Balls

http://daringfireball.net/2011/08/balls

by jordw • 15 years ago

208 111 15 years ago

Motorola held out for a full acquisition at a premium far above the company’s actual value, and threatened to go after its sibling Android partners if Google didn’t acquiesce.

Say what you will about Gruber and his Apple fanboyism, this rings true to me. By and large, the article seems very astute.

asknemo2• 15 years ago

Threatening to go after other Android partners makes little sense for Motorola. It's not something Motorola would do to get most profit from it. If Motorola has threatened Google something, it would be to sell to Microsoft. That will make much more sense.

aaronbrethorst2• 15 years ago

I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.

http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/08/11/motorolas-sanjay-jha-o...

recoiledsnake4• 15 years ago

>Motorola held out for a full acquisition at a premium far above the company’s actual value,

According to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2888292 the real purchase price is closer to $7B, not $12.5B as stated in the article, due to cash and deferred tax assets.

The Nortel patents went for $4.5 billion and this acquisition gives Google both a ton of patents as well as a company with physical assets that makes the Droid line of phones and the Xoom tablets. Not to mention, Google has $40B in cash or short term investments just laying around to be put to use.

tjogin4• 15 years ago

I have to agree, this was a very insightful piece if you ask me. Not rambling or scrambling to make sense of everything, which is how some of the other analysis reads on the topic.

Gruber took a few steps back, somehow saw the hole picture and described it tersely. Maybe one of Gruber's best.

socratic2• 15 years ago

Does Gruber ever add any real information in an information theoretic sense? He seems to be on Apple's side 100% of the time. (I guess he suggested that the App Store approval process was broken at some point...)

He mostly just appears to be a pro-Apple pundit who has a popular blog that gets a lot of revenue in advertising. But I never see Cringely or Dvorak posts upvoted. What gives?

This does not seem to be very reasoned analysis. He calls the CEO childish and Android (the largest smartphone OS in the US?) desperate. This feels like a hyperbolic opinion piece. What should I be getting out of this article?

orangecat• 15 years ago

Does Gruber ever add any real information in an information theoretic sense?

I'd say the main information content is in who he attacks in the process of boosting Apple. Microsoft and Windows barely get mentioned these days; it's all Google and Android all the time.

recoiledsnake4• 15 years ago

I think Gruber, Asymco, et al. have been taken aback by Android's year over year ascendancy. They were certainly predicting gloom and doom of Android, so patents are their last resort to reign in Android now.

See units and marketshare of Android for 2nd quarter 2010 vs. 2011.

http://wmpoweruser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/image66.pn...

Asymco failing at analysis and predictions:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2887430

staunch• 15 years ago

All I can think about is that Microsoft/Apple blew billions on patents which forced Google to blow billions more to block their move.

Think how much real innovation $20 billion could have created if it weren't for the shitty patent system.

squidbot• 15 years ago

This is the most sensible commentary I've seen yet. Fits the "America is pretty much screwed" articles making the rounds these days. It's actually pretty damned depressing that $20 billion dollars was spent on a legal game rather than awesome R&D.

int3• 15 years ago

The money's not gone, it's mostly just transferred from one party to another -- in this case, from Google to Motorola's shareholders. Of course, many man-hours are wasted in the legal wrangles, but it certainly doesn't add up to $20 billion dollars of lost productivity.

mayanksinghal2• 15 years ago

$20 billion? Did I miss a vital piece of news?

progolferyo• 15 years ago

Whenever these ridiculously huge acquisitions take place, it's always the same. How can Google possibly think that 20 billion couldn't have created something far better than anything Motorola has to offer. They have the talent, the infrastructure, the money, the manpower.

