AT&T does now support tethering, your data is old.
Also, the Google voice thing is not an Apple thing, directly. They are "further investigating" it and working with Google as releasing the app does not violate Apple;s policies directly, accepting that no 3G enabled VoIP apps are permitted per AT&T's contract terms. AT&T has given it pass, however, international cellular providers, and most speicifcally Verizon, soon to be the next carrier, vehemently oppose the idea (especially Verizon, who offers "my 5" on every line, and google voice would turn every line into an unlimited calling plan automatically...) That's why Apple is not YET releasing it (though rumor claims they're close...)
1) Blackberry may be $100 after rebate (some even as cheap as $50, but lets face it, those are not multitouch iPhone competitors), but the monthly cost for an iPhone 900 minute plan is only $89.99, and the Verizon blackbery plan is $99.99 and is capped at 5GB where the iPhone is not capped. Adding SMS/MMS to each is the same cost, so the iPhone is cheaper over the 2 year plan by $10 a month. The unlimited plan is the same price on both devices, but still the iPhone comes out ahead with unlimited data. Finally, the $30 extra to tether the blackberry compared to the (yet unconfirmed, but reliably leaked) $20 to do the same with the iphone. Lastly, i can swap out my iPhone on average every 18 months, receiving a $400 discount vs the Verizon device which gets a paltry $150 discount only once every 2 years... If you're comparing AT&T to AT&T, the Blackberry plan is still restricted to 5GB, and is not the same $30, but $40. Its more expensive. And the curve is no iPhone... Next we can talk about app prices, ringtone prices, etc...
2) Open as in ANYONE can be a developer and submit apps. Google voice is not removed or rejected, it's still pending, and that "pending" has actually a lot more to do with Verizon and AT&T's contract than Apple's refusal to allow it on its own. Also, I have SEEN AT&T terminate a phone contract because an "unapproved" application was on a device. Just because AT&T doesn't have a gatekeeper for the blackberry does NOT mean they can not control hwat you do and do not run on your device. Google voice is highly contravercial, and violates a current clause in the contract Verizon is wooing apple to get. Other apps have either been abusive, or useless.
Verizon runs 3G, and is fully compatible with iPhone 3G phones. It;s not EDGE... I can confirm I'm on a verizon tower as they're the only towers in this town. AT&T's closest tower is 40 miles from me.
and half the "lockdown" apple enforces is under their contractual obligations to AT&T, the media providers (networks, studios, etc), and to protect the patents and trademarks of their partners.
Apple is extremely open. They frown on overcharing for crap, for scams, and they like to protect their consumers. It's half the reason people CHOOSE them. Their device works, priced vs a blackberry it's cheaper over 2 years, has nice interface software (don;t get me started on Palm...), and you have amazing freedom with the device. It happens to be restricted to AT&T's network, but... oh, wait, is that a Verizon tower my iPone is connected to right now? Why yes, it is!!! Yea, the whole FCC manditory partner network sharing thing... I could give a shit about AT&T's poor netowkr since the device will simply connect to the strongest local 3G tower anyway...
plus, you can allways jailbreak the iPhone. You do have that right (if you're OK saccrificing a warranty).
What? you expect your phone to be completely open??? Shit, had an LG from Verizon the ON THE FUCKING BOX (Verizon's own box with their own logos) indicated the hpone offered a connection kit, bluetooth sync and more. Those were LG's specs for the device, but Verizon DISABLED all those features. If I took a picture with the integrated camera, i could not get it to my PC in any way other that paying verizon a charge per image for the transfer. Sprint was WORSE with a moto i had from them.
Apple has an open development system. There are just simple rules. 85,000 apps, about 10,000 good ones, all in one place, most $5 or less. Just simple: don't violate trademarks, don't duplicate generic device functionality, play in your own snadbox, don't cause security issues. And you know what? most of the rules are not APPLE'S rules, but AT&T and the other providers, since the iPhone was the first device capable of half this shit.
Oh, and you forget, web apps are wide open.
Oh, and that car you bought, while it's under warranty, you can only take it to AUTHORIZED repair centers. Once the warrty is out, you're on your own. Apple is the same way; either pay to unlock it, wait your 2 years, or simply jailbreak... Do whatever you want, but no warranty if you do.
Vendor lock in? I tell you what, I'd rather have a "restrictive" app market on a stable device I like holding in my hand for which under heavy use I get a full day's battery, and continual free software upgrades, vs an Android where the apps are limited, buggy, expensive, and suck the phone dry in 4-6 hours.
