Warner Music Sues Seeqpod: How Dare It Help People Find Stuff Warner Wishes Didn't Exist
Palm Realizes It's Not Apple; Closes Retail Shops

Smartphones Patented… Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute After Patent Issued

Legal Issues

from the wasting-no-time dept

Fri, Jan 25th 2008 09:21am -

This past Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent on “a mobile entertainment and communication device.” Reading the patent, you realize it describes the quite common smartphone. It’s a patent for a mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files. The patent holding firm who has the rights to this patent wasted no time at all. At 12:01am Tuesday morning, it filed three separate lawsuits against just about everyone you can think of, including Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, AT&T, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, Samsung and a bunch of others. Amusingly, the company actually first filed the lawsuits on Monday, but realized it was jumping the gun and pulled them, only to refile just past the stroke of midnight.

As the link above explains, the patent itself is based on a bunch of continuation filings, which are commonly used by patent holders who want broad patents to cover the latest technologies well after they’ve already come about in the market. It would seem like the concept itself, merely combining a bunch of things that people were already talking about, should never have been granted based on the Supreme Court’s recent KSR ruling that merely combining existing concepts doesn’t deserve a patent. Also, as noted in the comments to the link above, it would appear that there’s a fair amount of prior art. In fact, Apple even sent over some prior art concerning the patent just before it was originally supposed to be issued last summer — but somehow patent holder’s lawyers talked their way around it. In the meantime, it looks like we’ve got yet another case of an overly broad and obvious patent being used against a huge number of firms. I’m sure that’s exactly what Thomas Jefferson expected when he created our patent system.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: apple, at&t, helio, hp, htc, motorola, nokia, rim, samsung, sony ericsson, sprint, utstarcomm

93 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Smartphones Patented… Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute After Patent Issued”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
93 Comments
Sceptical Cynic (profile) says:

If you remove the massive amount of money they mak

from these overly broad patents for devices they never created then Patent Trolls will disappear…

If a company would for once just fight this hard and not settle…

The simple fact is if they can get the patent and then makes tons of money for not doing anything then they are going to keep on doing it.

TimeForReform says:

Question

About 16 years ago way before Tivo an cable companies had the technology to fast forward commercials an record shows while you were at work, my good friend an I said, “Wouldn’t it be cool to be able to fast forward, rewind, record your shows ahead of time”, mainly because we hated commercials. Can we sue the cable companies for using our idea even though it was like 12 years before the technology came out? We were only 14 years old at the time. How is this any different from allowing leeches a.k.a. lawyers to capitalize on existing technologies “after” they had already came out??

Anon says:

Re: Question

16 years ago would be 1992. In 1992 there existed this thing called a VCR. Utilizing a VCR, one could “record your shows ahead of time”, “rewind”, and “fast forward”. The “fast forward” functionality was very useful for the purpose of skipping past commericals.

You did not have an origional idea, although I can see a 14 year old not being aware of something called a VCR in 1992.

For a better point of reference, I was “recording my shows ahead of time”, “rewinding” and “fast forwarding” over commericals as far back as 1983 when my family aquired it’s first VCR.

That is 25 years ago, and VCR’s had existed since about the 1975-1976 timeframe at that point.

mikecancook (profile) says:

My new patent

I would just like to forewarn everyone that I am going to be filing a new patent that will boldly drive innovation and make me stinking rich while simultaneously crushing the patent industry.

I will be patenting ‘patents’. Prepare to have your a$$es sued!

I will also be filing a patent on the question mark so I can sue anyone that questions me.

PS And maybe that inflection at the end of your voice when you ask questions so I have text and speech covered.

another mike says:

prior art or another target

“a mobile entertainment and communication device…with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files.”
I’d submit my Samsung a920 cell phone as prior art but that might get Samsung added to the list of targets.
I think we should require that anyone who files a patent infringment lawsuit actually has a product based on the patent. I mean, patents are supposed to grant a temporary monopoly so the inventor can profit from their idea, right? But these trolls don’t actually have a product so how can they say there’s a market failure from their patent being infringed?

