<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;phones&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:09:35 PST</pubDate>
<title>Phone No One Uses Will No Longer Carry Game No One Plays</title>
<dc:creator>Dealbreaker</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130131/16551121846/phone-no-one-uses-will-no-longer-carry-game-no-one-plays.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130131/16551121846/phone-no-one-uses-will-no-longer-carry-game-no-one-plays.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <div style="text-align:center;padding:7px 7px 3px 7px;margin:0 0 7px 15px;border:2px solid #bbb;float:right;line-height:1.2;">
<i style="font-weight:bold;color:#666;font-size:90%;">Cross-posted from</i><br />
<a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/h-p-wasnt-going-to-let-a-little-fraud-stand-in-the-way-of-acquiring-autonomy/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/vrrj9mY.png" width="120" title="Dealbreaker" style="margin:0;" /></a>
</div>
New versions of the BlackBerry mobile device won&#8217;t come equipped with BrickBreaker, a simple game that for years was installed on every BlackBerry and at its peak developed a cult following among traders and Wall Street executives. Richard S. Fuld, the former Lehman Brothers chief executive, became so addicted that in 2006 he had his technology department remove the game from his device in an effort to break his habit. Nick Manning, a spokesman for BlackBerry, on Wednesday confirmed the company&#8217;s decision to remove the game from new devices. [<a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/wall-street-prepares-to-crack-brickbreaker-habit/">Dealbook</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>Other posts from <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/" target="_blank">Dealbreaker</a>:</b>
<ul><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/super-bowl-xlvii-everybody-wins/">Super Bowl XLVII: Everybody Wins</a>
</li><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/twinkies-predictably-worth-almost-as-much-as-hostess-itself/" target="_blank">Twinkies Predictably Worth Almost As Much As Hostess Itself</a>
</li><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/informants-assistance-on-insider-trading-case-slightly-undone-by-telling-series-of-lies-to-government/" target="_blank">Informant's Assistance On Insider Trading Case Slightly Undone By Telling &#8220;Series&#8221; Of Lies To Government</a>
</li></ul><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130131/16551121846/phone-no-one-uses-will-no-longer-carry-game-no-one-plays.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130131/16551121846/phone-no-one-uses-will-no-longer-carry-game-no-one-plays.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130131/16551121846/phone-no-one-uses-will-no-longer-carry-game-no-one-plays.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>but-what-about-those-angry-birds</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130131/16551121846</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:13:37 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shocking Revelation: It Isn't The Phone That's Dangerous; It's The Driver</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We have discussed the futility of banning <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060522/0953231.shtml">cell phones</a> while driving for some time at Techdirt. The evidence keeps pouring in and all of it seems to suggest that a driver capable of driving distracted while on his phone will dutifully seek out other ways to be distracted if the phone is no longer an option. However, it&#39;s worth pointing out this continuous deluge of evidence because, for whatever reason, both national and local politicians just seem to love flailing their arms about cell phones mixed with cars.<br />
<br />
That&#39;s why we&#39;ll point out a new study done by MIT researchers which has found, yet again, that people who regularly use cell phones while driving also <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/why-cell-phone-bans-dont-work.html?ref=hp">exhibit other risky driving behaviors</a>, even when no phone is present. If nothing else, the method for this study is interesting:
<blockquote>
<i>The study involved 108 people, equally divided into three age groups: 20s, 40s, and 60s. For each person, the researchers correlated answers on a questionnaire with data collected from on-board sensors during a 40-minute test drive up Interstate 93 north of Boston. The drivers commanded a black Volvo SUV tricked out with an eye tracker, heart and skin monitors, video cameras facing out the front and back windows, on-board sensors, and other research gear.</i></blockquote>
No phones were allowed to be used during the study obviously, and yet researchers found some interesting correlations with the people who admitted regularly talking on their phones while driving: they were more likely to drive faster, to spend more time in the left hand lane, to brake harder, and to change lanes more often. None of these are as drastic as, say, upending the SUV and falling over the rail off a cliff and landing in fiery fashion on a school bus filled with nuns, but the changes do suggest an increased likelihood of danger.
