That is why Google just gave HTC 9 new patents that originated at Motorola, Openwave Systems and Palm. And if those don't work, Google has another 17,000 patents thanks to its Motorola acquisition. In the end, either the patent system will break down (imagine those 17,000 patents being invalidated), or Apple is going to have to deal with the fact that it can't block competing products from the marketplace using patents. With the patent system, you only need one win with a non-workaroundable patent to be able to block a competing product. And once you get that, you can negotiate on a more level playing field.
"A government that is powerful enough to block your competitor's products from the market is powerful enough to block your products from the market".
The principle is the same though. If the U.S. International Trade Court consistently rules in favor of U.S. companies, then it is highly likely that the trade courts of other nations will rule for their domestic companies. Apple sue Samsung in U.S. and win, Samsung sue Apple in Korea and win. Apple sue HTC in U.S. and win, HTC sue Apple in Taiwan and win. It is probably no coincidence that the first company to stand up to Microsoft's Android tax has been a U.S. company, rather than the foreign device manufacturers.
As regards this particular case, this is just one ruling in response to an appeal of a previous ruling, and this ruling will in turn be appealed. And even if Apple win the appeal, it still leaves HTC with hundreds of patents from the rest of their patent portfolio, plus the 265 S3 patents they acquired, plus the new patents they got from Google. They only need to win once to be able to block sales of infringing hardware. And they can't not win some of the time - if the U.S. ITC find in favor of Apple over a foreign company hundreds of times, then the international patent system is going to tear itself apart, starting with Taiwan and Korea.
(Meanwhile, China has practically no intellectual property or patent enforcement, and is rewarded with the fastest growing economy in the world, despite a prolonged global recession. Ahh.....)
Actually, it isn't completely clear what the arrangement is with RIM and the various intelligence services. RIM allegedly have some kind of data-sharing/intercept agreement with U.S. agencies, and also allegedly caved to China and route everything through a government-monitored messaging server there. As for India:
"RIM had earlier agreed that it would provide the IP address of the enterprise server, located in the customer’s premise, as well as the PIN and the IMEI number of each BlackBerry mobile phone used by a subscriber to enable security agencies access the data in a readable format. But this failed to appease the government’s concerns." Register.
Obviously the BlackBerry uses encryption, but there are numerous ways that the encryption could've been weakened in order to facilitate access by friendly intelligence agencies. Has there ever been any external audit of the code? How are the encryption keys generated? What algorithms are used to package and send the messages? How come ElcomSoft are selling software to law enforcement that breaks the on-phone encryption, if it's so secure.
If you really care, use GPG - it has been extensively audited, the algorithms *and the implementation* are open, and it's free.
No they don't. There is big difference between a) putting adverts in front of your eyeballs, and b) selling your information. One involves receiving money from a third party in exchange for putting an advert on your screen. The other involves transferring your personal information to a third party in exchange for money. The former is entirely legal and lightly regulated in most countries (advertising standards). The latter is more heavily regulated, and if they sold the personal data of Europeans they would be liable for criminal prosecution under Europe's Data Protection laws.
You should probably post all of the context of that info as you seem to have cherry picked the ones that put things in the best light.
I "cherry picked" the bit of the article that was relevant. Maybe you could highlight exactly where in your extended quote it says "Google sells your personal information", because I can't see it.
Any smartphone that allows you to opt-out of location tracking and bundled cloud apps (mail, maps etc) is basically the same as a mobile PC when it comes to privacy. There are plenty of alternatives to the bundled apps if you choose a platform that allows them. Android has alternative email (K9), browsers (Opera), maps (Osmand), market (Amazon). The only thing that doesn't have a replacement (that I know of) is the YouTube app, but if you enable HTML5 you should be able to browse the mobile site and play videos with the built in Android media player.
Google's business model is collecting and selling information.