The Skype deal felt like just the same...

couriernew• 15 years ago

I think speed is often the issue with in-house development. Sure, you could make a pretty good product by spending a few billion dollars, but you won't get it next week. An already established install count has to be worth something too.

cageface2• 15 years ago

The other big non sequitur in this argument is that Apple and Microsoft claim that Android steals their own hard-won inventions but they're buying up other companies' IP to bludgeon Android with.

smh• 15 years ago

That implicitly assumes these patents are mostly forky-spoony stuff. What if they represent real innovation? In that case the system is working exactly as intended; investors are getting a return on R&D.

icarus_drowning4• 15 years ago

The primary issue that I have with Gruber's argument is that it seems to reverse some of his more recent assertions about the Google Patent Wars(TM). Haven't we been hearing from Gruber for months on end how patents were going to somehow destroy Android (or cripple it, which is basically the same thing)? Now we're supposed to simply ignore that Google bought 3x the Nortel patents at 3x the price[1] (Gruber's math, not mine), a move that greatly diminishes (if not negates) their loss in the Nortel auction? Now we're supposed to focus on Motorola's problems as a handset manufacturer?

I get that Gruber's mainly going after the over-the-top Lyons piece (a piece which strikes me as poorly thought out and terribly argued). But it does seem like this is Gruber's first move toward a pivot away from the importance of patents in Android vs. Everyone.

You know, those patents that Gruber has been trumpeting for weeks now as the death knell of Android.

Just ignore those.

[1]: Or cheaper?: See recoiledsnake's comment below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2890038

spiffworks2• 15 years ago

Gruber has for a long time made his living off of propping up strawmen and beating them down, much to the amusement of his readers. Everyone knows that Leander Keahney and Dan Lyons are insane, only Gruber goes to the pain of proving them so, with little insight or value added to the discussion, other than to incite his audience to gleefully laugh at the stupidity of the 'other'. I can't believe it actually took me so many years to realise this, but he is off my rss now.

ellyagg2• 15 years ago

As you know, it's easy to get backslapped on pro-Google hn by dissing Gruber, but why not just respond to his analysis instead.

Gruber seems to be right an awful lot for someone so casually vilified. For example, he took a lot of flack here for defending Apple's move to leave flash out of mobile safari. I think enough time has passed to make clear that he and Apple were right.

The anti-Gruber hate looks more like sour grapes every day.

GHFigs4• 15 years ago

"I think Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. Google needed Motorola’s patent library to defend Android as a whole, Motorola knew it, and they made Google pay and pay handsomely."

I don't see how you're getting a reversal out of that. Talking about Motorola's problems is only to highlight that Google would not have spent $12.5 billion on the company if not for the patent issues.

icarus_drowning4• 15 years ago

Because Gruber's summary of the entire story is "I think Apple and Microsoft probably feel pretty good, competitively, about having forced Google into spending $12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management", which ignores the single most salient factor in the deal. Ultimately, Gruber would like us to believe that, all things aside, Google has bought a crappy handset maker, rather than a massive patent portfolio.

ellyagg2• 15 years ago

If you read the story carefully and completely, you'll note that he agrees that this very well may have been the right move, but right relative to the weak position that he has been arguing Google was in. He's by no means being inconsistent to say that their improved position is still weak.

icarus_drowning4• 15 years ago

I appreciate the advice, but I did read the article carefully and completely. My original comment, read carefully, has far more to do with the nuances of Gruber beginning to turn his arguments now that he can't bray night and day about how very threatened Google is by the combined patent portfolios of it's enemies.

collint• 15 years ago

I see this: Google was a happy accident because of the web.

Given the trajectory of Apple, where would the web be in 10 years if Google wasn't throwing everything, and clearly they are doing so, at keeping their platform alive.

Android is about keeping the web a dominant platform as we shift to the next generation of computing.

Google is right to bet the farm on keeping that endeavor alive.

It appears as though they got backed into the corner, but we've never seen Google make a purchase like this.

It's more expensive than usual. And it's not an obvious up-and-comer.

I imagine the #1 thing they could do would be to start picking off staff from both companies to form a super-group to push the hardware into yet unknown territory.

(As a person whose career interests align with Google's I hope the knock it out of the fucking park.)

gc_val• 15 years ago

Is it an analysis or rant? Looks like JG is more annoyed with the fact that GOOG got patent portfolio than credible threat to iPhone with possible all integrated Moto based Android devices.

