Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st May 2010 06:49 UTC
Permalink for comment 425889
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-01-28
All you did was say, "Google should say they didn't infringe any patents." Ooh, good defense.
Of course, MPEGLA will identify their patents.
If they are valid patents, Google isn't going to indemnify anyone, anything.
Hell, they could indemnify everyone, right NOW, from ALL litigation if they were really so confident there was no patent infringement of any kind. You are the one who keeps saying that Google is so cracker jack, they can't possible have messed up their due diligence.
Edited 2010-05-21 11:31 UTC