Not true. Google's business model is collecting users and selling some advertising. They do not sell personal information, and there is no way for advertisers to get access to your anonymised profile. Wired said:
"For most of its existence, Google has largely decided that what you do on its properties -- such as search and Gmail -- will not be used for its ad program, which shows banner ads on third-party websites. That program uses tracking cookies on more than a million sites to create an anonymous profile of you in order to show you more targeted ads (click here to see your profile). By contrast, the ads you see in Gmail and in Google Search are targeted by the search terms you use, or the words in recent e-mails.
To date, the only Google site that feeds into the marketing profile is YouTube. Google has long emphasised that it won't use your search history to create targeted ads and that they use different cookies so the marketing cookie can't be matched with your Google user profile cookie -- despite the temptation of untold advertising riches for the taking by combining and mining such a rich vein of data."
Anti-competitive does not mean what you think it means. Standard Oil sold oil. The oil behaved the way their customers expected. And yet, their business practices were judged to be anti-competitive. "Product does what customer expects => therefore company actions are not anti-competitive" is not logical reasoning.
I don't know what attacks the other poster was referring to, but the UK courts established that the liquid bomb plot would probably have worked, based on evidence from explosives experts, including testimony and video of experimental explosions.
Here's a pretty convincing video. Note the bomb is liquid held in one 500ml soft drinks container, which could be carried through most airport security checks. To make the point that 100ml was just as unsafe, the liquid for this particular bomb was actually combined from several individual 100ml containers as would be allowed through airport security at the time (more details here). Also note that no special measures or precautions were needed to mix the precursor liquids into the final solution, you can see him just pouring the liquids together into the larger bottle in the video, thus establishing that this could easily be done in a departure lounge toilet after security checks. Dr. Sidney Alford (the man who built that particular bomb) is a recognised improvised explosives expert who has carried out work for various Defense departments and governments around the world, including anti-IED work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Endurance activities where having a larger body means higher calorie burn to move it around. Ultra-marathoners tend to be short and slim. Also rock climbing, where obviously a larger frame means you are fighting gravity so much more. And any sport where participation is divided into categories based on weight: boxing, judo (lower center of gravity is good here too, also for gymnastics). And any sport where the ability to accelerate smaller mass limbs provides an advantage, table tennis might fit here.
Gattaca was nifty. When given a choice between a long, healthy life, or a shorter one subject to disease and illness, people ought to be horrified that anyone would choose the latter for their children. Who wouldn't want a society where illness and disease had been pretty much eliminated, and where every child that was born could expect a long and healthy life? The only problem was the in-valids, those who hadn't been genetically engineered. But in the real world we could expect those people to be a very small proportion of the population - when genetic engineering gives certain children such a big advantage as portrayed in the film, the first political party to propose that it be provided as a government-funded service will be elected, and it will be declared a "right" available to all couples.
That has the downside that individual politicians get lost in the sea of the party.
This isn't really a downside, it's just an acknowledgement of what already happens. Next time there's an election, ask your friends and colleagues how they voted. If your experience is anything like mine, they will invariably say "Party X". Then ask them who they actually voted for (assuming you live in a country where you vote for a person rather than a party). It is illuminating - in my experience, the majority of people have no idea who they voted for. Most go into the polling station completely ignorant as to who their local politicians are. They only know (or care) about the parties and the leaders they saw on TV, and the vast majority make their decision on how to vote based on that. They look for the party name on the voting paper. In effect, a local politician can be completely unknown, and do no campaigning whatsoever, but in a region that is dominated by their party they will still be elected.
Not true. The Nazis were a populist party and would have gained power anyway. Goering testified at his war crimes trial was that, under the British "first past the post" system (which apparently he was a fan of), the Nazis would have won *every seat* at the Reichstag in the 1932 national elections (based on 37.8% of the vote). In the 1938 Anschluss vote, Hitler apparently got the vote of 99.73% of the Austrian people.
I don't know why it's such a surprise that people would vote for this; it is human instinct to back a powerful leader who advocates nationalist policies. The fundamental platform is one that still appeals to many: anti-immigration, a strong national identity, pride in the military, a productive and profitable industrial base, and full employment.