He is absolutely wrong on whole "patent wars" issue. Of course GOOG is showing its "big brother" attitude time to time but his beloved AAPL is not clean either. This holier than thou attitude sucks!

Moto may be "second-rate" mobile maker. They may be in loss. GOOG is not stupid to shell out 12B "just" for patent portfolio. Always remember GOOG thinks ahead of everyone. People were criticizing GOOG when they made Android open and free. They were criticizing about paying too much money to YouTube (which is on fire now). GOOG is definitely smarter than Gruber.

blinkingled2• 15 years ago

Gruber claims that Apple and Microsoft probably are feeling great that Google had to shell out $12.5B to acquire a failing company like Motorola along with its 'misguided' management and rapidly declining sales.

So what is wrong with that loaded closing statement? Well lots. Firstly he admits the patents part was a good move for Google and the Android platform. He also does math and says they bought 3x Nortel patents for 3x the price. So essentially Google got ton of other Motorola stuff (hardware division, cable modem, set top boxes, Android handset software team et.al) for free. Plus so far as I can tell Droid is a pretty well known and fairly successful brand and Motorola's management did the right thing in saving the company from going down under - not exactly misguided. Gruber would perhaps only call them guided if they did not compete with Apple in any way shape or form!

And what did Gruber had to say when Apple spent billions on Nortel patents? Nope not desperation or anything. Just the fact that Google lost was super important and Android was going to be in trouble.

Gruber also leaves us with no insight on what Google could have done better. He also doesn't feel nearly as bad about Google having Apple by the balls on Nortel patents and making them pay good for Nortel patents, as much as he does about Motorola having Google by the balls by just doing what any sane business will do to maximize its valuation. In comparison actually Google got an arguably better deal - 12.5B for 25000 patents, and a whole functional, moderately successful hardware company with diverse business.

P.S. Motorola has done phones long before Apple thought about it. As such they know a whole lot more about the hardware part as I can tell by the signal and voice quality of my Moto phone. Google and you will find many that can make reliable phone calls with Motorola phones when iPhone could never. So dissing Motorola may be fashionable but I think they know better.

bgentry• 15 years ago

just FYI, the "Droid" brand is licensed by Verizon, not Motorola. There have been many "Droid" phones, all of them on Verizon and from several different manufacturers.

blinkingled2• 15 years ago

You're right of course. But even so, Motorola had lot more to do with Droid brand's popularity than any other Android OEM.

divtxt4• 15 years ago

The problem with Gruber is that he'll write a fair analysis only as long as the fair analysis favors Apple. This means we won't get a fair analysis from him on things like the patent war and app store high-handedness. Sometimes he'll do a great piece. Sometimes you have to sift carefully for the bias. Then there are articles like this - insults, lies and condescension:

- Lyons has always been an ass, but when did he get so bitter?

- you just look childish when, only after losing the auction, you then claim you didn’t really want the thing anyway (google never cried sour grapes on nortel)

- Motorola knew they had Google by the balls. ... and they made Google pay and pay handsomely

The trick is not to get fooled by the reasonable-sounding phrases like: Another way to look at this story... and That’s not to say it wasn’t a bold, brash move, or even... the right move.

To those of you discussing Gruber's position on patents: it is the patents that change position relative to Gruber. :)

edit: typos, formatting

divtxt4• 15 years ago

To clarify: a biased Gruber article may actually have valid points. The problem is that Gruber will only include pro-Apple points.

For example, note that Gruber does NOT point out how the acquisition will allow Google to do Apple-style seamless hardware/software design.

edit: Android -> Google as pointed out by m_eiman below

m_eiman• 15 years ago

the acquisition will allow Android to do Apple-style seamless hardware/software design.

It will allow Google to do that, but I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

ThomPete• 15 years ago

I sure don't hope that Google bought Motorola for that. It will fail just as all other mergers that look good on paper do that.

You got two big cultures coming from completely different parts of the tech world. There is no way that you will get seamless vertical integration that way.

fredoliveira• 15 years ago

The interesting bit is that on the conference call they did say that that was actually not the plan (most likely to keep the other android partners comfortable). Supposedly their process for Android remains the same and Motorola will be on the same footing as everyone else when it comes to software access.