Dead on right. It;s not about wether or not apple chooses what they carry, its about wether Time Warner throttles downloads from apple while supporting higher bandwidth from their own competing marketplace, and those of partners who pay them for the same privilidge....or for Verizon restricting feeds from Hulu that compete with their Fios offerings, or make Vonaage VoIP choppy while there own is crystal clear...
it's not who is on the internet that needs to be nutral, its the 3rd party folks in the middle shaping traffic that need to be watched by multiple cameras in multiple spectrums 24x7x365.25.
I'm not complaining about it, but it is a common complaint.
but, have you stood next to a wind tower? That swoosh is not exactly slight... it can be heard clearly at as far as a mile, and that's not to count the electric whine and grind of the incredibly high torque generator 150 feet off the ground in the core of the windmill. The blades can generate 75dB or more in typical wind. Standing directly UNDER the windmill is actually the quitest place, due to acoustics, and wind farms will aften take people to those spots to say "you can hardly hear it" but then they build them 1/4 mile away and I'm told over time the noise becomes like a hiss from an old monitor that can't be ignored...
Nope, misses most of the points. Needs the connection (no dowloaded routes)
Traffic indicator (but not intelligent traffic avoidance, it simply tells you "there's traffic on the route")
Rerouting it's got, but only if you have a connection. That's a problem in a lot of places I go.
Business data is only as accurate as google's crawl information, which i often find lacking, innacurate, or just plain wrong. AAA's database is much more accurate.
As for the "its free" that's exactly my popint. Given TomTom's patents, if Googles system did compete, it would not be able to be free, as the royalites (or patent infringement suits) would make that impossible).
Also, TomTom and Garmin have both made public annoucnements regarding the app. They've reviewed it and found it extremely basic, and no threat to their core business. Yea, it;s going to scuttle some bottom end GPS units, but those are barely profitable as it is, or are sold at a loss, coun ting on recouping revenue on map updages and product upgrades and accessories.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government It;s not a branch, it;s an independent acency defined by the constitution to be OUTSIDE of any branch of government. Yes, it;s regulated by congress, (they have to ask congress to change the price of a stamp for instance) but it operates completely on its won otherwise.
2) They can already get a subpeona to access your saftey deposit box, your medical records, your phone logs, your credit history, and more. Legally. but they have to provide a 4th ammendment notice to you or your lawyer if you can be reached. The ONLY difference with this legislation is that they have extended existing legislation that applkies to personal items stored in public locations (like your office desk), such that the notification is not required (but the subpeona still is!) The idea is this information, unlike your medical record, is not under lock, key, and audited by legal authority, so provacy is not inherent (though it MAY be expected).
You still have rights, you can still have the evidence thrown out, they stil can;'t touch it without showing probable cause to a judge. They just don;t have to send you a letter if they do... (they can already do this for phone records too...)
This ruling di NOT give them the ability to wire tap your e-mail. It simply absolves them of a NOTIFICATION requirement of the 4th amendment if they in fact do get a legitimate subpeona as part of active litigation signed by a judge to access it.
They can do the EXACT SAME THING for your phone records, credit cards, medical records, and more. This simply extended that clause to specifically e-mail.
This did not take away a freedom, it expanded the scope of an existing legal ruling previously upheld by the supreme court and current law.
The only expectation to privacy I have handing a package over to the postman is that if i can PROVE he opened it, i can sue.
The EXACT SAME is true of e-mail. They CAN NOT access it, even on a public server, without a warent or subpeona, both of which require an active litication in front of a judge to execte.
it does not: 1) prevent information from being opened and read by unauthorized parties 2) does not protect me from accidental opening (ever have a package damaged in shipping, or a backup that had to be restored, no different, someone's eyes other than you and the recipient can equally come upon it). 3) tampering can still happen, in either case of physical or electronic it;s near impossible to prove, even harder for electronic in most cases 4) mis-delivery 5) mail sent you YOU from someone else under active investigation would bring your inbox under scrutiny as well. I could come up with a DOZEN reasons.
Anything not in my hands, and not bound by lock/key/(encryption) is NOT guaranteed private.
it is not wether or not you personally believe e-mail to be secure and private, it is wether a reasonable person presented with scenarios to the contrary would understand it was not truly private. Near everyone has heard of data encryption, secure e-mail, or seen a disclaimer in a message saying "if this was misdelivered please be nice and discared and not redistribute the contents." Certainly you've gotten e-mail meant for someone else, or sent a message to the wrong person (or reply all instead of reply). This alone indicates a failure of complete privcy, and thus the government knowing that still needs a subpeona, but they can get one without required 4th amendment noitification (you can still defend the findings in civil or criminal court if they did not have probable cause, or to exclude certain findings).