The party affiliation means little to nothing when politicians aren't required to vote with their party.
But politicians often are required to vote with their party. What do you think whips are for? Politicians who defy the whip can be subject to a number of penalties, including removal from any official office they hold, and being kicked out of the party itself (which is effectively removal from public politics, since they are unlikely to re-win their seat running as an independent).
The idea of putting the men who vote for war in the trenches is not a new one. Several historical figures have proposed that armies should be drawn in a non-biased way from the population for precisely this reason. If I remember correctly, it was one of the principles behind the Swiss militia system. Major General Smedley Butler - one of the most popular military figures in history - made several similar proposals:
1 Making war unprofitable Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before soldiers are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted.Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get"
2 Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it He also suggests a limited plebiscite to determine if the war is to be fought, and the voters eligible would be those who risk death on the front lines.
3 Limitation of militaries to self defence For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.
"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war. - Albert Einstein"
"No war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. - Eugene Deb"
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato"
The patent is much broader than just GPS: "Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information." They are attempting to patent a data lookup with anything that can be used to determine location - bar codes, radio triangulation, road signs, etc. The patented system does not require GPS.
How did this get modded up to +4? Does nobody remember data on cell phone networks before 1998?
The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started. There's certainly examples of geotagged DB systems from this era, but I don't recall one being used to do web queries.
1. Certainly the mobile networks simply did exist. Data could be transferred over analog cellular connections since the early 1980s. GSM modems have been available since the early 1990s.
2. The state of the web in 1998 is irrelevant. From TFP (**Patent): "The location specific information may reside on a web page." MAY. Optional. They are not claiming a patent on location information from a web page, they are claiming a patent on location information from any data source.
They cover different methods of locating the cell phone, including tower triangulation and such, others cover TCP/IP from cell phones, and other cover various ways of doing geolookups. However, none of them combine the two ideas in this fashion
"The twin screens could be also driven by real time software, rather than relying on user input. Thus, the unit could be left open in a car, and receive fax/mail messages there (like a carphone). However, it could also interface to the new generation of automatic car navigation equipment. By dialling up an appropriate number, the machine could either download map pages for the area the user is in, or it could provide up to the minute reports of traffic congestion - sounding a warning if there was one in the area.
I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
On the contrary, if this is a "good patent", then the patent system is obviously broken. I really hope that Apple does succeed in getting every device that combines geolocation and data services removed from the market. If successful companies making popular products like Garmin, TomTom etc. start being shut down then politicians will be screaming for patent reform.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack
On the contrary, the technology that the ordinary troops use is dated, heavy and expensive. Everything is custom-built and procured by a single buyer in a pretty non-competitive tendering market. Example: handheld GPS receiver, $2000 per unit, low resolution grayscale LCD, heavy on batteries etc. If it was released on the consumer market nobody would buy it. The only advantage it might have is being rugged, but its MTBF is listed at 5000 hours which isn't that great, plus consumer units like the Garmin Vista series are quite rugged and waterproof and have many other advantages.
TFA: "DISA Tuesday issued a request for information to do market research ahead of the impending expiration of two communications contracts now in place. It plans to consolidate the existing contracts into a new contract that will provide wireless services and hardware to soldiers across Europe."
This is mobile phones and a data plan for U.S. soldiers based in Europe. It is not for war zones or hostile territory. Reliance on enemy-controlled phone networks during war time is seen as something of a liability. Having said that, the British soldiers in Kosovo apparently had to resort to using the Serb-controlled civilian mobile phone network when they invaded, so you never know...
Ordering people to give over a password to someone they despise, when the only POINT of the password is that it's not known to anyone else is ludicrous.
He didn't actually order that though. He ordered the attorneys to swap passwords so that they could perform discovery. This does not necessitate the other partner getting the password.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why Google just gave HTC 9 new patents that originated at Motorola, Openwave Systems and Palm. And if those don't work, Google has another 17,000 patents thanks to its Motorola acquisition. In the end, either the patent system will break down (imagine those 17,000 patents being invalidated), or Apple is going to have to deal with the fact that it can't block competing products from the marketplace using patents. With the patent system, you only need one win with a non-workaroundable patent to be able to block a competing product. And once you get that, you can negotiate on a more level playing field.