<blockquote>
<i>"These are not &#39;oh-my-god&#39; differences," says study leader Bryan Reimer, a human factors engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. "They are subtle clues indicative of more aggressive driving." What&#39;s more, he says, other studies have linked these behaviors to an increased rate of crashes. "It&#39;s clear [from the scientific literature] that cell phones in and of themselves impair the ability to manage the demands of driving," Reimer says. But "the fundamental problem may be the behavior of the individuals willing to pick up the technology."</i></blockquote>
In other words, crappy drivers are crappy drivers. If they aren't chattering away on their phones, they&#39;ll be singing Carly Rae Jepson with their eyes closed, or putting on their deodorant, or reaching into the backseat for that bag of Cheetohs they left there last weekend. But do we ban cheese snacks in cars? Do we outlaw Old Spice-ing while driving? Should pop music be banned in the car (resist...temptation...to say...yes...)? Of course not, particularly when these studies continue to show that distractable drivers will find another way to run us all over.<br />
<br />
At least if they have their cell phone out, it'll be that much easier to dial 911 when they make us roadkill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120824/12570120151/shocking-revelation-it-isnt-phone-thats-dangerous-its-driver.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>crash-and-burn</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120824/12570120151</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:45:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Samsung Routed In Apple Patent Fight; Told To Pay $1.05 Billion</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120824/16335120154/samsung-routed-apple-patent-fight-told-to-pay-105-billion.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120824/16335120154/samsung-routed-apple-patent-fight-told-to-pay-105-billion.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The jury in the Samsung/Apple patent fight took nearly everyone by surprise by rushing through its job and finishing it way, way, way before anyone expected.  They didn't even ask any questions and with about 700 questions to answer, they breezed through it in no time.  It was not a <i>total</i> victory for Apple (apparently the design patent on rounded-edge rectangles wasn't infringed), but it was pretty close.  In the end, Samsung was found to infringe an awful lot of things (and sometimes willfully) and the <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-verdict/" target="_blank">the final bill is a stunning $1.05 billion owed to Apple</a>.  There's still a lot to sort through in the details, but this is a massive victory for Apple.  Of course, Samsung has probably already written up its appeal (or will ask the judge to set the jury verdict aside or something), so this case is likely to be around for many years, but yet again we see just how ridiculous patent law can be.  What the hell is wrong with competing in the marketplace?  If Apple thinks Samsungs' phones and tablets are too similar?  Well, keep on innovating.  It's called competition, and now we'll have less of it...
<br /><br />
<b>Minor update</b>: After the rush, the judge came back to point out two problems with the verdict -- including the jury awarding damages in cases where it <i>had not found infringement</i>.  While this will be corrected and won't change the results much, it certainly suggests that the jury rushed through this and may not have taken this particularly seriously.  When you start talking about the numbers being thrown around in damages here, at some point, it must start to feel like play money.  But it's a pretty big indictment of the jury itself that it would make a mistake like this.  It raises significant questions about how careful they were in getting to a verdict vs. how quickly they wanted to be done in time for the weekend.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120824/16335120154/samsung-routed-apple-patent-fight-told-to-pay-105-billion.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120824/16335120154/samsung-routed-apple-patent-fight-told-to-pay-105-billion.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120824/16335120154/samsung-routed-apple-patent-fight-told-to-pay-105-billion.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ouch</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120824/16335120154</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:13:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Porn Giant Vivid to Take Legal Action Over HTC Vivid Name</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23042216833/porn-giant-vivid-to-take-legal-action-over-htc-vivid-name.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23042216833/porn-giant-vivid-to-take-legal-action-over-htc-vivid-name.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Trademark... *sigh*. Such a decent idea twisted horribly, horribly wrong at times. I'll try to keep this one simple for fear of flying off into some kind of puntastic boondoggle.
<br /><br />
Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=sinsi">sinsi</a> sent in the Tom's Guide story about Vivid, best known for pumping out pornography, <a href="http://www.tomsguide.com/us/vivid-porn-htc-vivid-smartphone-lawsuit,news-13217.html">sending a cease and&nbsp;desist notice to HTC</a>, best known for pumping out phones. The issue, apparently, is that HTC's latest smart phone is called&nbsp;"The Vivid," a word fairly commonplace in the English language. Now, Vivid Entertainment has crossed paths with the technology sector in the past, when <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/160228.shtml">they sued</a> the&nbsp;enigmatically-named PornoTube website (I wonder what they have to offer), or when their executives decided that it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080215/001404261.shtml">Google and Yahoo's fault</a> that kids were seeing the fine cinematography Vivid produces.