This says that the deal was 100% about patents and nothing else, which in turn says it wasn't that great of a deal in the first place (considering as they paid a big premium for the patent portfolio).

But assuming that they break their promise to partners and do what apple does too by designing both hardware and software together: it would be a good thing for Google as a phone maker, but a nail on the "Android as open" coffin. I don't think they'll be able to risk a move like this - angering their partners and probably breaking Android up -, which just means that the actual impact this will have on the quality of phones coming from Google and Android as a mobile OS is slim to none.

GHFigs4• 15 years ago

google never cried sour grapes on nortel

The argument for this is pretty simple: They bid up several billion dollars. They lost. Suddenly, they decry the bidding as anti-competitive. Sour grapes.

"The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop." -- http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...

Confusion2• 15 years ago

The weasel word here is 'suddenly'. They first tried to win the game the easiest, surest way. Now they have to resort to an unsure, annoying, longwinding way. They probably always considered it anti-competitive. That doesn't mean they first and only try to resolve it through playing that card.

divtxt4• 15 years ago

Sour grapes would be if Google had said "the Nortel patents suck" after they lost.

What you're describing is closer to "they ganged up against us".

bane4• 15 years ago

It's better to treat Gruber like a tool and stop giving him attention. Don't submit his posts to HN, don't upvote them, don't discuss them (here I am doing just that so make of that what you will)

In other words, the only reason some people are well known is that they're well known. That kind of fame burns out quickly once people stop paying attention.

don't feed the troll!

raganwald2• 15 years ago

calling the author a troll without addressing his arguments is either plain abuse or ad hominem abuse. Take your pick, either way it isn't contributing to the discussion, is it?

xefer• 15 years ago

Gruber is part of an interesting phenomenon that has emerged over the past few years: supporting companies (and reviling their 'opponents') with the same passion that people normally reserve for sports teams.

roc• 15 years ago

If by 'past few years' you mean 'past 20-30 years', then I agree.

saturdaysaint2• 15 years ago

This is not a recent trend. People have been devoted to Apple since their founding. Comparing this devotion/passion to sports teams is probably understating it - Wired's feature on Apple in 1997 had a picture of the Apple logo with a crown of thorns on the cover. Going further back, families and pundits had similar devotion to car and cigarette companies.

cpeterso• 15 years ago

Sports teams are companies, too.

sunchild• 15 years ago

The point of the article (which is secondarily a hit on Dan Lyons) is that Motorola had Google over a $13B barrel – the exact opposite conclusion to Dan Lyons' piece. As a kind of aside, Gruber is defending M.G. Seigler against ad hominem attack by going ad hominem on Dan Lyons.

ZeroGravitas4• 15 years ago

I have to say that part surprised me. I thought everyone hated MG Seigler.

tomlin• 15 years ago

Slightly off-topic but one thing I've noticed in particular, is the silliness Gruber spews when the narrative of HTML5 vs. Flash comes about. Gruber treads lightly on the open source aspect of the conversation, but goes full-bore on the battery life commentary.

Battery life is something Gruber likes to talk about a lot, because the open conversation would point arrows right back at him (and Apple). Flash takes battery life, but be fair. It's true to say I couldn't watch movies in Flash for 6 hours, but I can't play Angry Birds for 4 hours, either. In fact, I don't think there is any application I have on my iPhone that would run for 8, 10, 12 hours (screen on), or whatever ridiculous milestone Flash should single-handedly reach. I think the best I've gotten was 6 hours (screen on) of Internet radio.

hvs• 15 years ago

I think Gruber has always been fairly upfront that openness of the platform has never been a big concern of his. I don't usually read his posts, but he usually wears his biases on his sleeve (even if he doesn't always draw attention to them).

Tichy• 15 years ago

It's true that Motorola is not the most exciting handset maker. However, if Google could just get rid of the nonsense and get Motorola to create "pure" devices, some very good things could come out of it. They are certainly capable of it.

Personally I am hoping to hear an announcement of the Xoom 2 as soon as possible.

chanux• 15 years ago

Google picks up nearly three times as many patents as AppleSoft got from Novell and Nortel...

