NY Times Seems To Recognize That Nokia's Patent Fights Have Nothing To Do With Innovation

from the it's-just-a-big-pissing-match dept

When Nokia first sued Apple for patent infringement over the iPhone, we noted that it appeared like yet another case of a company getting beat in the market suddenly whipping out some patents to sue over. This seemed to anger the usual bunch of patent system defenders -- along with a group of Nokia defenders -- but it appears that others are noticing as well. The NY Times has an article discussing Nokia's sudden aggressiveness in the patent realm, noting that the company has been facing some business troubles, and it's notable that its patent aggression seems to have shown up at just the same time as its own performance trouble. Funny that.

Of course, this is a major issue. As with so many high tech areas today, there are giant patent thickets. It's effectively impossible to launch a product that doesn't violate dozens, if not hundreds, of patents. And (despite claims to the contrary) it's got absolutely nothing to do with companies "stealing" from each other. It's got plenty to do with companies making the next logical step in the innovative process, and coming up with products that meet what the market wants. But with patent offices around the world being willing to hand out patents on minor changes, it's impossible to actually build a useful product that doesn't violate patents. This has nothing to do with innovation. At this point, patents are just a weapon that can be flung against anyone who does innovate if you can't compete.

Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, wireless
Companies: nokia

Maine Wants Mobile Phones To Carry A Cancer Warning... Despite Lack Of Evidence; [Updated: SF Too]

from the yeah-that'll-help dept

There have been ongoing arguments and conflicting studies for years over whether or not mobile phones can cause cancer. However, we had thought that the general scientific consensus was that mobile phones have such weak radiation that it is extremely unlikely to have any meaningful impact on causing cancer. Yet, that doesn't stop the worries that have long been associated with (almost always unscientific folks) when it comes to wireless signals. The latest such situation involves a politician in Maine pushing for a law that would put cancer warning labels on mobile phones.

But here's the thing: even if these warnings were put on phones, what would it do? Would people really stop using their mobile phones or make any behavioral adjustment just because of these labels? There might be a few people, but I'd imagine that those who already are sure that mobile phones cause cancer have already acted accordingly. Update: And... just like that, comes the news that San Francisco is considering the same thing.

Filed Under: cancer warning, maine, mobile phones, radiation

Verizon Wireless Denies It's Charging People Phantom $1.99 Fee, Despite Tons Of Complaints

from the this-won't-end-well dept

For a little while now, Broadband Reports has been doing a good job highlighting how Verizon Wireless has been charging a phantom $1.99 fee for "accessing the internet" even when users claim they did no such thing. Despite a growing amount of press coverage, Verizon Wireless had been silent on the issue. However, once David Pogue at the NY Times reported on it, finally the FCC got involved and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. The company apparently delayed for a while and then sent a reply (pdf). While much of the press coverage focused on a separate question (about why Verizon Wireless had doubled its early termination fees), what may be more interesting is the company's non-response to the phantom $1.99. It basically said it doesn't do what lots and lots of people are saying it does. David Pogue noticed how odd this is and why Verizon Wireless is not being upfront:

How about the 400 people who chimed in to say, "Me too!" in the comments of my original post? Are they all idiots? How about me? I found several of those $1.99 charges on my own bills. How about the Verizon whistleblower who has begged his managers to change this greedy scheme, and been told to shut up? Is he mistaken?

Even more amusing is that Pogue contacted the Verizon Wireless PR person who had initially scolded him for not getting a comment from the company for his original story:

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," he said. "I'm not able to comment further."

"But you're saying that you don't charge that $1.99 fee!" I told him. "Yet it's happened to hundreds of my readers, and it's happened to me. So what are we missing?"

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."

"But it just says Verizon isn't doing it!"

"I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us."

Comforting, right? It amazes me that companies actually think this sort of approach makes sense, when it's almost guaranteed that the details will eventually come out. Update: FCC isn't buying Verizon Wireless' response.

Filed Under: denial, phantom fees
Companies: verizon wireless