<br /><br />
Still, I find myself asking the same questions about many of these Trademark suits lately: doesn't there have to be some kind of industry crossover for this to be valid? And at what point are moron-sturbators in a hurry going to confuse a smart phone for a the latest Superhero porno parody? Seriously...how does this happen? Did someone at Vivid overhear an HTC customer say, "This phone blows," and get confused?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23042216833/porn-giant-vivid-to-take-legal-action-over-htc-vivid-name.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23042216833/porn-giant-vivid-to-take-legal-action-over-htc-vivid-name.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111118/23042216833/porn-giant-vivid-to-take-legal-action-over-htc-vivid-name.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-a-fap-for-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111118/23042216833</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:11:15 PST</pubDate>
<title>Security Researcher Shows That -- Despite Carrier IQ's Claims To The Contrary -- CarrierIQ Records Keystrokes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111201/02571816938/security-researcher-shows-that-despite-carrier-iqs-claims-to-contrary-carrieriq-records-keystrokes.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111201/02571816938/security-researcher-shows-that-despite-carrier-iqs-claims-to-contrary-carrieriq-records-keystrokes.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Carrier IQ?  This was the company whose software was installed on a ton of phones out there (mainly from Verizon and Sprint), supposedly to record things like if there are dropped calls or problems or whatnot, but which <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111115/01592616774/do-tons-sprint-verizon-phones-contain-rootkit-potentially-tracking-all-sorts-info.shtml">actually</a> appeared to be a rootkit that could track all sorts of info?  Then, remember how, rather than respond professionally to this, Carrier IQ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111122/18293416878/carrieriq-fails-internet-threatens-security-researcher-with-copyright-infringement-claim-over-his-research.shtml">threatened</a> researcher Trevor Eckhart with a copyright lawsuit over this?  CarrierIQ eventually backed down... and again insisted that the claims of keystroke logging were simply not true.
<br /><br />
Yeah.  So.  Don't piss off a security researcher.  Eckhart is back <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video/" target="_blank">with a video showing how CarrierIQ's software does track keystrokes</a> and sends them to a central server.  He demonstrates it recording and sending data, even though Eckhart is logging into something using HTTPS.  Of course, when the software is local and tracking keystrokes, HTTPS is meaningless.
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T17XQI_AYNo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
Dave Kravets at Wired highlights what's really scary about all of this:
<blockquote><i>
By the way, it cannot be turned off without rooting the phone and replacing the operating system. And even if you stop paying for wireless service from your carrier and decide to just use Wi-Fi, your device still reports to Carrier IQ.
<br /><br />
It&rsquo;s not even clear what privacy policy covers this. Is it Carrier IQ&rsquo;s, your carrier&rsquo;s or your phone manufacturer&rsquo;s? And, perhaps, most important, is sending your communications to Carrier IQ a violation of the federal government&rsquo;s ban on wiretapping?
<br /><br />
And even more obvious, Eckhart wonders why aren&rsquo;t mobile-phone customers informed of this rootkit and given a way to opt out?
</i></blockquote>
I would imagine that lawyers are furiously drawing up a pretty massive class action lawsuit as we speak (if it hasn't already been filed).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111201/02571816938/security-researcher-shows-that-despite-carrier-iqs-claims-to-contrary-carrieriq-records-keystrokes.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111201/02571816938/security-researcher-shows-that-despite-carrier-iqs-claims-to-contrary-carrieriq-records-keystrokes.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20111201/02571816938/security-researcher-shows-that-despite-carrier-iqs-claims-to-contrary-carrieriq-records-keystrokes.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>now-that's-kind-of-scary</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111201/02571816938</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:28:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051104/1927247.shtml">expect to be treated like a total criminal</a>.  The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film.  Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=minerat">minerat</a> writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of <i>Moneyball</i> last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released.  Even so... same process.  "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags."  And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:
<blockquote><i>
The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits.  My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun.  Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater.  Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.  </i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110923/12352816074/theaters-prescreenings-bring-your-firearms-no-mobile-phones.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>priorities,-people!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/12352816074</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:00:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110711/17464515050/you-dont-own-what-you-thought-you-bought-verizon-breaks-phones-turns-off-feature.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110711/17464515050/you-dont-own-what-you-thought-you-bought-verizon-breaks-phones-turns-off-feature.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Yet another reminder that, in this day and age, you often don't actually own the products that you've purchased.  The latest to make this point is Verizon, who has begun <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Cripples-Embedded-Android-Hotspot-Functionality-115097" target="_blank">remotely crippling Android smartphones</a>, turning off a feature that let people use the phones as mobile hotspots.  The reason?  Well, to make you pay more to re-enable the feature you used to have:
<blockquote><i>
Verizon this week began pushing smartphone updates that cripple some devices' innate ability to be used as a mobile hotspot -- for free. Specifically, Verizon pushed an update to the HTC Thunderbolt  that blocked the devices embedded hotspot functionality, making the device less valuable and less useful to consumers. Why? Verizon wants to ensure that users have to pay an additional $20 a month mobile hotspot fee.