In the know says:

Re: Re:

Hey the Patent Office did manage to put through rules to limit the number of continuations. BUT, a Virginia court put a preliminary injunction on it. And now it is being tried as being unconstitutional. So if you want to blame anyone, blame the courts and the lawyers. They screwed up the system and refuse to be held accountable.

USPTO says:

Your patent has been rejected as it is : Obvious

I am posting this fragment below from:
http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/minerva-v-rim-another-case-opened-too.html
as techsphinx’s idea is excellent.

======= Start ==============
January 22, 2008 9:58 PM
techsphinx said…

Why is it that almost any legitimate technology practitioner, can, within a matter of mere minutes, clearly identify whether a patent is truly, innovative, unique, and non-obvious? Furthermore, I would wager that a hypothetical tech-practioner peer panel would quickly come to a high degree of consensus on which patents were non-obvious and truly innovative, and which were obvious and/or frivolous. As a non-lawyer, who has been a successful defendant in an EDTX patent suit, it is precisely this enormous chasm between PTO behavior/patent law and outright common sense that is dumbfounding to most tech practioners.

Not that other areas of patent reform will not be very valuable, but ultimately, the bar for obtaining a patent is so absurdly low that it practically defies imagination
========= ends ===========

I cannot help but think that Techsphinx has it right. These silly patents are
damaging to the US in so many ways. They:-
– draw away technical talent that could be better used innovating.
– consume a lot of time and money of firms that are innocent defendants.

I think that ‘techsphinx’ is right. A technical group that would stop
obvious patent being granted would had great value to the patent process.
Like the idea in “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” on good essays:

“You know it when you see it”.

Such a reform is good for every one. Consumers, companies and inventors.

The US is in danger of losing its economic lead – patents such as these only hasten the process.

(Perhaps one reform could be that the winner pays all the bills, this might deter some of these claims. More technically savvy judges would also be helpful!)

AudibleNod (profile) says:

:-(

This stunt happened in Australia in May of ’01. Where a lawyer patented the wheel as a “circular transportation facilitation device”. This came under an new, innovation patent system they had introduced to help small businesses. Closer to home, Despair, Inc. received a trademark for the frowny emoticon, 🙁 . Their website sells them at the cost of $0.00 per or roughly €0.00.

I believe that we need to take Charles H. Duell’s advice and close the Patent Office. At least for a short while.

Joe Smith says:

angry dude - defending the indefensible

Always interesting to see angry dude with his knee jerk defense of every patent claim. When is he going to realize that by defending really stupid patents he (and others like him) discredit the whole system they seek to defend?

Any general knows there is some ground you cannot defend and that spreading your forces out thinly to try weakens the whole army.

Maybe angry dude is so aggressive about defending trivial patents because his only hope of profiting from his work is if trivial ideas can be patented? :-p

angry dude says:

Re: Re: Re: angry dude - defending the indefensibl

Hey little retarded dude

Did youe mom drop you on your head when you were little ?
Why do you think that I want to disclose my patent here so you can shit on it without understanding a single paragraph ?
This place is for shitty talk, not for serious patent claim analysis

angry dude says:

Re: Re: Re:3 angry dude - defending the ind

actually joe, my day-time IP address (which unfortunately I can’t fake) was banned from posting on patentlyo
The guy who owns that blog (establishment patent attorney or at least that’s what he thinks about himself) apparently doesn’t like what I post there (100% truth BTW) …
I guess it happened after I called that piece of corporate shit Marshall Phelps a real patent troll
Heck nobody likes to hear the truth…
Still I can do all I want from home, so you will have a pleasure of reading some more of my comments on various personalities involved with so-called “patent reform”..

beer time now
see you in hell

In the know says:

Anyone actually look this thing up?

Granted the claims are overly broad, but the original filing date is from 1997. Everyone is looking at their phone right now and saying “how could someone get a patent on this?” or “I could send a picture of my phone to them as prior art.” Well go find your phone and its capabilities from 1997 and show me how it accessed the Internet and did all this other stuff. C’mon the damn phone you had didn’t even have a color screen at the time. I don’t think Vcast was even around until a few years ago.

chad says:

Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?

