Related
In today’s Washington Post there is a monumentally inept essay by Kathleen Parker that both bemoans the death of the print newspaper and aptly illustrates precisely why it is dying, thanks to the article’s delightful combination of factual error, failed analysis, and ugly condescending elitism. The main thread is that blowhards like Rush Limbaugh are destroying good hardworking newspapers (who knew his 20 million listeners were more damaging than the loss of add revenue to Craigslist -- a factor which was not even mentioned). The money quote for me was this one:
In the not-distant future … the news may be delivered via a video game. Forget the Internet. Forget blogs, tweets and tags. Forget Jim Cramer-style infotainment. Millions of people are already living in computerized parallel universes through games such as "The Sims" and "World of Warcraft" (WoW). We may have to toss the newspaper on those stoops -- in the virtual world of fake life.
More brandy, please.
Brandy? Anyway, someone should tell Ms. Parker that The Sims Online closed last summer, and that news delivery in a video game is here and it involves either an RSS feed or opening an window that is connected, by tubes, to the interwebs. I swear, is Ted Stevens this woman’s technology adviser? For more Parker ineptitude see below the fold.
Parker inverts the actual relationship between traditional media and those hardworking journalists that actually dig up facts. She thinks that newspapers protect the reporters that find out new stuff and that the blogs (and in world newspapers?) just amplify the noise. In point of fact, investigative reporters have been drummed out of newspapers and take up shop covering their beat by blog and freelancing stories to traditional media outlets on those rare occasions when those outlets feel inclined to cut a few paragraphs out of their Lilo coverage. But it’s apparently not enough for this Post writer to be merely inept, it seems she also needs to add a gratuitously misinformed analysis of the sociology of video game culture:
For those who have been busy with real life, "The Sims" is apparently popular with women who can create a virtual doppelganger and live happily in the suburbs. For millions of guys, WoW is a role-playing game that combines fantasy with mythology. One can't help noting that males and females acting out fantasies are drawn to roles frowned upon in real life: suburban homemaking and warrior-hero play. Hmmmm.
I would comment, but sometimes things speak for themselves.
http://www.androidcentral.com/library-congress-updates-dmca-rooting-given-exemption#comment-51125
The Library of Congress has seen fit to specifically exempt rooting and jailbreaking (for the iPhone) from the DMCA. This means that it is now 100 percent legal to root to your heart's content without fear of legal action taken against you. Check out the exact wording:
"Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset."
This does not mean that HTC, Motorola, and other manufactures can't (or won't) continue to try to keep their devices locked down; it just means they can't sic the lawyers on you if you do choose to root.
So, why not head into the Android Central forums and get your hack on? Check out the full legal wording after the break. [Copyright.gov via Engadget, NPR]
Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking
Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law requires that every three years I am to determine whether there are any classes of works that will be subject to exemptions from the statute's prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. I make that determination at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who makes a recommendation to me. Based on that proceeding and the Register's recommendation, I am to determine whether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects on the ability of users of any particular classes of copyrighted works to make noninfringing uses of those works. The classes of works that I designated in the previous proceeding expire at the end of the current proceeding unless proponents of a class prove their case once again.
This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
As I have noted at the conclusion of past proceedings, it is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law, and the role I have in it. This is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
In this rulemaking, the Register of Copyrights received 19 initial submissions proposing 25 classes of works, many of them duplicative in subject matter, which the Register organized into 11 groups and published in a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on the proposed classes. Fifty-six comments were submitted. Thirty-seven witnesses appeared during the four days of public hearings in Washington and in Palo Alto, California. Transcripts of the hearings, copies of all of the comments, and copies of other information received by the Register have been posted on the Copyright Office's website.
The six classes of works are:
(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.