</i></blockquote>
The company has also received some help from Google, getting the Android maker to remove any tethering apps from the Google marketplace, thereby making it (somewhat) more difficult to workaround this feature-kill.  As Karl Bode notes in the post linked above, this seems the opposite of "open", which both Verizon and Google have been pushing when it comes to Android.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110711/17464515050/you-dont-own-what-you-thought-you-bought-verizon-breaks-phones-turns-off-feature.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110711/17464515050/you-dont-own-what-you-thought-you-bought-verizon-breaks-phones-turns-off-feature.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110711/17464515050/you-dont-own-what-you-thought-you-bought-verizon-breaks-phones-turns-off-feature.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110711/17464515050</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:28:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Music Service Simfy Files Complaint Over Apple Blocking Its iPad App</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110608/23333314630/music-service-simfy-files-complaint-over-apple-blocking-its-ipad-app.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110608/23333314630/music-service-simfy-files-complaint-over-apple-blocking-its-ipad-app.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked in the past about Apple's quite arbitrary approval process for apps via its walled garden, noting at times that Apple just likes to keep out competitive apps.  At least one company is questioning whether or not this is legal.  Via <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/06/more-news-simfy-claims-apple-abuse-facebook-adds-facial-rec-icloud-lawsuits-hmv-more.html">Hypebot</a>, we learn that Simfy (often called the Spotify of Germany) has <a href="http://www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/simfy-files-complaint-over-apple/" target="_blank">complained to German regulators</a> that Apple has not yet approved its iPad app, despite having submitted it months ago.   The company pointed out that Apple has already approved an iPhone app from the company, and it seems strange that it's been stalling so long on the iPad app.  Of course, given the timing of the announcement of Apple's new iCloud music service, Simfy certainly seems to feel that this move was anti-competitive.  Of course, on the flip side, that's what you get for relying on a mostly closed platform.  Time for Simfy to see if it can figure out a way to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110607/08374914589/newspapers-finally-realizing-they-dont-have-to-use-apples-high-priced-payment-offering-locked-down-app-store.shtml">make an HTML5 web app</a> instead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110608/23333314630/music-service-simfy-files-complaint-over-apple-blocking-its-ipad-app.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110608/23333314630/music-service-simfy-files-complaint-over-apple-blocking-its-ipad-app.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110608/23333314630/music-service-simfy-files-complaint-over-apple-blocking-its-ipad-app.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-competition-allowed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110608/23333314630</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 07:00:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Samsung Forced To Hand Over Unreleased Products To Apple In Patent Dispute</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/22305714424/samsung-forced-to-hand-over-unreleased-products-to-apple-patent-dispute.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/22305714424/samsung-forced-to-hand-over-unreleased-products-to-apple-patent-dispute.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the ongoing silly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110418/15182213940/apple-sues-samsung-because-galaxy-tab-looks-too-much-like-ipad.shtml">patent fight</a> between Apple and Samsung, the judge has <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/19/36708.htm" target="_blank">ordered Samsung to give Apple some pre-release products</a> (found via <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Copycense/statuses/73158794447831040" target="_blank">Copycense</a>).  While we've seen similar things before, this kind of order always bothers me, as it just seems wrong to order a competitor to hand over pre-release versions of competitive products.  What if it turns out there's no infringement?  Apple still gets to play with Samsung's products before they even hit the market?  Why is this kind of thing allowed?  Apple's -- and the court's -- argument is that this allows Apple to stop any possible infringement before it hits the market, but it also seems like there can be significant harm in sharing still secret info with a direct competitor.  Even more bizarre is the basis for the judge's claim: that news reports quoted Samsung execs saying they wanted to change the Galaxy Tab to compete with the iPad 2.  So what?  In what way is it wrong for a competitor to shift gears once a new product <i>hits the market</i>?  That's competition.  What doesn't seem fair is Apple getting pre-release access to Samsung's products.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/22305714424/samsung-forced-to-hand-over-unreleased-products-to-apple-patent-dispute.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/22305714424/samsung-forced-to-hand-over-unreleased-products-to-apple-patent-dispute.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110524/22305714424/samsung-forced-to-hand-over-unreleased-products-to-apple-patent-dispute.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-doesn't-seem-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110524/22305714424</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:08:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Phone That Can Search The Internet &#038; Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110401/13154513731/phone-that-can-search-internet-display-ads-patented-everyone-sued.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110401/13154513731/phone-that-can-search-internet-display-ads-patented-everyone-sued.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Looks like it may be time to update our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">patent thicket graphic</a>.  Another company that's not actually doing anything in the space is suing everyone who is.  A company named H-W Technology apparently holds a patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O27GAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,525,955" target="_blank">7,525,955</a>) on an "Internet protocol (IP) phone with search and advertising capability" and has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-20049714-94.