And they paid… nearly three times as much...

and a phone company came free?

pooriaazimi• 15 years ago

Patents are not measured by quantity, but by their quality. A ton of patents doesn't mean anything if you can't use them in court to hold AppleSoft back.

I don't have the faintest idea whether these patents are of good quality or not, I just wanted to point it out. It's beyond me why so many bright people here on HN think these 25,000 patents might worth the same as (or three times more of) Nortel's patents. They 'might', but we don't know that as a fact. I'd always heard Nortel was strong on patents, but prior to this day I didn't know that Motorola had any patents at all.

ZeroGravitas4• 15 years ago

"Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales" -- Gruber (with a link to an Asymco post, which doesn't actually mention sales figures, only market share)

Last quarter they sold 4.4 million smartphones, up from 2.7 million the same quarter last year. (If you're more interested in market share as depicted by Asymco's graph then they're growing slightly at around 5% of the smartphone market, compared with say Apple which is growing slightly at around 15%, or Samsung which has gained 15% in the last year to just under 20%.)

Even if you like to play the Asymco game of including dumbphones that don't run Android to make Android look bad, they still increased total phone sales year-on-year, to 11 million, meaning their increased Android sales replaced a smaller number of lost dumbphone sales.

Padraig• 15 years ago

The article makes a great case that Motorola is the real winner.

The buyout can't have been solely for the patents, because Motorola are losing patent battles. It's unlikely that it was just to own a phone manufacturer, because why buy a 3rd rate one at a 60% premium? So why? Because Motorola had Google by the balls and could have further fucked Android up for everyone else.

It's a shame how every discussion of a Daring Fireball article here collapses into 'Gruber is a fanboy', but it's particularly frustrating when it's an insightful article like this one. If he's half as bad as some of you make out, it should be easy to argue the points without resorting to attacking the man.

discodave• 15 years ago

Ok, so the math for everybody.

Google spent 12.5B. Motorola has 3B in cash. The stock market thought motorola was worth around 6-7B incl cash (assuming they weren't just factoring in a takeover already).

So google really paid around 6B for the patents, they don't have to do anything to motorola. They can sell all or parts of it, maybe muck around with some of the parts of Motorola other than cell phones. But either way the Nortel auction was 4.5B for JUST patents while google gets a mobile electronics company + patents for its 12B.

palebluedot• 15 years ago

The price of $12.5B is prior to discounting the $3B+ in cash the MMI is holding. A lot of emphasis is placed on the '$12.5B' value in this article, without taking into consideration that this is really 25% higher than the effective price of $9.5B, once you back out the cash.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

I would be just fine with banning Daring Fireball from HN, if it meant we could avoid the biweekly DDoS on HN's intellectual capacity sparked by tens-deep threads arguing about Gruber's pro-Apple bias.

Only on HN or Reddit is Gruber's pro-Apple stance not the most boring conceivable topic. It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.

I myself love Daring Fireball, because Gruber is an f'ing good writer. But I could give a sh!t about discussing him on HN. Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.

dasil003• 15 years ago

The worst part in this case is that he's shooting fish in a barrel. The article he picks apart isn't deserving of the analysis.

Sometime Gruber posts interesting theories or observations, and in that case I'm all about discussing them, but this article is just filler for his core demographic.

recoiledsnake4• 15 years ago

He seems like a good writer only if you're already under the RDF, otherwise he comes across as a shallow spin and mudslinging machine and defacto Apple PR. Example of a predictable and hypocritical post: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/08/15/apple-samsung-im...

This is the reason for the disconnect between the HN commenters and the flame wars. It's just hard for people to understand others almost-bordering-on-religion obsessions and biases.

While you say you'd be fine with banning DF from HN, we all know which segment of HN'ers vote up DF, Asymco and some of Marco's stories here, some of which have very convoluted and shallow arguments/analysis/math which seem cherry picked and tailor-made to prop up one particular company and don't withstand five minutes of reasoned analysis.