(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and
(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
All of these classes of works find their origins in classes that I designated at the conclusion of the previous rulemaking proceeding, but some of the classes have changed due to differences in the facts and arguments presented in the current proceeding. For example, in the previous proceeding I designated a class that enable film and media studies professors to engage in the noninfringing activity of making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction. In the current proceeding, the record supported an expansion of that class to enable the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into documentary films and noncommercial videos for the purpose of criticism or comment, when the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that it is necessary to fulfill that purpose. I agree with the Register that the record demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order to make these kinds of fair uses of short portions of motion pictures.
wait... our government did this? lol wow haha
#1 rocks my world lol I hate the movie industry
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Jobs already has a Patent on that.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the idea patent application is in the mail
j/k
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
nukedukem said:
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting can still void your warrenty
wildgillis said:
Rooting can still void your warrenty
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rooting still does... and with sprint both you and sprint [in the TnC] agree to binding arbitration in case of a dispute. If you can prove rooting your phone didn't adversely affect the unability of your phone or violate fcc rules then they will lose. and if you come with that proof they probably won't waste their high priced lawyer's time
Seems as though it mainly protects the developers, (which is a great thing). The end users will benefit also.
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Says who? Do you have links? I ask because I had not heard this before. The ruling here actually quantified the amount of code that was being changed as trivial and not to be considered.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you come up with this?!
It has been brought to my attention that many android application developers have no idea how to properly class their applications by name. Here we will review a few common terms specific to this context.
Here is a list of terms in no specific order which we will review in this document.
Free
Lite / Basic
Standard
Advanced
Proffesional
Premium
Trial
Demonstration
Firstly let me start by saying that the word 'free' should never be in an application title. There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.' It should be clear to the developer that the word 'free' should not be used in an application title in reference to the cost of ownership. In practice this is at best unprofessional and untidy.
It may seem to the beginning developer that this would add clarity and destinction to a specific release of an application but this is an unnecessary clarification as most applications are already classified by price categories. At best all the developer has achieved is lengthening the title of the application and flagged it as possibly unworthy of usage. Most people don't expect to get much of anything for free. Keep this in mind when you develop your freeware applications.
I have also found that many developers have taken the word 'professional' entirely out of context. Instead of providing an example just yet, let us explore what the word professional actually means.
pro·fes·sion·al adj.
1.
a. Of, relating to, engaged in, or
suitable for a profession: lawyers,
doctors, and other professional
people.
b. Conforming to the standards of a
profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a
source of livelihood or as a career: a
professional writer.
Let's apply this definition in the context of software applications. Joe is a blogger. He blogs all day about his life. In fact there is almost nothing that Joe would not blog about. Joe decides that he could get more blogging done if he could quickly post his thoughts from his mobile. Joe goes to the market and he finds three things: Blogger Free, Captain's Blog, and Blogger Professional.
Joe thinks for a second... He decides right off the bat that he is no ordinary blogger and that he does not want deal with advertisements, so he overlooks Blogger Free without hesitation. Joe thinks that Captain's Blog sounds interesting. He decides to look it over because Blogger Professional sounds like it may have more features than he is really interested in. Joe is happy with Captain's Blog, and it is the first thing he blogs about saying: "I'mma live happily ever after!"
The term 'professional' implies that your application will employ features useful to the individual who requires industry standard adherence to specific guidelines laws, regulations, or operating procedures. Users in this market will have certain expectations. It is important that whenever you use the tagline 'Professional' that you have done your research and tested your product in the field with real professionals.
Usually products that employ groundbreaking features or features that can't be found anywhere else attempt to call themselves professional, but as stated before this term is at best reserved for industry professionals who require specific functionality. The proper tag for this kind of application is 'advanced.' Because it provides advanced functionality.
Some applications are so prolific that they require two tags such as 'professional advanced' or 'professional basic.' Yes, there is a 'professional standard' (no pun intended) as well as many other combinations. use whatever makes sense. I call these titles of prestige.
The term 'standard' implies, that an application meets or sets "the bar" by which applications that perform similar functions must reach to begin to consider themselves competition. It also implies that there is more to come or more to be had from this application and it's descendants or even its competition.
