Good example. First off, since I'm unfamiliar with the nature of the patent, let's assume it is not an essential patent and subject to FRAND.
So, Apple is doing something that VirnetX says they have covered with a patent. We don't know that what VirnetX alleges is true or not, and Apple may or may not agree that VirnetX's patent is being infringed on. VirnetX may ask for an injunction and at that hearing Apple may testify that injunction relief is premature as it has not been legally determined that VirnetX's patent is indeed being infringed. It will take a trial to make that determination.
This rather like what happened in California with the Samsung vs Apple trial. It was not until AFTER Samsung lost that Apple could realistically ask for an injunction, and even then it was denied. If you recall, even during the trial it came out that Apple tried to work with Samsung to get payment for the patent disagreement, but Samsung refused the offer.
From what little I know of the VirnetX patent, I'm not sure VirnetX tried to negotiate a settlement prior to asking for an injunction. It may be possible they don't want monetary relief, and only wants Apple to not use their IP. If the latter, then it must be determined that VirnetX is in error or not and it will take a court case to settle the litigation. (Such as was done in the California Samsung vs Apple) So, lets not assume that "Apple is illegally using patented tech not licensed to them and continues to do so with no complete workaround." Sound right?
The patents were already found to be valid and Apple ruled guilty of infringement. That happened months ago.
To bring things up-to-date the court has now ruled Apple grossly misrepresented it's ability to work around VirnetX non-SEP patents to avoid higher value being placed on the IP by the judge in the original trial. Further he finds Apple to now be willfully infringing valid patents. Because of these issues the court has ordered a doubling of the royalties to be paid by Apple as a further penalty.
As for the injunction the court denied VirnetX request for now but they have filed an appeal. Do you think the court erred in not ordering infringing Apple products off the market in light of courtroom misrepresentations and willful infringement or is use of a couple of patents without permission not something worthy of a product ban?
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
There's the reality of the statement "My guess".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Yes it does, because you are the one that tried to make that point. Again, conjecture not backed up by facts.
The court has now ruled Apple grossly misrepresented it's ability to work around VirnetX non-SEP patents to avoid higher value being placed on the IP by the judge. Further he finds Apple to now be willfully infringing valid patents. Because of these issues the court has ordered a doubling of the royalties to be paid by Apple as a further penalty.
As for the injunction the court denied VirnetX request for now but they have filed an appeal. Do you think the court erred in not ordering infringing Apple products off the market in light of courtroom misrepresentations and willful infringement or is use of a couple of patents without permission not something worthy of a product ban?
Another good question. I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion may not hold water, but since Apple has not been able to effect a ban on out-of-date Samsung products that Samsung has openly admitted in court as infringing on Apple patents, it would seem that banning Apple products that are currently being manufactured as being too injurious a remedy. Apple could be asked to post a bond, as Samsung did in the case I mentioned before, and that would be a more reasonable remedy. Apple, by continuing to ship products into the U.S. is just racking up a bigger damage-payout; it is not harming VirnetX in the way Samsung's use of Apple's patents have. UNLESS, Apple believes the court made an error and Apple can realistically expect to prevail on appeal.
I have seen a lot of court cases end up in ways I wouldn't have expected, but my opinion is that an embargo at this point in the case seems to me to be premature and overly injurious, and likely to be overthrown on appeal.
There's the reality of the statement "My guess".
Yes it does, because you are the one that tried to make that point. Again, conjecture not backed up by facts.
There's a post just before yours using facts and not conjecture to pose that question of the appropriateness of injunction orders. You seem as tho you might have an opinion to share?
Another good question. I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion may not hold water, but since Apple has not been able to effect a ban on out-of-date Samsung products that Samsung has openly admitted in court as infringing on Apple patents, it would seem that banning Apple products that are currently being manufactured as being too injurious a remedy. Apple could be asked to post a bond, as Samsung did in the case I mentioned before, and that would be a more reasonable remedy. Apple, by continuing to ship products into the U.S. is just racking up a bigger damage-payout; it is not harming VirnetX in the way Samsung's use of Apple's patents have. UNLESS, Apple believes the court made an error and Apple can realistically expect to prevail on appeal.