No, there are explicit laws protecting that information through targeted legislation. That's actually part of the argument on why the CAN access your e-mail this way (if it's on a cental 3rd party system).
But, in contrast, they CAN subpeona your medical records, phone records, and more.... They do that every day!!!! This only extends that to e-mail. The difference is, you have no expectation of guaranteed privacy of e-mail as you do with medical records as those are protected by such targeted legislation and regulation, so they can subpeona access to it, and they don't have to provide you protection notice under the 4th amendment (though it does have to pass a judge's scritiny for them to get that subpeona). In other words, It;s not that they could not already get your e-mail through a court order, this just gives them the abiltiy to do so without first having to issue your lawyer notice (you can still fight to have the contents kept from a court case, it;s not public record, you still have rights).
No, what he said was that since gmail provides a lawful disclosure clause, you are not required to receive a 4th amendment NOTICE if they choose to, under legally plausible reasons and not simply via random search, subpeana access to your e-mail repository.
The idea is that once an item has left your own hands, and systems outside your control, the destinaton to which it is sent is not under your own control. Therefor privacy is understood, but not inherent or guaranteed, and this they do not have to provide full 4th amendment notification should they lawfully access your e-mail that is stored on a PUBLIC mail server.
This is a bit fishy, but it does not mean they can randomnly search all your e-mail, just that a legal authority can subpeona access to it and you can not argue that the data they get is private data to have it excluded from a court case. However, if they access it without probable cause, you can still sue, as privacy is within reason expected.
All well and good it's free, and even if I could pre-plan a route and store that info on the deivce, it still creates big headaches when i can't access a cellular network data service and I want to search for something.
Also, my understanding is this is at best a basic GPS, turn by turn with limited lane identification, but no real-time route updates, automatic traffic reporting, etc.
For the casual user on their once or twice a year road trip to a popular destination, it's fine. For people who spend their lives on the road, it's not good enough. We'll see version 2...
Also, I'm SURE Garmin, TomTom, and the others all have some hard core patents in place ensuring noone's going to offer a competing system at better pricing.
considering only a 40 year generator lifespan, that's only $20/month to generate the power for a house. The transmission lines in the localized grids already exist, and this deployment includes the cost of the superconductor line to connect the new farm into the texas grid (and Obama is fronting the money under a seperate effort to tie the texas grid into the other 2 national grids on the north side of the state using the same tehcnology).
Granted, about 50% of your monthly power bill is maintenance and facility costs for the power compnay, but ifg my bill averages $100, and $50 is maintenance, they're profiting $30/month/home for 150,000 homes... That's AMAZING profitability...
The only issue is overproduction of the energy (read about this issue at DotyEnergy.com, and the solution they have that not only fixes a major cost issue for windfarm deveolopers, it also solves out oil import problems and greenhouse gas output from motor vehicles, an NO, it;s not vaporware, it's technology in active use since WWII).
The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60% capacity, and rarely generate more. One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.
These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated (based on AVNERAGE output at 30%), take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use (where we can at least farm on 85% of the land a wind farm exists on), and a reactor lasts 30-50 years, where a wind tower lasts 150, and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.
This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.
TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines... They will not be imported cheap chinease crap, they'll be made right here by American families (using China's money, much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs).
I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago, and a Chrysler 2 years later. One was manufactured in Canada, the other in Mexico. The Honda, Subaru, and Kia we've also bought over the years were all made in America, with over 80% of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil...
A chinease company loaning money to their own firms in the USA to employ US workers to manufacture generators and turbines in an american facility, to be placed on american land owned by american power companies employing yet more americans, and producing profits on the sale of that electricity that stays here in america. I'm lost as to how this is a bad thing...
Of a typical wind deployment, over 90% of the land is usable for farming, and 75% for housing, however, these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore. The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated. (and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind). Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you can't live there and can't farm therte, and they make ideal wind farms.
In contracts; the Savana River nuclear site, for example, is a 198,000 acre site, of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public. another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy. This facility is closed, and not generating power, but at its peak didn't make over 1.5GW.
The Hartsville SC plant (robinson), is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak, but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups. The reactor peak output is barely above 500, and rareley above half that. Their "primary" unit is actually a coal fire plant.
This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel, nor its waste...
nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW, so it's more land, more expensive, more dangerous, and more politically charged (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)
And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea. Hopefully, this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use, and will enfore so that noone else does either.
Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all...:)
sort of general knowledge, based on their history of successful patent attacks against other companies, successful ratio of patent defenses againt other firms, success rate in having patents revoked, and success in negotiating patent disputes away without entering court.
They file HUNDREDS of patents anually, bested last year only by IBM. They are one of a handful of companies with not just a full time legal staff dedicated to patents, but an entire depertment of researchers, filers, lawyers, patent designers, and more.
Apple doesn't make the chip, only the case holding it and the software using it.
Dell doesn't make the chip, only the netbook with an integrated GSM adapter and Microsoft's OS and someone else's drivers using it. They're not paying nokia either, but yet, no lawsuit there?
Also, $40B is not what was paid on designing the GSM system, that's what was paid for its complete deployment, plus some finance magic to make the number much bigger... What is relevent only is:
A) is apple a direct or indirect infringer on the patents? B) Was Apple aware if they are a direct infringer? (and if not, was due dillegence documented completely). C) If they are found in WILLFUL violation, or if the violation was brought to their attention and they made no reasonable offer for comensation, what is the "fair" royalty (typically defined by a slightly higher than average royalty based on the royalty collected from all other payers).
If Apple is knowingly and willfully infringing, even prior to nokia getting involved directly (we doubt that unless Apple's patent lawyers felt thaey had a GREAT case getting the patent overturned, but if they did, they would have already started that process), then the penalty will be about 10 times the license cost, maybe a lot more. If they unknowingly infringed (after thorough and well documented discovvery and due dilligence, which apple is known to be one of the best in the world at), and they eventual even up in discussion with nokia, they'll be ordered to pay between a fair rate, and 3 times the rate tops. If nokia's patents get thrown out, Apple wins a legal payment for their expensive lawyers from nokia, and likely a countersuit for defamation, and nokia looses several strong patents they use as leverage to collect large royalties (which everyone else can also immediately stop paying).
Given Apple's history of successful defence and strong due dillegence processes, Nokia might at best earn what apple is offering plus a small sum, minus their likely much larger legal fees (net loss vs apple's offer), or they'll loose a lot of money and some patents (and maybe other non-enforces but related patents too). This is not a good plan for nokia unless that have a GREAT case against apple they're not talking about (which they would be).
No, that only applies to Trademarks, not patents. Even with trademarks, you have to prove that either you completed due dilligence to identify if the trademark was in use (which is easy), or that the other company had not previously enforced a violation they were AWARE of, (which is basically impossible).
patents are held regardless of infringement. The only things that invalidate patents are things that show the patent should never have been issued in the first place (prior art, obvious mental jumps, non-original ideas, too broad patent, etc).
This is a simplification, but gets the idea across.
I've never been a big fan of Nokia, but this makes me not only less of a fan, but i question the intelligence of their leadership.
Apple has one of the best due dilligence and patent defence legal teams in the world. If they're infringing, it's either an obscure patent noone could find actual reference to and a judge will let them off easy; something Broadcom themselves already paid the royalty for, or so broad Apple's lawyers were confident it meant nothing. Very few people challenge apple in court and win. When Apple feels there is an issue, they volunteer fair compensation, and the times its been refused and gone to court, the judge maid them pay a smaller penalty than the payment they initially offered that the judge agreed was fair.
1-2% of the cost of the device? no, royalties are typically 1-2% of the cost of the patented technology, not the sum of the complete manufactured device. If nokia got $0.10 for each phone using GSM technology, that alone would be a massive amount of money. $12/iPhone? no reasonable judge would award that unless nokia could prove Apple willfully infringed, but it seems the evidence presented already contradicts that.
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T does now support tethering, your data is old.
Also, the Google voice thing is not an Apple thing, directly. They are "further investigating" it and working with Google as releasing the app does not violate Apple;s policies directly, accepting that no 3G enabled VoIP apps are permitted per AT&T's contract terms. AT&T has given it pass, however, international cellular providers, and most speicifcally Verizon, soon to be the next carrier, vehemently oppose the idea (especially Verizon, who offers "my 5" on every line, and google voice would turn every line into an unlimited calling plan automatically...) That's why Apple is not YET releasing it (though rumor claims they're close...)
1) Blackberry may be $100 after rebate (some even as cheap as $50, but lets face it, those are not multitouch iPhone competitors), but the monthly cost for an iPhone 900 minute plan is only $89.99, and the Verizon blackbery plan is $99.99 and is capped at 5GB where the iPhone is not capped. Adding SMS/MMS to each is the same cost, so the iPhone is cheaper over the 2 year plan by $10 a month. The unlimited plan is the same price on both devices, but still the iPhone comes out ahead with unlimited data. Finally, the $30 extra to tether the blackberry compared to the (yet unconfirmed, but reliably leaked) $20 to do the same with the iphone. Lastly, i can swap out my iPhone on average every 18 months, receiving a $400 discount vs the Verizon device which gets a paltry $150 discount only once every 2 years... If you're comparing AT&T to AT&T, the Blackberry plan is still restricted to 5GB, and is not the same $30, but $40. Its more expensive. And the curve is no iPhone... Next we can talk about app prices, ringtone prices, etc...
2) Open as in ANYONE can be a developer and submit apps. Google voice is not removed or rejected, it's still pending, and that "pending" has actually a lot more to do with Verizon and AT&T's contract than Apple's refusal to allow it on its own. Also, I have SEEN AT&T terminate a phone contract because an "unapproved" application was on a device. Just because AT&T doesn't have a gatekeeper for the blackberry does NOT mean they can not control hwat you do and do not run on your device. Google voice is highly contravercial, and violates a current clause in the contract Verizon is wooing apple to get. Other apps have either been abusive, or useless.
Verizon runs 3G, and is fully compatible with iPhone 3G phones. It;s not EDGE... I can confirm I'm on a verizon tower as they're the only towers in this town. AT&T's closest tower is 40 miles from me.
and half the "lockdown" apple enforces is under their contractual obligations to AT&T, the media providers (networks, studios, etc), and to protect the patents and trademarks of their partners.
Apple is extremely open. They frown on overcharing for crap, for scams, and they like to protect their consumers. It's half the reason people CHOOSE them. Their device works, priced vs a blackberry it's cheaper over 2 years, has nice interface software (don;t get me started on Palm...), and you have amazing freedom with the device. It happens to be restricted to AT&T's network, but... oh, wait, is that a Verizon tower my iPone is connected to right now? Why yes, it is!!! Yea, the whole FCC manditory partner network sharing thing... I could give a shit about AT&T's poor netowkr since the device will simply connect to the strongest local 3G tower anyway...
plus, you can allways jailbreak the iPhone. You do have that right (if you're OK saccrificing a warranty).
What? you expect your phone to be completely open??? Shit, had an LG from Verizon the ON THE FUCKING BOX (Verizon's own box with their own logos) indicated the hpone offered a connection kit, bluetooth sync and more. Those were LG's specs for the device, but Verizon DISABLED all those features. If I took a picture with the integrated camera, i could not get it to my PC in any way other that paying verizon a charge per image for the transfer. Sprint was WORSE with a moto i had from them.
Apple has an open development system. There are just simple rules. 85,000 apps, about 10,000 good ones, all in one place, most $5 or less. Just simple: don't violate trademarks, don't duplicate generic device functionality, play in your own snadbox, don't cause security issues. And you know what? most of the rules are not APPLE'S rules, but AT&T and the other providers, since the iPhone was the first device capable of half this shit.
Oh, and you forget, web apps are wide open.
Oh, and that car you bought, while it's under warranty, you can only take it to AUTHORIZED repair centers. Once the warrty is out, you're on your own. Apple is the same way; either pay to unlock it, wait your 2 years, or simply jailbreak... Do whatever you want, but no warranty if you do.
Vendor lock in? I tell you what, I'd rather have a "restrictive" app market on a stable device I like holding in my hand for which under heavy use I get a full day's battery, and continual free software upgrades, vs an Android where the apps are limited, buggy, expensive, and suck the phone dry in 4-6 hours.
Dead on right. It;s not about wether or not apple chooses what they carry, its about wether Time Warner throttles downloads from apple while supporting higher bandwidth from their own competing marketplace, and those of partners who pay them for the same privilidge. ...or for Verizon restricting feeds from Hulu that compete with their Fios offerings, or make Vonaage VoIP choppy while there own is crystal clear...
it's not who is on the internet that needs to be nutral, its the 3rd party folks in the middle shaping traffic that need to be watched by multiple cameras in multiple spectrums 24x7x365.25.