The term 'basic' or 'lite' is essentially the same as the term 'standard' but basic/lite implies the bare minimum required to achieve an acceptable effect. Usually this is an application with reduced functionality in order to meet a restriction on cost, time space, or otherwise.
The term 'premium' implies that your software is giving the best functionality there is, or the best functionality that it has to offer. this term should not be used lightly by any developer who wants to be taken seriously in the world of software engineering.
Trialware implies that an application has either full or limited features on the basis of time or functionality. Trialware is not freeware and should never display advertisements for anything other than itself. It is a platform for you to exhibit your product and the main idea is to sell YOUR full product. This is when you call your product a 'Trial.'
The difference between a trial and a demonstration may seem vague but it is not so. It should suffice to say that a 'trial' can be upgraded or unlocked, and a 'demonstration' can be replaced or succeeded with the final product. A demonstration may also have advertisements for other programs or services offered by the developer or its affiliates.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
- Posted via mobile
Here is something else that I had not thought of while drafting this document. The term 'full' is like the term 'free' it is completely redundant or otherwise pointless to state that an application incorporates all of its functionality.
I am not yet sure where I stand on the term 'donator' but I am sure I would like to know what the application is donating to. If it is feeding starving children I would like to pat it on the back and send my donation in as well.
The terms 'plus' and 'extended' were not covered either. These terms are highly acceptable and they imply that the application has extra functionality which is not available in other versions.
These terms work very well with titles of prestige or as new ones. For example: 'proffesional standard plus,' 'standard plus' or 'extended basic.' These can be shortened into abbreviations to create some interesting artifacts such as 'PSP,' 'SP,' or 'EB.'
If you are running a charity, consider using the terms '+,' 'plus,' 'extended,' or the abbreviated forms instead of 'donator.'
- Posted via mobile
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors LOL
I'm thinking of calling my next app "Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
No sarcasm...honest
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Rootstonian said:
Uh, what's the point? We're programmers not English Majors
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I failed 7th grade twice and dropped out of high school in the 9th grade. So what's YOUR point?
It's okay I understand you are neither professional nor do you aim to be. I taught myself everything I need to know in the field.
I have over 10 years programming experience and I can program in more than 7 different languages including assembler. My point is if you don't try to do anything better you never will. Good luck with fart maker.
- Posted via mobile
Scientia est potentia.
Knowledge is power. Is it for me to decide what you do with it?
- Posted via mobile
I understood your point was making jokes before you ever made your first post to this thread.
There are exceptions to this rule. For example a video game might have the word free in its title, such as 'free world defenders.'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fart Maker PLSTF
Interesting artifact.
datajosh said:
You should do this, the reviews alone would be great
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree.
If you like this paper let me know! This is my first draft. Feel free to comment constructively and chat amongst yourselves with proper regard to the topic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe the topic of this thread suggests that the readers are searching for jokes.
Since we are on the topic of making jokes...
Rootstonian said:
"Professional Lite Standard Trial Free FartMaker+ Version 0.0019a Beta"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Free trial demo (FTD) Would make a better artifact than 'trial free' for this application.
LOL. Try less jokes and more focus.
SERIOUSLY, I'm not kidding
- Posted via mobile
ITC says HTC violating two of Apple's patents, read more here;
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20079905-94/itc-says-htc-violating-two-of-apples-patents/
Apple are a xxx, this isn't news.
Do we know which 2 patents are in question?
Again? They're in court every so often.
All these patents are so vague and stupid!
google just added some lawyers to htc's team and htc acquired a company that apple is infringing on so their may be a settlement in the works
If you want to follow the various patent battles that are in progress, the best place to get accurate information is http://www.groklaw.net/
shaggy-h said:
If you want to follow the various patent battles that are in progress, the best place to get accurate information is http://www.groklaw.net/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Foss Patent also provides very good insight regarding patent lawsuits. It's very informative. link: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/
the war continues ....