I have seen a lot of court cases end up in ways I wouldn't have expected, but my opinion is that an embargo at this point in the case seems to me to be premature and overly injurious, and likely to be overthrown on appeal.
Thanks for your honest opinion Macky. No one else seemed up to offering theirs. Kudos to you for tackling an inconvenient question. 8-)
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lack of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.
Throwing things at the wall including Android which was originally developed for non-touch screen use to complete with BB OS?. Software life cycle takes a while for maturity. Without iOS/iPhone, Android would've been released for physical keyboard device and looked more like BB OS instead of what it is now...Also, Samsung would've been more Blackjack like (remember that phone?). I had a first touch-screen phone back then and it sucked: LG Vu.
Not sure if this has been posted, but excellent analysis of this (shitty) interview: So sad that almost every interview is a hit piece in disguse, with ignorance and lies sprinkled by the interviewer throughout:
One thing that guy didnt point out is the blatant misdirection/lie in this part:
Since Jobs died, Apple has hit a rough patch, at least by its ludicrously high standards. It has not had a break-out hit. There has been no Apple TV set to revolutionize home entertainment. No spiffy watch. (Yet.) The firm’s share price has slumped and it has lost its title of the world’s most valuable firm.Some speculate that, without Jobs, Apple has lost its golden touch. An acclaimed new book by the former Wall Street Journal technology writer Yukari Iwatani Kane dubs the company “the haunted empire.”
Apple's stock closed at $378.25 the day of Job's death. Today, it's $535. That's an increase of over 40%. So no- it hasn't slumped "since Jobs died". It's only down from it's peak, which was a year into Cook's tenure. A blatant lie in order to support the "Apple is doomed' narrative.
The second part of that statement is also blatantly false. Apple IS, today, the most valuable company on the planet in terms of market cap. It has been for almost a year. It was NOT when Steve Jobs was alive. This shit takes 2 min to fact check. Yet, the author wants us to believe the opposite- because he says so. So sad when this hack gets a chance to interview someone like Ive, they feel the need to stain the interview with such contempt of the facts, pushing their own agenda, and being deceitful to the readers.
To summarize- Apple's stock is 40% higher than the day Steve died.
It is now the most valuable company in the world, which it did not even approach the day Steve died.
Yet the quoted paragraph states the opposite? Disgusting journalism.
Not sure if this has been posted, but excellent analysis of this (shitty) interview: So sad that almost every interview is a hit piece in disguse, with ignorance and lies sprinkled by the interviewer throughout:
Apple was a media punching bag for so many years, it was actually stunning when they had a brief moment in the sun a couple of years back. Sure, there was still plenty of derision thrown their way (some subtle, some not so...) but it seemed the bad press was starting to stick to Microsoft instead.
Then Google came along with its "Don't Be Evil" baloney and its propeller hats and bright primary colors and they can do no wrong in the public eye, despite having a business model more arguably "evil" than competitors that had come before them. "Free gifts for all! But may we have a look around your house first?"
Apple is back in its place as scapegoat of the world's ills while the Google boys happily go about their creepy little schemes with nary a sideways glance from Big Media or Joe Q. Public.