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&#038;dlvrit=142337" target="_blank">sued Apple, RIM, Google, Amazon, eBay, HTC, LG, Smasung, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon and others</a> for violating it.  Because, you know, I'm sure no one possibly could have figured out how to put search and ads on a phone without this patent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110401/13154513731/phone-that-can-search-internet-display-ads-patented-everyone-sued.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110401/13154513731/phone-that-can-search-internet-display-ads-patented-everyone-sued.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110401/13154513731/phone-that-can-search-internet-display-ads-patented-everyone-sued.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110401/13154513731</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 07:07:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Phone Calls Are So Last Century</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/01435613571/phone-calls-are-so-last-century.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/01435613571/phone-calls-are-so-last-century.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A month or so ago, a friend of mine asked if I could do a favor (helping point someone in the right direction for a job) for someone -- a relative of a friend of my friend, so this was pretty distant.  There was an email introduction, and a request to talk by phone so I could learn a bit more about this person in order to actually help.  I noted that I was busy over the next few days, but had some open time on a Thursday morning or Friday afternoon, expecting, as usually seems to happen in these cases, that they'd come back with some specific times.  Instead, the person emailed "great, give me your phone number and I'll call when available."  I found myself immediately uninterested.  Something in the back of my brain said "if this person doesn't respect my time enough to actually set a specific time, but would prefer to just interrupt me at random, then I'm going to pass on helping here."  I don't know if that's a rude response -- perhaps it is -- but it's what I felt.  And it was at that point that I realized how rare it is that I'll accept or make unexpected or unplanned phone calls, with the exception of my wife and my parents (and potentially some work-related "emergency.")  There are a <i>few</i> very close, long-term friends that I'll call every so often, but I really haven't done that in a while, and I feel a bit awkward about doing it these days.  I still talk on the phone for meetings, but always at set times.
<br /><br />
Apparently, I'm not the only person who feels this way.  Many people are realizing that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/fashion/20Cultural.html?_r=1&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">random phone calls are just not considered polite any more</a>.  They're somewhat interruptive and can be annoying.  What strikes me as really interesting is that this isn't a case of just the "younger generation" feeling this way -- but it's actually true of many older people as well.
<br /><br />
I find this interesting for any number of reasons, including how counterintuitive it may actually be.  These days, people have phones with them at all times.  In the past, when most people didn't have mobile phones, such random calls were more common.  And you might assume that our greater access to telephony would mean greater desire to make calls.  Now, obviously, a big part of the reason for making calls has been replaced by (mostly text-based) alternative means, such as email, text messaging and social networks.  But, I'd argue that the greater access also makes us more wary in general.  For example, I was thinking about calling a friend recently, who I hadn't spoken to in a while, but realized it would be his mobile phone, and what if he was out with his wife and kids, and I didn't want to interrupt that.
<br /><br />
It's kind of an interesting phenomenon, which makes me wonder if the idea of personal voice calls was really just a temporary slice of time that is going entirely out of style.  Perhaps there will be some sort of quaint revival, like the idea that people have of writing paper letters to each other these days as being more "personal," but the whole phenomenon of the random personal phone call is pretty much becoming a thing of the past.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/01435613571/phone-calls-are-so-last-century.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/01435613571/phone-calls-are-so-last-century.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110321/01435613571/phone-calls-are-so-last-century.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>keep-up-with-the-times</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110321/01435613571</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:45:16 PST</pubDate>
<title>Jailbreaking Phones Lands A Guy In... Jail!</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101130/12161712061/jailbreaking-phones-lands-guy-jail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101130/12161712061/jailbreaking-phones-lands-guy-jail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may remember, back in 2006, one of the DMCA "exemptions" granted by the Librarian of Congress was for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20061205/111210.shtml">jailbreaking or unlocking mobile phones</a>, for the purpose of moving them to a different carrier.  This move was most seriously fought by one company: Tracfone, which offers prepaid phones at a steep discount.  Its business model only works if you can't jailbreak phones -- but copyright law was never about protecting one company's bad business model.  Tracfone has even claimed that allowing such jailbreaking is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060911/064526.shtml">matter of national security</a>.  What they really mean is that it's a matter of protecting their business model.
<br /><br />
Tracfone actually sued the Librarian of Congress for allowing jailbreaking but, in 2007, quietly <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/tracfone?currentPage=all" target="_blank">dropped the lawsuit</a> because it found that courts were simply ignoring the exemption.  Instead, Tracfone just kept suing people for jailbreaking and many caved and settled.  What was really troubling though, was that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080714/0053011666.shtml">people were being put in jail</a> for this. Now, in the first trial involving such a case, a guy (who has already spent over a year in jail for unlocking phones) <a href="http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Phone-Trafficker-Guilty-in-Criminal-Copyright-Case-1360695.htm" target="_blank">has been found guilty of violating the DMCA</a>. 