"A government that is powerful enough to block your competitor's products from the market is powerful enough to block your products from the market".
The principle is the same though. If the U.S. International Trade Court consistently rules in favor of U.S. companies, then it is highly likely that the trade courts of other nations will rule for their domestic companies. Apple sue Samsung in U.S. and win, Samsung sue Apple in Korea and win. Apple sue HTC in U.S. and win, HTC sue Apple in Taiwan and win. It is probably no coincidence that the first company to stand up to Microsoft's Android tax has been a U.S. company, rather than the foreign device manufacturers.
As regards this particular case, this is just one ruling in response to an appeal of a previous ruling, and this ruling will in turn be appealed. And even if Apple win the appeal, it still leaves HTC with hundreds of patents from the rest of their patent portfolio, plus the 265 S3 patents they acquired, plus the new patents they got from Google. They only need to win once to be able to block sales of infringing hardware. And they can't not win some of the time - if the U.S. ITC find in favor of Apple over a foreign company hundreds of times, then the international patent system is going to tear itself apart, starting with Taiwan and Korea.
(Meanwhile, China has practically no intellectual property or patent enforcement, and is rewarded with the fastest growing economy in the world, despite a prolonged global recession. Ahh.....)
Actually, it isn't completely clear what the arrangement is with RIM and the various intelligence services. RIM allegedly have some kind of data-sharing/intercept agreement with U.S. agencies, and also allegedly caved to China and route everything through a government-monitored messaging server there. As for India:
"RIM had earlier agreed that it would provide the IP address of the enterprise server, located in the customer’s premise, as well as the PIN and the IMEI number of each BlackBerry mobile phone used by a subscriber to enable security agencies access the data in a readable format. But this failed to appease the government’s concerns." Register.
Obviously the BlackBerry uses encryption, but there are numerous ways that the encryption could've been weakened in order to facilitate access by friendly intelligence agencies. Has there ever been any external audit of the code? How are the encryption keys generated? What algorithms are used to package and send the messages? How come ElcomSoft are selling software to law enforcement that breaks the on-phone encryption, if it's so secure.
If you really care, use GPG - it has been extensively audited, the algorithms *and the implementation* are open, and it's free.
You should probably post all of the context of that info as you seem to have cherry picked the ones that put things in the best light.
I "cherry picked" the bit of the article that was relevant. Maybe you could highlight exactly where in your extended quote it says "Google sells your personal information", because I can't see it.
Any smartphone that allows you to opt-out of location tracking and bundled cloud apps (mail, maps etc) is basically the same as a mobile PC when it comes to privacy. There are plenty of alternatives to the bundled apps if you choose a platform that allows them. Android has alternative email (K9), browsers (Opera), maps (Osmand), market (Amazon). The only thing that doesn't have a replacement (that I know of) is the YouTube app, but if you enable HTML5 you should be able to browse the mobile site and play videos with the built in Android media player.
Google's business model is collecting and selling information.
Not true. Google's business model is collecting users and selling some advertising. They do not sell personal information, and there is no way for advertisers to get access to your anonymised profile. Wired said:
"For most of its existence, Google has largely decided that what you do on its properties -- such as search and Gmail -- will not be used for its ad program, which shows banner ads on third-party websites. That program uses tracking cookies on more than a million sites to create an anonymous profile of you in order to show you more targeted ads (click here to see your profile). By contrast, the ads you see in Gmail and in Google Search are targeted by the search terms you use, or the words in recent e-mails.
To date, the only Google site that feeds into the marketing profile is YouTube. Google has long emphasised that it won't use your search history to create targeted ads and that they use different cookies so the marketing cookie can't be matched with your Google user profile cookie -- despite the temptation of untold advertising riches for the taking by combining and mining such a rich vein of data."