Not sure if this has been posted, but excellent analysis of this (shitty) interview: So sad that almost every interview is a hit piece in disguse, with ignorance and lies sprinkled by the interviewer throughout:
One thing that guy didnt point out is the blatant misdirection/lie in this part:
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(119,119,119);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1px;border-right-color:rgb(119,119,119);border-right-style:solid;border-right-width:0px;color:rgb(238,238,238);margin:2em 2em 2em 1em;padding-left:1.25em;padding-right:.75em;">
<p style="margin-bottom:1.6em;">Since Jobs died, Apple has hit a rough patch, at least by its ludicrously high standards. It has not had a break-out hit. There has been no Apple TV set to revolutionize home entertainment. No spiffy watch. (Yet.) The firm’s share price has slumped and it has lost its title of the world’s most valuable firm.Some speculate that, without Jobs, Apple has lost its golden touch. An acclaimed new book by the former Wall Street Journal technology writer Yukari Iwatani Kane dubs the company “the haunted empire.”</p>
</blockquote>
Apple's stock closed at $378.25 the day of Job's death. Today, it's $535. That's an increase of over 40%. So no- it hasn't slumped "since Jobs died". It's only down from it's peak, which was a year into Cook's tenure. A blatant lie in order to support the "Apple is doomed' narrative.
The second part of that statement is also blatantly false. Apple IS, today, the most valuable company on the planet in terms of market cap. It has been for almost a year. It was NOT when Steve Jobs was alive. This shit takes 2 min to fact check. Yet, the author wants us to believe the opposite- because he says so. So sad when this hack gets a chance to interview someone like Ive, they feel the need to stain the interview with such contempt of the facts, pushing their own agenda, and being deceitful to the readers.
To summarize- Apple's stock is 40% higher than the day Steve died. It is now the most valuable company in the world, which it did not even approach the day Steve died.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Yet the quoted paragraph states the opposite? Disgusting journalism. </span>
There's a post just before yours using facts and not conjecture to pose that question of the appropriateness of injunction orders. You seem as tho you might have an opinion to share?
"Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)"
This was your response: Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possiblyinfringing on one or two?
This is the post you made that I was referring to. You were talking about Samsung, not anything else & now you seem to want to shift your response to a totally different matter.
"Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)"
This was your response: Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possiblyinfringing on one or two?
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);line-height:1.4em;">This is the post you made that I was referring to. You were talking about Samsung, not anything else & now you seem to want to shift your response to a </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);line-height:22px;">totally different matter.</span>
Sorry sir, I never restricted my comments to Samsung. Why would I? They certainly aren't the only company with patents besides Apple. That artificial limit came from another poster, and not in any way an answer to the post that prompted it.
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Which got this response: Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
So I'll ask you then: Why would it disprove my post if I don't know of an instance of Apple violating a Samsung patent? If it doesn't then why does it matter what the answer to that particular question was?
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
"Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them."
This is part of your conversation also.
Any reasonable person would be led to believe that was part of what you were saying. freediverx asked you a question that you didn't want to answer. You could have in a number of ways that proved your point but you didn't. Like I said conjecture. For the record I do believe that if one company uses another companies IP they should pay for licensing or whatever the damages are. Samsung knowingly infringed, it's pretty obvious. If Apple is found to infringe then they should pay also. I do agree with some of the points that you have made but it seems you always try to take everything into a gray area. Sometimes there is no gray area.
"You'd rather not answer then"
I wasn't online or reading your post at the time but, what a dramatic statement!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Sorry sir, I never restricted my comments to Samsung. Why would I? They certainly aren't the only company with patents besides Apple. That artificial limit came from another poster, and not in any way an answer to the post that prompted it.
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Which got this response:
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
So I'll ask you then: Why would it disprove my post if I don't know of an instance of Apple violating a Samsung patent? If it doesn't then why does it matter what the answer to that particular question was?
Comments
Thus is a joke post, right? Don't forget missing one-cup coffee maker with usb3 ports + Bluray playback.
Mac hasn't had a decent pop-out cup holder for years... WTF!!
/s
Wow aren't you daft. You missed the point entirely
There was a point? Maybe you think there was a point. Your broad generalities failed too. It's all fail.
Nope, not at all as a matter of fact.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/ongoing-against-willfulness.html
The patents were already found to be valid and Apple ruled guilty of infringement. That happened months ago.