<br /><br />
This is according to a press release put out by the lawyers representing Tracfone and they sort of bury the key point: the guy <i>pled guilty</i>.  So it's not as if a court judged the overall situation on the merits.  But what's scary is that this seems to <i>clearly</i> go against the very exemption the Librarian of Congress made for jailbreaking phones.  And we're not even talking about a civil copyright complaint here, but a criminal one... for doing something that the Librarian of Congress has already said is legal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101130/12161712061/jailbreaking-phones-lands-guy-jail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101130/12161712061/jailbreaking-phones-lands-guy-jail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101130/12161712061/jailbreaking-phones-lands-guy-jail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>dmca-exemptions-be-damned</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101130/12161712061</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:52:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>IBM Trying To Patent Cure For Obama's BlackBerry Woes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100803/10511210476.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100803/10511210476.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>theodp</b> writes <i>"Appearing Thursday on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4kqk7bg15I">The View</a>, President Obama <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/07/29/washington-extra-obamas-blackberry-10/">lamented that his BlackBerry was no fun anymore</a>, noting that only about 10 people had his BlackBerry personal e-mail address. 'I've got to admit it's no fun because they think it's going to be subject to the Presidential Records Act so nobody sends me the juicy stuff,' he ruefully added. Coincidentally, the USPTO disclosed on Thursday that IBM has a patent pending for a <a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;d=PG01&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;s1=%2220100190526%22.PGNR.&#038;OS=DN/20100190526&#038;RS=DN/20100190526">Cellular Telephone Using Multiple Accounts</a>, which provides multiple SIM card slots to address the problems faced by 'an elected official [who] may be under legal restraints regarding the nature of calls which may be made from a particular telephone.'  Without its invention, explains Big Blue, 'an official may use one telephone for calls in an official government capacity; another for calls to a re-election committee; and another for purely personal use.' IBM ran to the patent office with <a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4848656406_27bcafa6a4_b.jpg">details of the new 'invention'</a> (image) just days after Obama was told he could <a href="http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/01/16/obama-to-keep-his-blackberry/">keep his BlackBerry for personal use</a>, but would have to use an NSA-approved phone for anything government related."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100803/10511210476.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100803/10511210476.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100803/10511210476.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>isn't-that-convenient</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100803/10511210476</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:43:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Removing iPods And Mobile Phones From Students Is 'Discipline Theater'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100718/23410310261.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100718/23410310261.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I remember a few decades back, when I was in high school, our principal announced that her biggest concern and top focus was stopping kids from bringing walkmen cassette players to school.  This was in a school where there were all of the more typical high school issues, including drugs, weapons and violence.  The whole thing seemed so ridiculous.  But, apparently, little has changed.  We've seen lots of stories over the years, of course, about bans on mobile phones and iPods and the like.  But, apparently, banning mobile phones and iPods from schools <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10635333" target="_blank">is becoming government policy in the UK</a>.  At that link, Bill Thompson notes the incongruity between things like mobile phones and iPods compared to other things that are banned (such as weapons and fireworks).  But, of course, the reasoning is different.  The thinking on phones and MP3 players is to keep kids from getting distracted, and to help teachers keep the attention of kids.  In theory.
<br /><br />
In a rather apt analogy, Thompson calls the whole thing "discipline theater," akin to "security theater" found at airports:
<blockquote><i>
It will do nothing to improve behaviour in schools where teachers are not respected by their students.
<br /><br />
However, it could have a negative impact in other ways, as it enforces the idea that schools are places where "technology" is something out there, a word processor or spreadsheet on a desktop PC to be used for a particular purpose, instead of something that permeates all aspects of our daily lives and is becoming increasingly important. 