I'm not complaining about it, but it is a common complaint.
but, have you stood next to a wind tower? That swoosh is not exactly slight... it can be heard clearly at as far as a mile, and that's not to count the electric whine and grind of the incredibly high torque generator 150 feet off the ground in the core of the windmill. The blades can generate 75dB or more in typical wind. Standing directly UNDER the windmill is actually the quitest place, due to acoustics, and wind farms will aften take people to those spots to say "you can hardly hear it" but then they build them 1/4 mile away and I'm told over time the noise becomes like a hiss from an old monitor that can't be ignored...
oops, friggin autocorrect on this machine seems to have a bug :) It's changing the correctly spelled Chinese into Chinease...
lol. didn't notice since it did it automatically!
Yes I read it (and others).
Nope, misses most of the points.
Needs the connection (no dowloaded routes)
Traffic indicator (but not intelligent traffic avoidance, it simply tells you "there's traffic on the route")
Rerouting it's got, but only if you have a connection. That's a problem in a lot of places I go.
Business data is only as accurate as google's crawl information, which i often find lacking, innacurate, or just plain wrong. AAA's database is much more accurate.
As for the "its free" that's exactly my popint. Given TomTom's patents, if Googles system did compete, it would not be able to be free, as the royalites (or patent infringement suits) would make that impossible).
Also, TomTom and Garmin have both made public annoucnements regarding the app. They've reviewed it and found it extremely basic, and no threat to their core business. Yea, it;s going to scuttle some bottom end GPS units, but those are barely profitable as it is, or are sold at a loss, coun ting on recouping revenue on map updages and product upgrades and accessories.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government
It;s not a branch, it;s an independent acency defined by the constitution to be OUTSIDE of any branch of government. Yes, it;s regulated by congress, (they have to ask congress to change the price of a stamp for instance) but it operates completely on its won otherwise.
2) They can already get a subpeona to access your saftey deposit box, your medical records, your phone logs, your credit history, and more. Legally. but they have to provide a 4th ammendment notice to you or your lawyer if you can be reached. The ONLY difference with this legislation is that they have extended existing legislation that applkies to personal items stored in public locations (like your office desk), such that the notification is not required (but the subpeona still is!) The idea is this information, unlike your medical record, is not under lock, key, and audited by legal authority, so provacy is not inherent (though it MAY be expected).
You still have rights, you can still have the evidence thrown out, they stil can;'t touch it without showing probable cause to a judge. They just don;t have to send you a letter if they do... (they can already do this for phone records too...)
RTFA next time before you go ona rant...
This ruling di NOT give them the ability to wire tap your e-mail. It simply absolves them of a NOTIFICATION requirement of the 4th amendment if they in fact do get a legitimate subpeona as part of active litigation signed by a judge to access it.
They can do the EXACT SAME THING for your phone records, credit cards, medical records, and more. This simply extended that clause to specifically e-mail.
This did not take away a freedom, it expanded the scope of an existing legal ruling previously upheld by the supreme court and current law.
The only expectation to privacy I have handing a package over to the postman is that if i can PROVE he opened it, i can sue.
The EXACT SAME is true of e-mail. They CAN NOT access it, even on a public server, without a warent or subpeona, both of which require an active litication in front of a judge to execte.
it does not:
1) prevent information from being opened and read by unauthorized parties
2) does not protect me from accidental opening (ever have a package damaged in shipping, or a backup that had to be restored, no different, someone's eyes other than you and the recipient can equally come upon it).
3) tampering can still happen, in either case of physical or electronic it;s near impossible to prove, even harder for electronic in most cases
4) mis-delivery
5) mail sent you YOU from someone else under active investigation would bring your inbox under scrutiny as well.
I could come up with a DOZEN reasons.
Anything not in my hands, and not bound by lock/key/(encryption) is NOT guaranteed private.
it is not wether or not you personally believe e-mail to be secure and private, it is wether a reasonable person presented with scenarios to the contrary would understand it was not truly private. Near everyone has heard of data encryption, secure e-mail, or seen a disclaimer in a message saying "if this was misdelivered please be nice and discared and not redistribute the contents." Certainly you've gotten e-mail meant for someone else, or sent a message to the wrong person (or reply all instead of reply). This alone indicates a failure of complete privcy, and thus the government knowing that still needs a subpeona, but they can get one without required 4th amendment noitification (you can still defend the findings in civil or criminal court if they did not have probable cause, or to exclude certain findings).
No, there are explicit laws protecting that information through targeted legislation. That's actually part of the argument on why the CAN access your e-mail this way (if it's on a cental 3rd party system).