“Granted the claims are overly broad, but the original filing date is from 1997.”

I don’t know what everyone else was doing in 1997, but everyone I was around was talking about combining the internet with everything, fishtanks, soda machines, coffee makers, refrigerators, phones, etc. It was clear at the time that these things would happen, what wasn’t clear at the time was that patent trolling would be profitable. It looks like the original idea of the patent was “combine the internet with a phone”. That was novel then, though I am not sure it was non-obvious.

4-80-sicks says:

Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?

Granted the claims are overly broad, but the original filing date is from 1997. Everyone is looking at their phone right now and saying “how could someone get a patent on this?” or “I could send a picture of my phone to them as prior art.” Well go find your phone and its capabilities from 1997 and show me how it accessed the Internet and did all this other stuff.

Just because something didn’t exist ten years ago doesn’t mean it’s non-obvious. A phone is a communication device. Everybody wants to get on the internet. Cell phones need screens, to display caller ID, contacts, etc. Tell me nobody would realize that screens could be made color and a phone can connect to the internet. Once you’re connecting, of course you want to download files. Which means you’ll want removable storage. And a camera phone is just two devices that people like to have. You can’t just slap existing things together and get a patent on that. Maybe to a caveman, but for a person in today’s world, (or 1997) which is filled with color screens, cell phones, digital cameras, portable computing devices, and the internet, a device like this is simply a logical step.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?

Just because something didn’t exist ten years ago doesn’t mean it’s non-obvious. A phone is a communication device. Everybody wants to get on the internet. Cell phones need screens, to display caller ID, contacts, etc. Tell me nobody would realize that screens could be made color and a phone can connect to the internet.

So this is a good point. I’m not a patent attorney, and this analysis is based on just observations.

As a patent holder, you should have two goals with the patent:

1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others.

Unfortunately a third result has surfaced in the past few years, which is to do neither, and sue for back royalties. Remember, once the patent is filed, you do recieve a “patent pending” status which allows you to proactively market your invention while the final pieces are delivered.

Those who fail to market the pending patent/idea/invention, maybe should be scrutinized more carefully before patent status is granted.

angry dude says:

Re: Re: Re: Anyone actually look this thing up?

“As a patent holder, you should have two goals with the patent:
1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others.”

Well said, dude, but have you ever tried ?
Try it once and you’ll sing a different tune

Unless you have at least 10 mil in the bank you can do neither…
No prospective licensee will even talk to you, for a simple reason: you can’t sue them for patent infringement

a harsh reality check for undercapitalized patent holders trying to license their patents

Alex Poltorak wrote a book on realities of patent licensing
Read it, dude:
http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Licensing-Intellectual-Property-Wiley/dp/0471432334/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Anyone actually look this thing up

“As a patent holder, you should have two goals with the patent:
1.) Bring the product to market.
2.) License the innovation to others.”

angry dude:

Well said, dude, but have you ever tried ?
Try it once and you’ll sing a different tune

Unless you have at least 10 mil in the bank you can do neither…

So I know two people from College who had great idea, found a lawfirm to market the idea to. The lawyers believed it was great idea, and decided to fund the costs to file the patents for a percentage of the royalty.

In the end, it ended up paying for my friends college while I was slaving away.

So yes. I know what it’s about. Unfortunately NokiaCapsule or whatever the devil it is, isn’t marketable because it’s not technically possible using today’s technology.

Good Luck.

Anonymous Coward says:

Troubles with the Nokiacapsule

Troubles with the Nokiacapsule: a quick writeup.

Many troubles exist with the NokiaCapsule. The first, and most glaring one is that you have one year from disclosure of an idea to file a patent for it. I believe the video posted showed a post date of sometime early last year.

Then we get into the Fesability/Go-To-Market analysis:
From a technology perspective, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but it’s damn near impossible. For example, to get a battery with energy density to drive a 1-watt transmitter (this is the power that phones transmit on) requires new batteries that, quite frankly don’t exist. Then there’s the ten-gig of memory, which requires space in the form of sdram chips, and unfortunately that hasn’t miniturized to the point where it can be packaged into a device small enough to enter your ear canal.