</i></blockquote>
He also points out that many schools are currently using such mobile devices in innovative ways within the classroom, and setting up a process to keep them out seems backwards.  It's too bad that the first reaction of so many people is just to ban such technology rather than (a) looking at ways to use it in a helpful manner or (b) understanding why the technology sometimes acts as a distraction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100718/23410310261.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100718/23410310261.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20100718/23410310261.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>won't-actually-help</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100718/23410310261</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 14:38:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tipping Point? Quarter Of All Homes Have Totally Abandoned Landlines</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1839469402.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1839469402.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The TV industry has been <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Downplays-TV-Cord-Cutters-108359" target="_blank">totally downplaying the idea that people would ever "cut the cord"</a> when it comes to TV.  While it may be true that it's a very small minority of users today, it would seem that those in the TV industry might want to look over to their friends in the telco industry.  They used to scoff at the idea of cord cutters as well... and now <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B6F620100512?feedType=RSS&#038;feedName=technologyNews&#038;utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A reuters%2FtechnologyNews %28News %2F US %2F Technology%29" target="_blank">25% of all households have dumped their landlines entirely</a>.  And, among younger folks, it's getting increasingly difficult to find a landline at all.  Things change.  What was unthinkable not so long ago can become reality pretty quickly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1839469402.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1839469402.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1839469402.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>watch-the-trends</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100512/1839469402</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:49:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If Criminals Are Smart Enough To Hack Old Nokia's, Can't They Keep A Secret?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2353404618.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2353404618.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you have an old Nokia 1100 phone, maybe it's time to dust it off and <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/163515/">try selling it in Germany</a> where hackers claim to have figured out a way to use certain Nokia phones to steal authentication codes for bank transactions.  There are a few reports that these old phones (if they were made in a very specific factory, not just any old model...) are selling for ridiculous amounts -- ranging from $700 to $30,000 -- presumably because the handsets are so hard to find and are valuable to hackers prone to crime.  So far, Nokia says it can't imagine any way for these old phones to be hacked for banking fraud.  But not surprisingly, security vendors are quick to point out the plausibility of this type of phone hacking -- since security firms can obviously benefit from unfounded fears that encourage consumers to buy security software regardless of the actual need for it.  Is it really that hard to ask a security vendor what the likelihood would be for a criminal to actually succeed in such a scam?  Hopefully, the odds of actually stealing any money with these ancient phones are approaching zero -- especially now that the tools to implement the fraud are known and apparently getting quite expensive.  Perhaps the real suckers in this story are the gullible hackers who are buying old phones in shady forums for prices that are well more than the phones are worth?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2353404618.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2353404618.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/2353404618.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>thankfully-criminals-are-dumb</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090422/2353404618</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When Having Somebody Transfer Your Data From An Old Phone To A New One, Delete Your Self-Porn</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090325/1311394250.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090325/1311394250.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A former Miss Britain who posed for Playboy is suing UK mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse after one of its employees <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/25/lloyd_carphone_pictures/">copied some "very intimate" pictures from her phone</a> and tried to sell them to some newspapers. The woman, Danielle Lloyd, left her phone at the shop so employees could transfer data from it onto a new phone, and is seeking 50,000 pounds in damages for <strike>her stupidity</strike> the employee's actions. It's slightly ironic that the woman would be upset about the photos getting out, seeing as she once had a flourishing "glamour model" (Britspeak for soft porn) career, but the episode goes to show how easily privacy can be undermined these days. There's a presumption of privacy when people take a picture on their phone, or put something online on their private or semi-private space; but as we capture and share more and more of our lives, the presumption that the content we capture will remain private should probably diminish.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090325/1311394250.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090325/1311394250.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090325/1311394250.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>helpful-reminders</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090325/1311394250</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When It Comes To Today's Cell Phones, The Hardware Is The Easy Part</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090316/0931264129.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090316/0931264129.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Faced with stagnating sales as consumers upgrade their computers with less frequency, several PC makers are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/technology/16cell.html">eyeing the smartphone market</a> as their next growth target. It makes sense to them: their technology is getting smaller and smaller, while demand for more powerful handsets is growing. And smartphones are basically becoming tiny laptops, right? 
<br /><br />
Well, not exactly. 
<br /><br />
Smartphones and computers might be sharing more components and technology these days, but just as the PC hardware market became a commodity one, the handset hardware market is moving that way, too. The hardware is the easy part: there are dozens of ODMs around that are more than willing to design and build handsets for anybody with the cash. The real innovation these days is in software -- and designing great mobile user interfaces, as well as applications and services, will determine who wins in the market. Consider the iPhone: its tech specs, perhaps beyond its touchscreen, aren't head and shoulders above other high-end handsets, and are surpassed by a number of competitors' devices. But what's won so many fans is its software, in particular its user interface, its web browser and the App Store. Making the leap from PC to smartphone isn't an easy one -- just ask the likes of Microsoft, whose dominance of the desktop hasn't lead to a similar position for Windows Mobile.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090316/0931264129.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090316/0931264129.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090316/0931264129.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>new-markets,-old-problems</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090316/0931264129</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:31:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Is Motorola Trying To Ban Reselling Phones?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen video game execs <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080929/0051052392.shtml">freaking out</a> about the second-hand sales market, and apparently that may be expanding to other arenas.  The Register has an unnamed source (so make of that what you will) claiming that Motorola is asking people to sign contracts on a new phone that <a href="http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/11/03/motorola_aura_contract/" target="_new">ban the buyer from reselling the phone to anyone</a>, other than back to the manufacturer.  Of course, this is an economically dumb argument.  The resale market helps <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20050728/0216218.shtml">add value</a> to the primary market, and allows the company to charge more for its product initially.  As Mathew Ingram points out, some are suggesting that this move would <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/11/03/motorola-first-sale-doctrine-whats-that/">violate the first sale doctrine</a>, though that could depend on a variety of factors.  I would imagine that the terms could establish the situation as a "lease" of the phone rather than a purchase, but that might be difficult to get the courts to accept.  Also, my understanding of first sale doctrine was that it only applied to intellectual property -- not physical goods, so I'm not sure it would really apply here.  Either way, it would seem to be dumb, whether or not it's legal.  If you want to decrease interest in your product, adding such a clause seems like a reasonable way to do so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/1834332730.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hopefully-not</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081103/1834332730</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Congress Pushes Forward On Banning Already Banned In-Flight Calls</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/0250281860.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/0250281860.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The crusade against the almost non-existent in-flight phone call menace continues.  First, we had the FCC insist that it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070404/085805.shtml">would not</a> lift the ban on in-flight use of mobile phones, in part because of worries from people about having to sit next to someone yapping away.  Then, a few months later, the FAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071007/225436.shtml">also said</a> that it would not allow mobile phones to be used on airplanes.  As we noted at the time, this seemed rather superfluous, given the FCC ruling.  But, of course, when there's an issue that's already been decided, who best to step in and decide it all over again but Congress?