New evidence against Google's willful violation of rights of use of Java and Oracle
At the main competitor to Apple in the mobile platforms serious problems - found new critical evidence of guilt Google intentionally unlawful use of Java technology in the development of Android. In addition to the risk of losing the case, Google could face difficulties protecting patents from charges Android Apple and other competitors.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
According to Florian Mueller (Florian Mueller) from FOSS Patents, evidence was obtained from the two emails, one of them is sent to the head of Andy Rubin, Google (Andy Rubin), the principal founder of the project Android, who later became a popular mobile platform Google.
At first Rubin (Rubin) came up with Danger - PDA with a mobile platform based on Java, then he started to work on Android (before he became part of Google) - and the Android platform has not been entirely based on Java, and was a modified version of software is modified enough to make Google free of patent claims Sun and paying any licensing fees.
Andy Rubin (Andy Rubin) - the openness of
Even back in 2005, before the release of Android, Rubin (Rubin) wrote:
"If the Sun refuses to work with us, we will have to choose: 1) abandon our findings and move to the use of languages MSFT CLR VM and C #; 2) in spite of all use Java, and be prepared to defend its decision against its enemies, which may occur on our way ".
Referring to this letter, Müller (Mueller) notes the view of the judges on this subject:
«Google judged simply and unceremoniously, preferring to risk the possible start of litigation than fair to pay for licensing Java».
In a letter to Rubin (Rubin) clearly says that Android team is fully aware of the size of attachments to the platform on Java-based resources and effort, and believes that this was too much to move now to the alternative language proposed by Microsoft. However, Google does not agree to pay for the licensing of Sun Java, and, judging by the comments Rubin (Rubin), his company is going to just keep working and wait for developments, inviting the "enemies" to give adequate legal battle.
We need licensing negotiations Java»
A second email was written almost five after the first-mentioned, it is known as "draft Lindholm (Lindholm)». Here is a quote from the letter:
"So, what we really were invited to do [the founders of Google] Larry Page (Larry Page) and Sergey Brin (Sergey Brin), a study of alternatives to Java for Android and Chrome. We went through a lot of options, but none we could not find suitable. As a result, we believe that we must begin negotiations on licensing of Java on favorable terms to us. "
In response to this letter, the judge Elsap (Alsup), according to Florian (Florian), stated that
"Good counsel from Oracle will need this document (the draft of the letter) and the Magna Carta, to win the case and found that Google intentionally violates the rights of Oracle».
Google also has publicly accused the Oracle (the company that now owns the patent rights of Sun's Java), as well as Apple and Microsoft, «in the conduct of deliberate hostile campaign against the Android ... using bogus patents," without saying a word about whether the creators of Android by law to license the use of Java, or will they continue to deliberately refuse to do so.
Google tried to make this letter did not appear in the case against Oracle, claiming that the message Lindholm (Lindholm) is protected by law secret (the right to counsel not to disclose information received from the client). But the judge Elsap (Alsup) requirement rejected Google, noting that this "is not a full draft by e-mail," and that he had no one was sent. Then there was detailed in a Bloomberg article on the subject, and when Bloomberg asked for comments on Google, a company spokesman Kathleen Todhunter - Gerberg (Katelin Todhunter-Gerberg) said the refusal to comment on this question.
If Google would be guilty of a willful violation, Apple and others will be easier to sue him for Android
We can assume that Oracle is unlikely to get from Google's $ 2.6 billion in compensation for damages for unlawful use of Java in Android, and total control is likely to be reduced to the possibility of a settlement in principle, not to prove guilt Google Android for the use of Java .
The consequences of the settlement will be far more serious than paying royalties Android company Oracle, which, like Microsoft, is now far behind Google in terms of popularity of mobile platforms on the background of Android, located in the public domain. As the first of all developed mobile platform, Oracle Java (which is still licensed by Nokia Symbian and RIM BlackBerry) was in third place after the Android (on all producers devaysov total) and Apple iOS.
