. Time for closure on this chapter, and to get back to creating strategic partnerships with companies that offer tech and services that integrate well with Apple products. Apple needs to believe in their ability (once again) that whatever the competition can bring to market, they can do it better! 1smoking.gif

 

59 cases.

 

2013.

 

59 times Apple was sued by patent trolls last year alone.

 

A strong legal team and investment in legal resources is essential for Apple.

 

Quit it with Samsung's "innovate don't litigate" brainwashing.

 

Apple has 64bit mobile devices, leading the market.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #115 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

59 cases.

2013.

59 times Apple was sued by patent trolls last year alone.

Here's the original report that ARS took the figures from. I don't think the 59 cases were all filed by patent trolls altho Apple did attract the most new patent infringement cases last year. Another little nugget: Both Apple and Motorola made it to the top 10 in the number of active 2013 patent claims where they were the plaintiff. (Page 8) The majority of Moto's probably just went away with the Apple/Google settlement as did a number of Apple's.

In any event it should be pretty clear that techs might see a need for changes in the patent system, supposedly an area where Apple and Google are going to work together. At the same time I'm pretty sure most techs don't want anything changed that would negate their own patent strategies. Should be interesting to see what they consider "balanced".
http://pages.lexmachina.com/rs/lexmachina/images/LexMachina-2013%20Patent%20Litigation%20Year%20in%20Review.pdf?aliId=339132
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #116 of 136

Finally they started thinking!  "First thing we do, fire all the lawyers."

post #117 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post
 

Waiting for Google and Comcast to combine and screw us all.

 

Nah, Comcast will get bought by Facebook.  And that will screw us all.

post #118 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

Certain terrorist groups are also known for wanting a peace treaty (whenever things are going badly for them), but it's merely a ploy to grant a temporary halt in fighting, so that they can regroup and continue on with their main goal, which is the opposite of peace.

 

So now you're comparing Google to a terrorist group?


AI, why do you let this fanboy idiot stick around? Embarrassment.

post #119 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious View Post
 

 

So now you're comparing Google to a terrorist group?


AI, why do you let this fanboy idiot stick around? Embarrassment.

 

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

 

Google portray themselves as fighting for freedom.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #120 of 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

Nah, Comcast will get bought by Facebook.  And that will screw us all.

How about DirectTV being bought by ATT?

...an that's a fact!

EDIT: It's now official if regulators agree and the $48.5B check clears.
http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_directv.html
Edited by Gatorguy - 5/18/14 at 3:09pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple and Google agree to drop all ongoing lawsuits, will work toward patent reform