If a device could be small enough to enter into your ear canal that emits 1.6 watt of power, then, erm.. the FDA would be very interested in it as they have SAR/radiation absorption that eneds to be addressed.

Then there’s specialized ASICs that need to be created to run the voice recognition. I imagine you’ll need an entire R&D team to accomplish this.

Mike Hoy (user link) says:

Put the disgust into context

I doubt that many of the commentators above actually read the patent before passing judgment on this particular case. Further, many of the comments miss the distinction between copyright and patent protection. However, it is certainly true that many patent holders use “continuation” patents to extend the duration of old patents, and that many patents are obvious, or simply combinations of existing technology. One glaring example comes to mind: there is a patent to use a USB port on a slot machine. Duh. (Slot machines are just personal computers in an expensive case.)

It is easy to criticize the PTO, but the truth is the government doesn’t fund enough patent examiners to do a decent job screening out the nonsense. It is also easy to criticize the “leech” lawyers, and we should also support a rule that allows a prevailing defendant to recover attorney fees and costs from both the plaintiff and the lawyer who takes a BS case on a contingent basis.

All that said, there will always be a debate about whether a particular patent promotes or diminishes creativity. We hear the debate all the time: drugs and other medical technology should not be patented vs. without patents we would not have drugs or other medical technology. But if you consider the entire system as a whole, and don’t focus on the most eggregious cases, the system still works pretty damn well. The USA is not in any danger of losing its position as the birthplace of innovation and the best technology.

There are far more serious problems to bringing good technology to markets. For example, much of the developed world has faster internet connections than we do because the phone, cable, and wireless companies have so much invested in older technology, because the government doesn’t invest in newer technology, and because the old guard uses political power to stop new entrants into the market. Where the USA lags, it is more because of monopoly power and political economy more than our patent system.

Our long-term economic and technological advantage is also eroded by the way we allocate other resources. The trillion-dollar invasion/occupation of Iraq might, arguably, have some payoff in the future. But imagine spending the same trillion dollars on wind/solar/geothermal/coal, new communications technology, new agricultural technology, etc., all of which yields a fairly certain payoff. In the big picture, the cheesy patent extortion cases are pretty small compared with the vast misallocation of resources foisted upon us by the politicians.

Regards, Mike

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Put the disgust into context

Well said, Mike. I’ve been conceptualizing the same ideas you’ve mentioned for sometime now.

We’re seeing an incredible misallocation of funds and resources. The cycle is broken, and transfer of wealth outside of the US needs to be re-evaluated.

Imagine where we’d be if even 10% of what you proposed was accomplished. Countrywide Mortgage has been on the brink of collapse for sometime now. The company that holds 1 out of 5 mortgages in the USA. Gold is at a ten year high which indicates that the strength of the dollar is declining in the world market’s eyes.

And yes, it’s simple economics. The reallocation of resources to outside the US should be scruitinized by the next administration.

On a personal note, what do you think of Ron Paul?

Kudos!

Joe Smith says:

Re: Put the disgust into context

But if you consider the entire system as a whole, and don’t focus on the most egregious cases, the system still works pretty damn well.But the egregious cases tell us where the problems are and the problems seem to me to be mostly in digital/software/business method patents where advances in microprocessors made certain advances not merely possible but inevitable. By focusing reform on the egregious cases we can avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

eecarolinee says:

There is a culture of scamming in this society… people by the ton expect massive “lottery wins” for doing little. Think of the RIAA.. here are “artists” who expect virtually infinite reward from society for precious little productivity. So it is with this kind of situation… non-producers have subverted the system os it serves non-producers. After all, the non-producers are the ones with the time to wheedle the system. While they are busy working to set up some scam by way of “wheedling the rules” they are not missed by society since they are nearly useless to it anyhow. So we have a society where the most useless have the time and resources to extort unearned benefits for themselves at the expense of the producers.

Anonymous Coward says:

Minerva – That company that suing the wireless industry.