Anti-competitive does not mean what you think it means. Standard Oil sold oil. The oil behaved the way their customers expected. And yet, their business practices were judged to be anti-competitive. "Product does what customer expects => therefore company actions are not anti-competitive" is not logical reasoning.
I don't know what attacks the other poster was referring to, but the UK courts established that the liquid bomb plot would probably have worked, based on evidence from explosives experts, including testimony and video of experimental explosions.
Here's a pretty convincing video. Note the bomb is liquid held in one 500ml soft drinks container, which could be carried through most airport security checks. To make the point that 100ml was just as unsafe, the liquid for this particular bomb was actually combined from several individual 100ml containers as would be allowed through airport security at the time (more details here). Also note that no special measures or precautions were needed to mix the precursor liquids into the final solution, you can see him just pouring the liquids together into the larger bottle in the video, thus establishing that this could easily be done in a departure lounge toilet after security checks. Dr. Sidney Alford (the man who built that particular bomb) is a recognised improvised explosives expert who has carried out work for various Defense departments and governments around the world, including anti-IED work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bigger Is Better, Except When It’s Not. Interesting article. They say distance running and cycling.
Endurance activities where having a larger body means higher calorie burn to move it around. Ultra-marathoners tend to be short and slim. Also rock climbing, where obviously a larger frame means you are fighting gravity so much more. And any sport where participation is divided into categories based on weight: boxing, judo (lower center of gravity is good here too, also for gymnastics). And any sport where the ability to accelerate smaller mass limbs provides an advantage, table tennis might fit here.
Gattaca was nifty. When given a choice between a long, healthy life, or a shorter one subject to disease and illness, people ought to be horrified that anyone would choose the latter for their children. Who wouldn't want a society where illness and disease had been pretty much eliminated, and where every child that was born could expect a long and healthy life? The only problem was the in-valids, those who hadn't been genetically engineered. But in the real world we could expect those people to be a very small proportion of the population - when genetic engineering gives certain children such a big advantage as portrayed in the film, the first political party to propose that it be provided as a government-funded service will be elected, and it will be declared a "right" available to all couples.
That has the downside that individual politicians get lost in the sea of the party.
This isn't really a downside, it's just an acknowledgement of what already happens. Next time there's an election, ask your friends and colleagues how they voted. If your experience is anything like mine, they will invariably say "Party X". Then ask them who they actually voted for (assuming you live in a country where you vote for a person rather than a party). It is illuminating - in my experience, the majority of people have no idea who they voted for. Most go into the polling station completely ignorant as to who their local politicians are. They only know (or care) about the parties and the leaders they saw on TV, and the vast majority make their decision on how to vote based on that. They look for the party name on the voting paper. In effect, a local politician can be completely unknown, and do no campaigning whatsoever, but in a region that is dominated by their party they will still be elected.
Not true. The Nazis were a populist party and would have gained power anyway. Goering testified at his war crimes trial was that, under the British "first past the post" system (which apparently he was a fan of), the Nazis would have won *every seat* at the Reichstag in the 1932 national elections (based on 37.8% of the vote). In the 1938 Anschluss vote, Hitler apparently got the vote of 99.73% of the Austrian people.
I don't know why it's such a surprise that people would vote for this; it is human instinct to back a powerful leader who advocates nationalist policies. The fundamental platform is one that still appeals to many: anti-immigration, a strong national identity, pride in the military, a productive and profitable industrial base, and full employment.
The party affiliation means little to nothing when politicians aren't required to vote with their party.
But politicians often are required to vote with their party. What do you think whips are for? Politicians who defy the whip can be subject to a number of penalties, including removal from any official office they hold, and being kicked out of the party itself (which is effectively removal from public politics, since they are unlikely to re-win their seat running as an independent).
I suspect he is referring to Verbotsgesetz 1947 and similar laws that the Allied administrations passed during the occupation period following WWII as part of the Allied denazification program.