The problem is that some of these articles are "something that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" (from the HN guidelines) to a group of people rooting for a company and totally shallow drivel to others, so no wonder it's all a flamefest that isn't going to go away soon.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

Case in point.

joebadmo• 15 years ago

I'm an admitted Google fanboy, but I think Gruber (along with the other two, generally) is an excellent writer and analyst when he's writing about Apple unrelated to any other company. And since it's pretty undisputable that Apple is one of the most important companies in the world and such an anamoly in so many ways, I find it pretty important to read Gruber on the subject.

In fact, I often wish there was a writer with as aserbic a wit and as insightful an analytical mind on the subject of Google (Dan Lyons doesn't qualify, though fake Steve Jobs was pretty funny). Not for the apologia like this piece, but for when writers like Gruber, Marco, and especially John Siracusa are critical of their subject of obsession. The thing I love about Siracusa's podcast (Hypercritical) in particular is that you can really feel true, unadulterated, and unself-conscious devotion to the subject in the unchecked criticism he gives. And I wish that culture existed around Google.

There are plenty blogs that follow Google news in a sort of flat way (9to5google, GoogleOperatingSystem), and Danny Sullivan at SearchEngineLand provides analysis, but it's all on sort of a surface level. (And, Sullivan is great, but I wouldn't call him a great writer so much as a comprehensively knowledgeable one.)

Maybe what I really want is Steven Levy to write a blog for real.

(Note: I try to be the change I want to see in the world, but I don't have the talent, sources, or time to write as well as I'd like. But I do my best. http://blog.byjoemoon.com/ )

achompas• 15 years ago

You're absolutely right. Gruber is an opinion guy at best (albeit a smart one), and his articles lack the type of technical analysis we ostensibly care about on HN. Then again, the front page is full of Techcrunch articles...

You want to analyze Gruber? Look at his writing style, which is clearly influenced by David Foster Wallace. He's a damn good writer! Otherwise, take him for what he is -- an Apple pundit with one part brilliance, two parts vitriol -- and stop worrying about what he said 6 months ago. Pundits reverse themselves constantly.

EDIT: I forgot to mention his taste for design and art. I'm more interested in his take on Kubrick's films than anything he writes about Apple.

sudont2• 15 years ago

Ironically, he's a huge fan of the comments here:

"I’m continually impressed by the quality of the comment threads on Hacker News, for example."

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/06/16/powazek-comments

tptacek6• 15 years ago

That's a sad but unsurprising commentary on the state of discussion boards on the Internet in general; when I wrote this comment, the majority of the comments on this story were in some way about Gruber, not the story.

jimmymcn12• 15 years ago

>if it meant we could avoid the biweekly DDoS on HN's intellectual capacity sparked by tens-deep threads arguing about Gruber's pro-Apple bias

It is also about the topic at hand and people defending Gruber's(or Asymco's or Marco's) pro-Apple bias as if it were somehow insightful or interesting.

> It's embarrassing to see ostensibly smart people pick it apart, as if it was faceted and nuanced.

It is more embarassing to see otherwise smart people defend it in the comment threads (eg. people saying that a sales comparison of 20 year old failed consoles with current Android tablets today somehow indicates that those tablet makers will fail and should shut shop instead of trying).

>Anyone else want to just start flagging these things off the site? Look at these silly comment threads. You'd be doing a lot of people a favor by nipping them in the bud.

Who upvotes these stories(beyond the reach of flagging) with shallow analysis favoring Apple anyway? I don't think it's the crowd arguing against Gruber's posts. It is people that think that the analysis worth spreading and discussing about.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

And again, case in point.

Semiapies2• 15 years ago

Might be nice to advise anyone willing to blanket-flag posts from a site that they do so at their own risk.

Soon after I started flagging posts from sources I didn't like, my flag links vanished.

tptacek6• 15 years ago

I'm sure I flag more than you do, and that never happened to me. Maybe you flagged a bunch of stuff all at once. Don't do that.

bane4• 15 years ago

I flagged it, this constant noise about Gruber's Apple religion drowns out any conceivable signal of interest. Better to just link to a Reuters article or something and have a better discussion here.

Balls

Related Stories