The judge, a leading cause Oracle, the plaintiff asked to rewrite the action in the damage to a portion thereof. But the argument about the independence of the Google of its revenues from advertising to business of Oracle and the calculation of the amount of damages the court disagreed. Instead, the judge accepted the arguments of Oracle's "theory of network effects" and said that Oracle may, in its assessment of damages to take into account some of the activities of the defendant in the U.S., non-mobile business.
Outcome of cases with guilty pleas Google's use of Java enables Oracle to punish the defendant three times. First, Oracle itself will receive its compensation, and secondly, competitors, Apple and Microsoft in particular, it will be easier to deal with search engine to prove infringement of its patent rights by the defendant, who had already been found guilty of willful violation of intellectual property, and, third, Android licensees also have the potential to fall under the same legal fire.
A few more reasons for headaches Google
Huge profits from the Internet - will allow Google ads without much effort to repay the court costs and to pay such compensation, but Android licensees may want to stop using "open" Google's software because of legal liability, which is fraught with such use.
Because Google itself to avoid any royalties, Microsoft and Oracle, then the licensees may fail to see Android in the use of Google mobile platform version of Linux / Java / Flash any advantage. Then it is logical to assume that they decide to do a better design your own unique software, as is already done Samsung (working with Bada), as HP's webOS, such as Nokia, in collaboration with Microsoft, and Motorola as its Linux.
Market introduction of many different mobile platforms will be on hand to Apple, which always showed the best results in a competitive market struggle than the struggle with one big monopoly platform. In addition, the legal dispute resolved against the Android, the platform will provide a great advantage alliance Nokia and Microsoft, as well as strengthen the position of Oracle with its JavaME. But, of course, the impact of Android in the first place, will open huge opportunities for Apple, which has now gone far ahead of Nokia, RIM, HP / Palm, and Microsoft.
A similar situation occurred with BSD Unix in the early 1990s - tyh, while the legal issues have helped Linux to get ahead - this platform has a good head start before the BSD, which for several years, nearly forgotten, and only in the last 5 years, Apple, entrenched in the electronics market itself, BSD Unix back in popularity.
The date of the final trial of Oracle against Google is scheduled on October 31, the companies still have time to negotiate. But it is doubtful whether Oracle wants to surrender and to reduce the amount of compensation to claim. In addition, Oracle may continue the judicial struggle with Google to solve ITC, and to ban imports of U.S. mobile devices based on Android, which will be further development in the mobile market, Google devastating.
Wasn't the actual problem that they found these patent issues and asked Sun to clarify them but Sun took no action and left the issue in the middle?
GIR said:
Wasn't the actual problem that they found these patent issues and asked Sun to clarify them but Sun took no action and left the issue in the middle?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good point !
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
dbchoong said:
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Larry Ellison wouldn't allow that, he's as stubborn as Jobs.
Yawn.
This is the Samsung GS2 General forum on xda-DEVELOPERS
This should be in another forum.
dbchoong said:
Google should buy Oracle and start suing everyone else...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahaha !
johncmolyneux said:
Yawn.
This is the Samsung GS2 General forum on xda-DEVELOPERS
This should be in another forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this should be OFF topic forum
avetny said:
this should be OFF topic forum
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. Get in touch with a mod and ask them to move it.
johncmolyneux said:
Agreed. Get in touch with a mod and ask them to move it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you
Here's a quick summary of what's going on. The main issue here is that Oracle used to be on the other side but now started agressively attack OS projects since it aqcuired Sun.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/google-responds-to-oracles-android-patent-lawsuit-we-break-it/
Google knew, and also admitted to knowing, about the licensing issues but because they had faith in Sun they pushed forward, never ever imagening Oracle would turn on them so quickly.
I am deadly sure that Google will stand out to protect their Android partners.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk