Company With Checkered Past Tries To Claim Patent On Cell Phone Buttons

from the back-to-the-drawing-board dept

You might remember a company called Hop-On, which claimed several years ago that it had developed the first "disposable" cell phone. While the company was able to attract a lot of media attention, the phones it was showing off turned out to be nothing more than repackaged Nokia phones. A few years later, Hop-On claimed to really come out with the disposable phones, but they made no impact on the market whatsoever. In the meantime, the company's CEO got indicted for fraud related to a previous company, and was eventually convicted. Last month, he managed to avoid jail time for that crime, and went back to the helm at Hop-On, just in time for the company to announce it's been awarded a patent covering "a MP3 Phone with speakers on the side, in addition to front and side buttons to activate its camera/video features." The CEO adds that he's looking forward to raking in the cash from operators, retailers and handset vendors, since millions of phones meeting this description have been sold in the US. However, the company was awarded a design patent, not a utility patent, so his assertion of being in the money may be just a little bit premature since design patents cover only the ornamental characteristics of the object. Furthermore, design patents aren't especially broad, since they cover one single design of an object. They also must be original -- so the very fact that millions of supposedly infringing handsets were sold before the patent was awarded (since design patent applications aren't published until the patent is awarded) might undermine the company's claim just a little bit.

Verizon Wireless Slowly, Quietly, Backing Away From Misleading Claims Of Unlimited Service

from the shhhh...-don't-tell-anyone dept

For years, Verizon Wireless has been pushing its EVDO wireless internet service as "unlimited" -- but then cutting off users if they passed some unknown, unstated "cap." When pushed on this, a Verizon Wireless rep actually said "It's unlimited amounts of data for certain types of data." And... if you happened to go over a certain amount of total data, then they insisted you absolutely must have been using it for "other" types of data -- even if they had no actual proof. For a while it was thought that the cap was 10gigs, but later it was revealed that it was merely 5gigs of data per month -- which these days, really isn't all that much for some people. We've always wondered why no one ever hit Verizon Wireless with a false advertising suit over the claim of "unlimited," but it never happened. However, it appears that Verizon Wireless has been slowly backing away from the unlimited claim, and is now putting the 5gig limit into the terms of service. They still do use "Unlimited" in their press releases, but seem to be backing away from it in their ads. There's nothing wrong with limiting the total bandwidth that can be used, so as long as the company was clear about it. It's unclear why it took years for Verizon Wireless to decide that actually being (somewhat) honest about what it was selling was a good idea.

Company Says Spectrum Auctions Don't Work, So Just Give It Some Airwaves Instead

from the nice-try dept

Different countries' telecom regulators take different approaches to handing out wireless spectrum. Some use so-called beauty contests, where interested companies file proposals for the airwaves in question, and the regulator judges them on some set of criteria and gives out licenses. In the US and many other places, regulators use auctions, selling off licenses to the highest bidder. The FCC's auction system can get quite complex, with all sorts of different licenses for different areas and different amounts of spectrum, and discounts for smaller companies and bidders. While we wait for a complete overhaul of the spectrum allocation process, in many cases, auctions are a "least worst" solution. The FCC plans to auction off some 700 MHz spectrum this summer, and its properties make it very desirable for wireless broadband providers. Part of this spectrum has already been allocated for public-safety use, and some companies are trying to use that angle circumvent the auction process and grab more spectrum for lower prices, or even free. The general idea is that they would build a nationwide network and lease capacity on it to operators and service providers, and earn revenue from that. They'd then also charge public-safety groups for access to the network, but would give their traffic priority on it, particularly during emergencies. There have been other, similar proposals for other spectrum in the past, including one group who wants a 15-year license for some 2100 MHz spectrum for free, then promises to offer free ad-supported service across the country, and to pay 5% of the revenues from a faster, paid service to the government. While we're skeptical of any plan that promises to build a nationwide wireless network, then offer free service, given the huge costs of building such a network, we noted at the time it was nice to see people exploring alternatives to spectrum auctions.

Now, the company behind that proposal, M2Z, is back with an in-no-way-at-all-biased survey it says shows that spectrum auctions don't always work. While that point is pretty clear -- just look at the NextWave fiasco for proof -- it's also pretty clear that this study really can't be regarded as an unbiased, objective view of the topic. While spectrum auctions certainly aren't perfect, it's hard to see simply giving away spectrum to anybody that puts together a plan and gets some VC as an ideal method, either. In any case, this all highlights the interest in and need for a reexamination of the FCC's spectrum allocation policies, and in particular, a look at how creating a much more open, flexible market for spectrum (including opening more unlicensed spectrum) could be beneficial.

Intel Gives WiFi A Big Boost

from the just-a-little-further dept

Some researchers at Intel say they've devised a way to send WiFi signals up to 100 kilometers (via Broadband Reports) using standard equipment, compared to the few hundred feet they can normally travel. Their system uses directional antennas and special software to do the trick, and it's intended to be used in developing nations to provide remote areas with internet access. Typically, WiFi signals are sent over a circular area, with the router in the middle. It's possible to focus the signal, using a directional antenna, in a particular direction, and use power just to send the signal that way, instead of all around. That's not really any secret or breakthrough, but it sounds like the Intel researchers' real innovation is in creating a system that electrically steers the antennas on both ends of the connection, automating what can be a particularly difficult task. While it's being suggested that this technology could replace WiMAX -- hence Intel's apparent lack of interest in rolling it out in the developed world -- this directional requirement makes this souped-up WiFi unsuitable for much more than backhauling other types of connections, particularly since it wouldn't be able to support multiple simultaneous connections. For instance, it could be used to send a net connection to a remote village, where standard WiFi gear could be used to share the connection locally. The advance here isn't in creating a potential competitor to WiMAX or other mobile broadband technologies; the innovation is in creating a solution to the problem of aligning directional antennas, which could potentially be applied to other wireless technologies beyond WiFi.

Don't Mistake A Lull In Mobile Virus FUD For Its Disappearance

from the have-they-forgotten-about-us? dept

Just because it's been a while since we'd talked about a security company spreading some FUD about mobile malware, doesn't mean that it had stopped. While the main purveyor of the stuff, F-Secure, seems to have chilled out a bit, other vendors are carrying on. This time, it's Kaspersky, with one of its analysts going into a Faraday cage with a German TV crew, and intentionally infecting a phone with the Cabir virus, so "everyone in the room understood that mobile malware is a real threat." It certainly is a threat when you infect the phone intentionally and ignore all the warnings it throws up, but the real risk of your phone getting a virus remains negligible. You've still got to wonder why, if mobile viruses are so common, why a TV crew would need to go into a Faraday cage (that's impervious to radio waves, but not to PR stunts) and have to get a security firm to put on this sort of demo. After all, if our phones are at such great risk, couldn't they have just found somebody with a virus?