|
Wired editor Chris Anderson issued a strange bit of information via a tweet last night. Apparently, he was told by a T-Mobile manager in no uncertain terms that the nation's number four carrier would be getting the Apple iPhone 3GS later this year. The new iPhone 4 is apparently left out of the deal. This is still strictly rumor material, but it seems to jive with previous rumors.
There have been rumors that the iPhone could come to T-Mobile. The transition to T-Mobile would be simpler for Apple than moving to Verizon. T-Mobile also uses the GSM standard like AT&T does. The iPhone would just need GSM chips capable of operating on T-Mobile's 3G frequency. Verizon uses CDMA, and would require a much larger redesign of the phone's internals.
User's have been clamoring to get access to the iPhone on another carrier. Verizon is often cited as the best option considering their expansive network. T-Mobile has a much smaller, but faster, HSPA+ data network. Would you be interested in the iPhone if it were on T-Mobile?
Read more at.... |
|
|
If you have, for some reason, been hankering for a smartbook, you may be a little disappointed. Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs stated during a company event today that tablets have most likely killed the nascent smartbook market. With Qualcomm being one of the most ardent supporters of the smartbook concept, there's little hope for the category to continue.
The HP Airlife was the only device to be marketed as a smartbook. This Android-based device never really found its audience when it was released earlier this year. Still, Qualcomm will continue to make faster mobile chips, they're just more likely to be seen in tablets and smartphones than in light-weight computers.
If smartbooks had materialized sooner, they may have had a shot. But in the wake of the iPad, it's not hard to see how it ended up this way. Were you interested in the smartbook category? What will you do now?
Read more at.... |
|
|
A growing number of patent attorneys who have worked on cases for patent hoarders have realized that it's such a lucrative game (and it really is a game -- one that wastes money and harms innovation -- but a game, nonetheless) that they've jumped ship, either getting or buying patents themselves and launching lawsuits. An anonymous reader points us to one such lawyer who didn't only do that, but has chosen a rather interesting target for his patent lawsuits: other patent lawyers. Yes, that's right. Patent lawyer Wes Whitmeyer apparently got a couple of patents (5,895,468 and 6,182,078) covering ways to manage patent payments, and he's now going after other law firms.
What's particularly unusual is who Whitmeyer is targeting: IP law firms, which are trained to either dish out the pain--or parry the blows--on behalf of others, but rarely find themselves accused of patent infringement. But no less than eight law firms are now in that position, thanks to Whitmeyer's patent claims.
In June, through his patent-holding company WhitServe LLC, Whitmeyer sued seven law firms: Brinks Hofer Gilson & Leone; Dinsmore & Shohl; Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aranoff; Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, Kusner & Jaffe, Mueting, Raasch & Gebhardt; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Apparently, Whitmeyer has sued a bunch of companies that make software for managing patent payments (how the hell is that not an obvious offering?), and won one of the lawsuits. The law firms listed above are apparently all customers of that firm, CPi. So, beyond attacking other patent attorneys, Whitmeyer is double dipping here. This is allowed, but it's yet another example of how ridiculously distorted the patent system has become.
The article also points out some other incredible parts of this story. CPi, which has been in business for over half a century, is being accused of willful infringement and for copying Whitmeyer's patents. CPi's CEO claims that's false, and notes that he'd never heard of Whitmeyer until he sued CPi. But where it gets really ridiculous is that Whitmeyer's lawyers are asking the court to increase damages just because CPi's CEO called Whitmeyer's patents "silly." Who knew that expressing an opinion on egregious patents might get you hit with greater damages?
This sort of situation is not what the patent system is supposed to encourage.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 4 of 445 |