<br /><br />
Yes, a Congressional representative, Peter DeFazio, has given us the (I kid you not on the name) <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10004170-1.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new"> Halting Airplane Noise to Give Us Peace (Hang Up) Act</a>, which forbids "voice communications using communications devices on scheduled flights."  We had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080416/141115867.shtml">mentioned</a> this law when it was first proposed, but it's actually now been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  
<br /><br />
While I can understand the annoyance factor that people fear (and, yes, it's actually been shown that only hearing half of the conversation is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20040413/160858.shtml">more annoying</a>, which is why it's different than just having people talking to each other on the plane), it's still not clear why such a law is needed.  Beyond the FCC and FAA bans already in place, if such phone calls are really as annoying as most people predict, then why wouldn't airlines already ban them, rather than piss off customers?  Or, more likely, you'd get some self-selection in a way that benefits everyone.  Some airlines might allow phone calls, while others wouldn't -- and people can self-select.  Or, some airlines may have "talking sections" and "non-talking sections," and, again, the issue is solved completely without needing a law at all.  This is yet another example of Congress telling us what it thinks is good for everyone, when people are pretty well-equipped to figure that out on their own.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/0250281860.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/0250281860.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/0250281860.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>aren't-politicians-great?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080801/0250281860</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:31:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>'Free, With Ads' Phone Calls Trying Yet Again</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/021714.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/021714.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ At the height of the dot com boom, there was talk of how just about any business model could be shifted to the "free, but with ads" business model.  That resulted in the ability to get free computers, free DSL and even free cars... as long as you were willing to put up with ads (or in the case of the cars, cover your car in ads).  The concept died down a bit, going back to the traditional areas where such a business model made sense (newspapers, television, etc.).  However, it seems like the idea is making something of a comeback in the telco realm -- at least on the company side.  Whether or not users actually buy into it (or, rather, view enough ads to make it worthwhile) remains to be seen.  First up, is Blyk, a company that we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061102/090941.shtml">discussed</a> a year ago, but which <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/business/media/24phone.html?ex=1348286400&#038;en=2b7ce25525ba4acd&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss">is finally launching</a>.  It doesn't appear that they've adjusted their business model (free mobile phone service and they put ads on your mobile phone) since we panned the whole concept.  Similar efforts haven't gone very far, so it's difficult to see this suddenly getting much traction.
<br /><br />
Perhaps even more interesting (though even less likely to get anywhere) is another company, named Pudding Media, that wants to offer free phone calls <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ADS_THAT_LISTEN?SITE=CADIU&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">in exchange for displaying contextual ads on your computer</a>.  Yes, the company is claiming that it will use voice recognition to listen in on your calls, determine what you're talking about, and then pop up relevant ads on your computer screen as you talk.  The obvious comparison is with Google's contextual AdSense (specifically within Gmail).  However, early on people were pretty creeped out by the contextual email ads, and it would seem like people are even more likely to be creeped out by voice recognition systems parsing phone conversations.  On top of that, there are so many options now for people to get cheap or flat-rate calling plans, that you have to wonder if this type of solution will really attract many users.  The company is likely going to focus on bolting its contextual ad solution on top of other providers, but that really depends on how well it actually works.  It appears the company is launching at DEMO this week, which I'll be attending, so I'll try to test it out and see.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/021714.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/021714.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070924/021714.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>at-least-on-the-company-side</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070924/021714</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>