The idea of putting the men who vote for war in the trenches is not a new one. Several historical figures have proposed that armies should be drawn in a non-biased way from the population for precisely this reason. If I remember correctly, it was one of the principles behind the Swiss militia system. Major General Smedley Butler - one of the most popular military figures in history - made several similar proposals:
1 Making war unprofitable Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before soldiers are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted.Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get"
2 Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it He also suggests a limited plebiscite to determine if the war is to be fought, and the voters eligible would be those who risk death on the front lines.
3 Limitation of militaries to self defence For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.
"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war. - Albert Einstein"
"No war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. - Eugene Deb"
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato"
The patent is much broader than just GPS: "Bar code labels, infrared beacons and other labeling systems may also be used in the location information system in place of or in addition to the GPS receiving system to supply location identification information." They are attempting to patent a data lookup with anything that can be used to determine location - bar codes, radio triangulation, road signs, etc. The patented system does not require GPS.
How did this get modded up to +4? Does nobody remember data on cell phone networks before 1998?
The patent dates to 1998, so I seriously doubt that there's prior art. Certainly the mobile networks simply did not exist, and the web itself was still getting started. There's certainly examples of geotagged DB systems from this era, but I don't recall one being used to do web queries.
1. Certainly the mobile networks simply did exist. Data could be transferred over analog cellular connections since the early 1980s. GSM modems have been available since the early 1990s.
2. The state of the web in 1998 is irrelevant. From TFP (**Patent): "The location specific information may reside on a web page." MAY. Optional. They are not claiming a patent on location information from a web page, they are claiming a patent on location information from any data source.
They cover different methods of locating the cell phone, including tower triangulation and such, others cover TCP/IP from cell phones, and other cover various ways of doing geolookups. However, none of them combine the two ideas in this fashion
DEC PageLink, a proposal for a portable computer, 1989. The patent draft featured real time geolocation based data retrieval:
"The twin screens could be also driven by real time software, rather than relying on user input. Thus, the unit could be left open in a car, and receive fax/mail messages there (like a carphone). However, it could also interface to the new generation of automatic car navigation equipment. By dialling up an appropriate number, the machine could either download map pages for the area the user is in, or it could provide up to the minute reports of traffic congestion - sounding a warning if there was one in the area.
I'm sorry, but writing this off as "bad patent" will do nothing by hurt any claims that the system is broken.
On the contrary, if this is a "good patent", then the patent system is obviously broken. I really hope that Apple does succeed in getting every device that combines geolocation and data services removed from the market. If successful companies making popular products like Garmin, TomTom etc. start being shut down then politicians will be screaming for patent reform.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack
On the contrary, the technology that the ordinary troops use is dated, heavy and expensive. Everything is custom-built and procured by a single buyer in a pretty non-competitive tendering market. Example: handheld GPS receiver, $2000 per unit, low resolution grayscale LCD, heavy on batteries etc. If it was released on the consumer market nobody would buy it. The only advantage it might have is being rugged, but its MTBF is listed at 5000 hours which isn't that great, plus consumer units like the Garmin Vista series are quite rugged and waterproof and have many other advantages.
TFA: "DISA Tuesday issued a request for information to do market research ahead of the impending expiration of two communications contracts now in place. It plans to consolidate the existing contracts into a new contract that will provide wireless services and hardware to soldiers across Europe."
This is mobile phones and a data plan for U.S. soldiers based in Europe. It is not for war zones or hostile territory. Reliance on enemy-controlled phone networks during war time is seen as something of a liability. Having said that, the British soldiers in Kosovo apparently had to resort to using the Serb-controlled civilian mobile phone network when they invaded, so you never know...
Ordering people to give over a password to someone they despise, when the only POINT of the password is that it's not known to anyone else is ludicrous.
He didn't actually order that though. He ordered the attorneys to swap passwords so that they could perform discovery. This does not necessitate the other partner getting the password.
Yes. Split-screen smooth and playable Mario Kart 64 emulation in HD yes.
Because comparing absolute numbers is stupid? (Hint: what is the population and land mass of Spain vs the U.S.?)