Taken from press releases at the company website:
http://www.gigatec.com/

——————————-
Cell Phone Manufacturers’ License Issue
Minerva Offers Generous Terms
——————————-

November 1st, 2003 — Minerva Industries, Inc. is providing the following options to the cell phone manufacturers and line carriers:

1. To settle prior to a filed suit: 6% Royalties.
2. After a suit has been filed, the rate will be 8%royalties, plus attorneys’ fees and other damage charges that may apply. For settlement or license negotiation, contact our patent or trial attorneys.

Note: International roaming calls will be handled separately once the guidelines from the U.S. Government agency are received. Over 50 million visitors use international roaming calls annually. That causes at least 200 million dollars damages in U.S. tax revenues annually. The phone line carriers already have reached a permanent agreement for the international roaming calls with over 120 countries (e.g. AT&T Wireless 120 to 220 countries roaming).

——————————-
Memory Cards and USB
July 18, 2005
——————————-

Minerva Industries Inc. ,after a year of anticipation, received a response from the USPTO to file two divisional patent applications for memory cards and USB stemming from the 139 continuing claims on patent # 6278884 and # 6681120.

These patent filings apply to accessories dealing with secured memory cards with pre-recorded data or flash memory and USB data cable connections between cell phone and various devices.

Cell phone accessory manufacturers of memory cards and USB connectors each estimate supplying over 500 million units this year.

——————————-
CEO Message:
——————————-

CEO’s Message 2006
It is my hope to declare the year 2006 with you as the year of great harvest. For the past nine years we invested our time, energy, and over $800,000 in legal fees alone to support our cell phone patent. I believe that we have thoroughly amended the core features of the cell phone patent to truly be state of the art, surpassing any patents of the past and permanently securing opportunities for devices of the future.
Just as the title of the invention states, “a mobile entertainment and communication device for communicating with the Internet or remotely located telephones”, our cell phone patent includes core features for capturing, storing, reproducing, transmitting, receiving, uploading, and downloading of combined sounds and real-time moving images through the Internet as well as between cell phones and other devices (computer, printer, television, electronic devices…). Furthermore, the patent features a music player, multi-media player, games, radio, GPS with images, emergency call function, interruption, low ambient light, sensor activation, voice control, answering, wired or wireless earphone, speakerphone, controlling of skipped data, equalizer, balancing sounds, USB cable, audio recorder, video camcorder, audible alarm, secured socket, replaceable memory card and prerecorded data card. A separate patent also provides a universal charger and holder on the car dashboard to utilize the camera and other prominent functions of the Internet cell phone patent.
Although it was merely a dream in the past, 3G phones are now a reality with almost all phone carriers upgrading their systems to 3G phones. In fact, some of the core features of the patent has been used since late 2000. These recent 3G advances in the industry however opens more doors to take advantage of all our core features.

In 2005, approximately 780 million cell phones were marketed worldwide and 18% (approx. 140 million) were sold in the U.S. Surprisingly, an additional 50 million visitors from the remaining 82% of the foreign market utilizes core features in the U.S. without ever paying license fees. In consideration of this fact, it is our goal to pursue legal action to maximize compensation beyond the typical 5.5 to 6% fees in royalties.

I am very excited about the New Year with the opportunities ahead and the expectation of two to three additional patent grants. May the year 2006 bring good health and happiness. Please keep our corporation in your prayers as we prepare for the year of harvest.

CEO/President
John Ki Kim

——————————-
About CEO, John Kim
——————————-
During the past 39 years, Mr. John Kim has been engaged in various business experience and public services. He was the president of Korean Traders Association of America in 1977, founder of the World Overseas Korean Traders’ Association in 1981, chairman of the Korean Olympic Supporting Committee of America in 1984, and the first president of U.S Korean American Inventors Association in 1991. Since 1983, he has been a member of National Republican Congressional Committee’s Business Advisory Council, by which he was awarded a gold medal as a business leader. Mr. Kim has acquired patents for more than 20 inventions. He has won in a patent lawsuit over a conglomerate which lasted for three years. His diverse experience and prominent background are a strong asset for the company’s steady growth.

STARFOXtjb says:

“a mobile entertainment and communication device…with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files.” You all do realize that the above statement can also pertain to laptops PDA’s PSP’s and any other mobile device with these features. After all a Smart Phone is really just a smaller form of a laptop.