To bring things up-to-date the court has now ruled Apple grossly misrepresented it's ability to work around VirnetX non-SEP patents to avoid higher value being placed on the IP by the judge in the original trial. Further he finds Apple to now be willfully infringing valid patents. Because of these issues the court has ordered a doubling of the royalties to be paid by Apple as a further penalty.
As for the injunction the court denied VirnetX request for now but they have filed an appeal. Do you think the court erred in not ordering infringing Apple products off the market in light of courtroom misrepresentations and willful infringement or is use of a couple of patents without permission not something worthy of a product ban?
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
There's the reality of the statement "My guess".
Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possibly infringing on one or two?
Yes it does, because you are the one that tried to make that point. Again, conjecture not backed up by facts.
Nppe, not at all as a matter of fact.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/ongoing-against-willfulness.html
The court has now ruled Apple grossly misrepresented it's ability to work around VirnetX non-SEP patents to avoid higher value being placed on the IP by the judge. Further he finds Apple to now be willfully infringing valid patents. Because of these issues the court has ordered a doubling of the royalties to be paid by Apple as a further penalty.
As for the injunction the court denied VirnetX request for now but they have filed an appeal. Do you think the court erred in not ordering infringing Apple products off the market in light of courtroom misrepresentations and willful infringement or is use of a couple of patents without permission not something worthy of a product ban?
Another good question. I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion may not hold water, but since Apple has not been able to effect a ban on out-of-date Samsung products that Samsung has openly admitted in court as infringing on Apple patents, it would seem that banning Apple products that are currently being manufactured as being too injurious a remedy. Apple could be asked to post a bond, as Samsung did in the case I mentioned before, and that would be a more reasonable remedy. Apple, by continuing to ship products into the U.S. is just racking up a bigger damage-payout; it is not harming VirnetX in the way Samsung's use of Apple's patents have. UNLESS, Apple believes the court made an error and Apple can realistically expect to prevail on appeal.
I have seen a lot of court cases end up in ways I wouldn't have expected, but my opinion is that an embargo at this point in the case seems to me to be premature and overly injurious, and likely to be overthrown on appeal.
There's a post just before yours using facts and not conjecture to pose that question of the appropriateness of injunction orders. You seem as tho you might have an opinion to share?
Thanks for your honest opinion Macky. No one else seemed up to offering theirs. Kudos to you for tackling an inconvenient question. 8-)
…fluff their pillows and place a mint on them.
Oh, we do that, too. The pillows are just full of dioxygen difluoride and the mints are laced with cyanide.
By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lack of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.
The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.
Throwing things at the wall including Android which was originally developed for non-touch screen use to complete with BB OS?. Software life cycle takes a while for maturity. Without iOS/iPhone, Android would've been released for physical keyboard device and looked more like BB OS instead of what it is now...Also, Samsung would've been more Blackjack like (remember that phone?). I had a first touch-screen phone back then and it sucked: LG Vu.
The future of intimate personal products from Apple:
The perfect form for the function.
Enhanced tactile interface.
Optimized battery life for hours of enjoyment.
Introducing.... iVibe.
Not sure if this has been posted, but excellent analysis of this (shitty) interview: So sad that almost every interview is a hit piece in disguse, with ignorance and lies sprinkled by the interviewer throughout:
http://jeffcarlson.com/2014/03/17/why-do-big-magazines-hire-hacks-for-big-tech-stories/
One thing that guy didnt point out is the blatant misdirection/lie in this part:
Apple's stock closed at $378.25 the day of Job's death. Today, it's $535. That's an increase of over 40%. So no- it hasn't slumped "since Jobs died". It's only down from it's peak, which was a year into Cook's tenure. A blatant lie in order to support the "Apple is doomed' narrative.
The second part of that statement is also blatantly false. Apple IS, today, the most valuable company on the planet in terms of market cap. It has been for almost a year. It was NOT when Steve Jobs was alive. This shit takes 2 min to fact check. Yet, the author wants us to believe the opposite- because he says so. So sad when this hack gets a chance to interview someone like Ive, they feel the need to stain the interview with such contempt of the facts, pushing their own agenda, and being deceitful to the readers.