But, in contrast, they CAN subpeona your medical records, phone records, and more.... They do that every day!!!! This only extends that to e-mail. The difference is, you have no expectation of guaranteed privacy of e-mail as you do with medical records as those are protected by such targeted legislation and regulation, so they can subpeona access to it, and they don't have to provide you protection notice under the 4th amendment (though it does have to pass a judge's scritiny for them to get that subpeona). In other words, It;s not that they could not already get your e-mail through a court order, this just gives them the abiltiy to do so without first having to issue your lawyer notice (you can still fight to have the contents kept from a court case, it;s not public record, you still have rights).
No, what he said was that since gmail provides a lawful disclosure clause, you are not required to receive a 4th amendment NOTICE if they choose to, under legally plausible reasons and not simply via random search, subpeana access to your e-mail repository.
The idea is that once an item has left your own hands, and systems outside your control, the destinaton to which it is sent is not under your own control. Therefor privacy is understood, but not inherent or guaranteed, and this they do not have to provide full 4th amendment notification should they lawfully access your e-mail that is stored on a PUBLIC mail server.
This is a bit fishy, but it does not mean they can randomnly search all your e-mail, just that a legal authority can subpeona access to it and you can not argue that the data they get is private data to have it excluded from a court case. However, if they access it without probable cause, you can still sue, as privacy is within reason expected.
All well and good it's free, and even if I could pre-plan a route and store that info on the deivce, it still creates big headaches when i can't access a cellular network data service and I want to search for something.
Also, my understanding is this is at best a basic GPS, turn by turn with limited lane identification, but no real-time route updates, automatic traffic reporting, etc.
For the casual user on their once or twice a year road trip to a popular destination, it's fine. For people who spend their lives on the road, it's not good enough. We'll see version 2...
Also, I'm SURE Garmin, TomTom, and the others all have some hard core patents in place ensuring noone's going to offer a competing system at better pricing.
Actually, they BOUGHT PMI Semi, and we know they're making their own processor engine, but that's still seperate from the 3G chipset...
No, sounds low...
considering only a 40 year generator lifespan, that's only $20/month to generate the power for a house. The transmission lines in the localized grids already exist, and this deployment includes the cost of the superconductor line to connect the new farm into the texas grid (and Obama is fronting the money under a seperate effort to tie the texas grid into the other 2 national grids on the north side of the state using the same tehcnology).
Granted, about 50% of your monthly power bill is maintenance and facility costs for the power compnay, but ifg my bill averages $100, and $50 is maintenance, they're profiting $30/month/home for 150,000 homes... That's AMAZING profitability...
The only issue is overproduction of the energy (read about this issue at DotyEnergy.com, and the solution they have that not only fixes a major cost issue for windfarm deveolopers, it also solves out oil import problems and greenhouse gas output from motor vehicles, an NO, it;s not vaporware, it's technology in active use since WWII).
The nuclear plants in and around my state operate at 40-60% capacity, and rarely generate more. One local site has 3 reactors, one of which has not been fired in several years.
These reactors cost 4-5 times more to build per GW generated (based on AVNERAGE output at 30%), take tens of thousands of acres we can never again use (where we can at least farm on 85% of the land a wind farm exists on), and a reactor lasts 30-50 years, where a wind tower lasts 150, and the generators are inexpensive to replace ever 40-60 years with ones that get better efficiency.
This does not include nuclear fuel storage and waste disposal costs, for which wind has none.
TFA stated this was a Chinease/American company based in the USA making the turbines... They will not be imported cheap chinease crap, they'll be made right here by American families (using China's money, much of which will stay here in our economy instead of theirs).
I bought a nice new Chevy a few years ago, and a Chrysler 2 years later. One was manufactured in Canada, the other in Mexico. The Honda, Subaru, and Kia we've also bought over the years were all made in America, with over 80% of manufacture and assembly taking place on american soil...
A chinease company loaning money to their own firms in the USA to employ US workers to manufacture generators and turbines in an american facility, to be placed on american land owned by american power companies employing yet more americans, and producing profits on the sale of that electricity that stays here in america. I'm lost as to how this is a bad thing...
Of a typical wind deployment, over 90% of the land is usable for farming, and 75% for housing, however, these things are usually placed where housing is unwanted as wind turbines to create some noise polition and are an eyesore. The Texas site chosen is virtually unpopulated. (and few expect it to ever be given the climate and terrain and high wind). Other sites like down mountainsides are basically considdered useless for anything else as you can't live there and can't farm therte, and they make ideal wind farms.
