Imp, I don't know what the person below is on, but they are woefully and hysterically WRONG.

Obvious you just skimmed my statement.

Yes, because freedom means shitty service and costly phones, whereas you can buy the same devices (for the most part) at the same price point at Verizon and be without a contract, too.

And this would be why I've balked at the Google faithful for damn near everything.

I'm curious how this is going to go down at the SEC and FCC.

None as poignant as the aforementioned debacle with Cisco.

Yeah, iOS was the basis of a lot of copier systems and was the core of the OS used in most Java-based flip phones.

Examples, please. If these are situations where someone trademarked one of the "i" names hoping to bank on some Apple money, they're unrelated.

But in this case it is poignant and necessary because no other examples exist of trademark infringement, and a perfect example of how Apple assumes trademarks without researching or filing.

You need to re-read. It wasn't the iPad trademark, and Apple sued first.

Actually, you're right. But as for the trademark infringement, it was only when Apple released the name of that upcoming product that Cisco knew anything about it.

The commercial viability of this might well be nil.

It's important to note (and I'm not sure why there's no mention here) that Apple had their asses handed to them when 3-Com discovered that Apple was using their iPhone trademark.

HA!

Wow. Something being BUILT in Detroit.

Oh lord, I'm going to have to enter my vote for Portland. Blech...

I would say West Valley City police in Utah:

Yeah, waaaaay over acted.

1. You reiterated, therefore you hadn't agreed with the point that it was in km/h.

You're a very damaged human being, aren't you?