To summarize- Apple's stock is 40% higher than the day Steve died.
It is now the most valuable company in the world, which it did not even approach the day Steve died.
Yet the quoted paragraph states the opposite? Disgusting journalism.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Not sure if this has been posted, but excellent analysis of this (shitty) interview: So sad that almost every interview is a hit piece in disguse, with ignorance and lies sprinkled by the interviewer throughout:
Apple was a media punching bag for so many years, it was actually stunning when they had a brief moment in the sun a couple of years back. Sure, there was still plenty of derision thrown their way (some subtle, some not so...) but it seemed the bad press was starting to stick to Microsoft instead.
Then Google came along with its "Don't Be Evil" baloney and its propeller hats and bright primary colors and they can do no wrong in the public eye, despite having a business model more arguably "evil" than competitors that had come before them. "Free gifts for all! But may we have a look around your house first?"
Apple is back in its place as scapegoat of the world's ills while the Google boys happily go about their creepy little schemes with nary a sideways glance from Big Media or Joe Q. Public.
Gruber has this same analysis.
There's a post just before yours using facts and not conjecture to pose that question of the appropriateness of injunction orders. You seem as tho you might have an opinion to share?
"Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)"
This was your response: Does it matter? As far as I know Apple has still not paid a penny to license the patents yet still ships iPhones making use of them. I would guess then that you wouldn't agree with products using and licensing 10's of thousands of patents being barred from the marketplace for possiblyinfringing on one or two?
This is the post you made that I was referring to. You were talking about Samsung, not anything else & now you seem to want to shift your response to a totally different matter.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/165514/apples-ive-describes-struggle-for-perfection-in-interview-calls-copycat-designs-theft/40#post_2489498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Which got this response:
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
So I'll ask you then: Why would it disprove my post if I don't know of an instance of Apple violating a Samsung patent? If it doesn't then why does it matter what the answer to that particular question was?
Since you're reading this now I'll wait. . .
EDIT: You'd rather not answer then.
That's what Standard Essential Patents are for. Samsung abused these by trying to use them as leverage to force Apple to license their bread and butter patents which were never part of the SEP agreements.
"Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them."
This is part of your conversation also.
Any reasonable person would be led to believe that was part of what you were saying. freediverx asked you a question that you didn't want to answer. You could have in a number of ways that proved your point but you didn't. Like I said conjecture. For the record I do believe that if one company uses another companies IP they should pay for licensing or whatever the damages are. Samsung knowingly infringed, it's pretty obvious. If Apple is found to infringe then they should pay also. I do agree with some of the points that you have made but it seems you always try to take everything into a gray area. Sometimes there is no gray area.
"You'd rather not answer then"
I wasn't online or reading your post at the time but, what a dramatic statement!!
Sorry sir, I never restricted my comments to Samsung. Why would I? They certainly aren't the only company with patents besides Apple. That artificial limit came from another poster, and not in any way an answer to the post that prompted it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/165514/apples-ive-describes-struggle-for-perfection-in-interview-calls-copycat-designs-theft/40#post_2489498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not every patent owned by Samsung, or Moto or Nokia is standard essential. In fact I'd make a guess that most are not and some claims are likely infringed by an Apple product, just as Apple says some competitors products infringe on Apple patents. Of course claiming and proving are not one in the same as they have all discovered when asserting them.
Which got this response:
Can you cite any court cases where Apple was found to violate a Samsung patent? (And I don't mean the ones where they were sued for refusing to pay Samsung extortionary rates for Standard Essential Patents, when they were supposed to charge fair and nondiscriminatory prices for those.)
So I'll ask you then: Why would it disprove my post if I don't know of an instance of Apple violating a Samsung patent? If it doesn't then why does it matter what the answer to that particular question was?
Since you're reading this now I'll wait. . .
EDIT: You'd rather not answer then.