In contracts; the Savana River nuclear site, for example, is a 198,000 acre site, of which 24,000 acres is used for the nuclear plant and secured from the public. another 18,900 acres is set aside for ecological study of the effect of the nuclear faciltiy. This facility is closed, and not generating power, but at its peak didn't make over 1.5GW.
The Hartsville SC plant (robinson), is a 5,000 acre site generating about 715MW at peak, but that includes nearly 200MW of non-nuclear power sources used as backups. The reactor peak output is barely above 500, and rareley above half that. Their "primary" unit is actually a coal fire plant.
This of course does not include the massive land necessary for the creation and storage of nuclear fuel, nor its waste...
nuclear power is also about 5 times the cost per GW, so it's more land, more expensive, more dangerous, and more politically charged (go on, TRY to get a permit for a new nuclear plant...)
And a number of them are simply so noone else can use the idea. Hopefully, this is one such patent that Apple plans to never use, and will enfore so that noone else does either.
Using a patent to regulate the behavior of your competitors for the better of all... :)
sort of general knowledge, based on their history of successful patent attacks against other companies, successful ratio of patent defenses againt other firms, success rate in having patents revoked, and success in negotiating patent disputes away without entering court.
They file HUNDREDS of patents anually, bested last year only by IBM. They are one of a handful of companies with not just a full time legal staff dedicated to patents, but an entire depertment of researchers, filers, lawyers, patent designers, and more.
Apple doesn't make the chip, only the case holding it and the software using it.
Dell doesn't make the chip, only the netbook with an integrated GSM adapter and Microsoft's OS and someone else's drivers using it. They're not paying nokia either, but yet, no lawsuit there?
Also, $40B is not what was paid on designing the GSM system, that's what was paid for its complete deployment, plus some finance magic to make the number much bigger... What is relevent only is:
A) is apple a direct or indirect infringer on the patents? B) Was Apple aware if they are a direct infringer? (and if not, was due dillegence documented completely). C) If they are found in WILLFUL violation, or if the violation was brought to their attention and they made no reasonable offer for comensation, what is the "fair" royalty (typically defined by a slightly higher than average royalty based on the royalty collected from all other payers).
If Apple is knowingly and willfully infringing, even prior to nokia getting involved directly (we doubt that unless Apple's patent lawyers felt thaey had a GREAT case getting the patent overturned, but if they did, they would have already started that process), then the penalty will be about 10 times the license cost, maybe a lot more. If they unknowingly infringed (after thorough and well documented discovvery and due dilligence, which apple is known to be one of the best in the world at), and they eventual even up in discussion with nokia, they'll be ordered to pay between a fair rate, and 3 times the rate tops. If nokia's patents get thrown out, Apple wins a legal payment for their expensive lawyers from nokia, and likely a countersuit for defamation, and nokia looses several strong patents they use as leverage to collect large royalties (which everyone else can also immediately stop paying).
Given Apple's history of successful defence and strong due dillegence processes, Nokia might at best earn what apple is offering plus a small sum, minus their likely much larger legal fees (net loss vs apple's offer), or they'll loose a lot of money and some patents (and maybe other non-enforces but related patents too). This is not a good plan for nokia unless that have a GREAT case against apple they're not talking about (which they would be).
No, that only applies to Trademarks, not patents. Even with trademarks, you have to prove that either you completed due dilligence to identify if the trademark was in use (which is easy), or that the other company had not previously enforced a violation they were AWARE of, (which is basically impossible).
patents are held regardless of infringement. The only things that invalidate patents are things that show the patent should never have been issued in the first place (prior art, obvious mental jumps, non-original ideas, too broad patent, etc).
This is a simplification, but gets the idea across.
I've never been a big fan of Nokia, but this makes me not only less of a fan, but i question the intelligence of their leadership.
Apple has one of the best due dilligence and patent defence legal teams in the world. If they're infringing, it's either an obscure patent noone could find actual reference to and a judge will let them off easy; something Broadcom themselves already paid the royalty for, or so broad Apple's lawyers were confident it meant nothing. Very few people challenge apple in court and win. When Apple feels there is an issue, they volunteer fair compensation, and the times its been refused and gone to court, the judge maid them pay a smaller penalty than the payment they initially offered that the judge agreed was fair.
1-2% of the cost of the device? no, royalties are typically 1-2% of the cost of the patented technology, not the sum of the complete manufactured device. If nokia got $0.10 for each phone using GSM technology, that alone would be a massive amount of money. $12/iPhone? no reasonable judge would award that unless nokia could prove Apple willfully infringed, but it seems the evidence presented already contradicts that.