Basically a few of you have said that this country is going to hell in a hand basket I must upon review of recent events concur it’s only a matter of time before we are oppressed to the point of subjugation. And frankly to those that would rather trade freedom for security wake up retards. Get you some intestinal fortitude and fight for your right to survive its natures rule either you fend off your attacker or become food. If you want a government to protect you fine you can be their bitch I sure as hell ain’t going to be.
And to the issue of greedy corperations ya’ll can go to hell too, nothing wrong with providing a fun and useful product but you dont have to be a dick about it. You make it we buy it thats all there should be in this biz.

Im glad i can be happy with a life working as a dish washer I have everything i need and one hell of a computer guess you greedy CEO types could prolly learn a bit from us poor people.
BTW i dont need to be rich to have security all i need are the will to survive and the ability to fight.

maxwell says:

filing date != closing date

In 1997 they filed a patent for “phone”. Then every 6 months they added whatever new features appeared on the market in the last 6 months. Those features were researched, engineered and built by someone else. They kept doing this, twice a year, for ten years. Then they closed the application and now they have a patent for everything.

They did *NOT* file a patent in 1997 for a phone with “music player, multi-media player, games, radio, GPS with images, emergency call function, interruption, low ambient light, sensor activation, voice control, answering, wired or wireless earphone, speakerphone, controlling of skipped data, equalizer, balancing sounds, USB cable, audio recorder, video camcorder, audible alarm, secured socket, replaceable memory card and prerecorded data card.”

This is like seeing a computer in 1977 and patenting a ‘portable versiuon’. Then wait 30 years and announce you have patented the laptop and every feature in a 2007 model. The application date is locked forever at ‘1977’. Congrats, you won the half the PC market today!

angry dude says:

No such thing

“So I know two people from College who had great idea, found a lawfirm to market the idea to. The lawyers believed it was great idea, and decided to fund the costs to file the patents for a percentage of the royalty.”

Nope, no freeking chance at all, dude

No lawfirm will back you up financially to file your patent, plus it’s against the rules
It’s all your money, dude (not much money actually, about 15-20 grand from filing to issue including all attorney fees)
Well, when I was shopping around for good patent attorney I found one crooked guy who offered me a “deal”: a 50% discount on his fees in return for 50% ownership in the resulting patent…

needless to say, I rejected this “deal” outright and found another attorney, paid 12 grand right upfront… and 6 more grand upon patent issue

You don’t know what you are talking about dude
Stop confusing other people, cause they might get a wrong idea…

No such thing as free lunch, dude

Dan says:

“needless to say, I rejected this “deal” outright and found another attorney, paid 12 grand right upfront… and 6 more grand upon patent issue

You don’t know what you are talking about dude
Stop confusing other people, cause they might get a wrong idea…”

Because angry dude’s “experiences” MUST apply to everyone. No one is allowed to have a better experience with patents than angry dude. Please don’t break his glass house.

Kermit Williams says:

Patents

Patents do not protect or save ideas and if you do patent a idea you better do these things or your patent is no good document or stamp or logos on a website can protect the date when you got to court like i did your learn patents dont protect ideas really i dont know why companie lie. and the pto will tell you we dont protect ideas we just date the ideas so dont think you got gold and patent dont sell ideas so sorry if i think of a idea first slap it on a website with a logo i can when in court over your patent your have to still pay me a judge will tell you that so stop talking about patent like they great .

Kevin Warner (user link) says:

Gift's and home decor website

To Everyone who has a dispute with Warner Music regarding a Patent. This Warnerwishes CO.is in No way Associated with the Warner Music Co that you are Referring too. I’m a Single Individual who has just started up an internet website which I invite all to look at and possible patron my products. Below is a link to Warner wishes. Thank you all for your time. Kevin Warner http://WWW.Warnerwishes.com

Leave a Reply to 4-80-sicks Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Warner Music Sues Seeqpod: How Dare It Help People Find Stuff Warner Wishes Didn't Exist
Palm Realizes It's Not Apple; Closes Retail Shops
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...