Klausner Adds Another Visual Voicemail Patent Lawsuit

from the whoops,-missed-one dept

Small patent holding firm Klausner Technologies has sued HTC for infringing the patents on visual voicemail it says it holds, adding the phone maker to a long list of companies that have been attacked with the overly broad patent. Just as in the previous cases, it's not clear how this system actually helps anybody that's doing any actual innovation; the company with the patent, but which has never apparently done anything to actually bring it to market, gets to assess an innovation tax on companies doing the actual legwork. Meanwhile, the idea underlying the patent -- displaying voicemail info on a screen -- really isn't much more than a foreseeable progression of technology. So carry on, patent system, holding back innovation and misaligning incentives.

Filed Under: patents, visual voicemail
Companies: htc, klausner

Could Gizmodo's iPhone Scoop Settle Whether Bloggers Count As Journalists?

from the book-em-danno dept

If you were anywhere near a techy site on the internet last week, you probably noticed the sensational story of how a prototype of a forthcoming iPhone got left behind in a Silicon Valley bar, and eventually ended up in the hands (and on the pages) of gadget site Gizmodo. Given Apple's history of cracking down on new product leaks, it wasn't too surprising to see the company ask for the phone back, nor to hear rumors that police were looking into the matter. However, it was a little surprising to read today that California police have seized computers and other gear from one of Gizmodo's editors, breaking down his door in the process. The COO of Gizmodo parent Gawker Media alleges that the search was illegal, as the editor is protected under California's shield law, which protects journalists from revealing their sources. Gawker founder Nick Denton says the case should let us find out if "bloggers count as journalists", but that's not completely clear. The shield law exists to protect unnamed sources, not to let journalists commit crimes (such as receiving stolen property) and then cover them up under the guise of their work. So while the case may not settle if bloggers are seen as journalists in the eyes of the law, it should settle once and for all that age-old question of whether or not an iPhone prototype left in a bar by an Apple employee constitutes stolen property.

Filed Under: bloggers, journalists, shield law
Companies: gawker

Confused Users Keep Racking Up Ridiculous 3G Bills, Wireless Carriers Keep Helping Them

from the your-phone-bill-should-not-require-a-second-mortgage dept

We've seen no limit to stories over the years about wireless customers (including a few semi-famous ones) who wind up with fairly insane wireless broadband bills for any number of reasons. Usually the stories involve someone traveling overseas and not understanding the roaming charges and overages involved, though sometimes the users don't even need to leave port to find themselves hit with a $27,000 3G bill. The latest story of this type (via the Consumerist) involves a user getting a $7,865.84 Verizon Wireless bill after taking his Mifi portable 3G hotspot on a business trip to Tel Aviv. In this case however, the user called Verizon before the trip, studied the overage penalties, and still wound up using 350,000 kb of bandwidth before concluding it was Verizon who screwed up:

"The ugly truth is that upon investigating the issue, I found a number of things could have been done by Verizon to protect me as a consumer. They may not mention them outright, but they are there. The fact that these things were not done can only lead me to assume that Verizon would rather their consumers "understand" as little as possible about their TOS.'"

Except as a consumer, it's his responsibility to read the find print on his contract and understand the limitations and penalties of his plan. The user studied the charges, spoke with representatives -- even seemed to have at least a base understanding of what he was going to be charged per kilobyte -- and then chose to use expensive 3G data on an overseas trip anyway. Consumer responsibility and research plays a big part of the equation.

That said, we've been saying for a long time now that these bills demonstrate the fact that carriers aren't doing a particularly good job making service limits clear or educating customers. Many consumers (more than you would think) can't tell the difference between a kilobyte and a lemur, and Verizon's math skills on this front aren't always reliable to begin with. While most carriers have some kind of mechanism in place to help notify users of excessive usage, carriers haven't done a great job notifying users when their bill starts to go nuclear (like many credit card companies do when a large charge appears on your card) or making overages clear. Fortunately, carriers often agree to slash these bills -- but usually only after they receive media attention.

In the UK, where they've seen the same kind of insane 3G bills, regulators have jumped in and addressed the problem by first capping roaming charges -- but then by also requiring (as of July 1) that carriers allow users to set a monthly maximum cap that limits how much they can spend on data each month. Consumers get an automated alert as they approach 80% of that total, then their service is temporarily suspended when the user crosses the spending cap. If users don't choose a limit, a limit of $68 per month is set for them (that's only data and doesn't include voice minutes or other bill totals). Of course here in the States carriers aren't going to want to voluntarily employ tools that reduce how much money they can make off of confused users, and will fight any regulation that limits how much they can charge. So nothing changes, and story after story emerges about users whose phone bills resemble the GDP of small countries.

Filed Under: bills, ridiculous, roaming, wireless

Finally, A Definitive Answer On Whether Cell Phones Cause Cancer -- In 20 Or 30 Years

from the long-wait dept

For years, there's been conflicting research on the health risks posed by mobile phones. For every study that found a link between the radiation from phones and cancer, there was another that didn't. Part of the problem is that the health issues that could be caused by phones can take years to emerge, and since mobile phones are relatively new -- and have changed significantly over the past 10 or 15 years -- so definitive research is a long and difficult task. But now, some researchers in Europe are embarking on a large-scale, 20- to 30-year study to examine just how phones affect people's health. They're looking at cancer, but also other issues commonly tied to phones, such as brain diseases, headaches, tinnitus, depression and sleep disorders, and will also be examining radiation emitted by other devices, like baby monitors and cordless phones. It will be great to have some more definitive answers as to exactly what risks we're subjecting ourselves to by putting mobile phones up against our heads, so be sure to check back in a few decades.

Filed Under: cancer, health risks, mobile phones

If Flat-Rate Mobile Data Plans Are So Bad, Why Do Operators Keep Launching New Ones?

from the playing-both-sides dept

On its quarterly conference call, AT&T's CFO once again talked up how the company needed to move away from flat-rate mobile data plans because its networks are being overwhelmed by traffic from a small percentage of its users. This rhetoric -- which is really just trying to warm up the market for future price increases -- comes despite figures showing that AT&T's data revenues are increasing, while its network investment is decreasing. On some level, if an operator like AT&T wants to try to force through higher prices by increased flat rates or usage-based pricing, go right ahead; we'll see just how the market reacts. But all of their talk about their poor overwhelmed networks would go down a little bit better if they wouldn't decry flat-rate plans in situations like this, while they launch cheap flat-rate unlimited plans at the same time, as AT&T has done for the iPad 3G. If AT&T's network is already taxed and cheap data plans are to blame, why launch another one on a device that's built to consume data?

Filed Under: data plans, flat rate
Companies: at&t

iPhone Hits Just Keep On Coming For Apple: Sued Over Liquid Damage Sensors

from the we're-not-paying-for-that dept

A consistent source of angst from mobile phone users are the costs they often must incur to replace devices that get broken or damaged. Thanks to the subsidies mobile operators pay on handsets, they typically don't like to replace phones for free, asking users to pay up or renew their contracts. One key part of operators' arsenal in determining if damage has been caused by the user are liquid sensors. These little round stickers often reside under a phone's battery, and typically turn from white to some shade of red when they've been exposed to liquid. So if you've dropped your phone in a puddle and it stops working, the liquid sensor probably won't back up your story that your phone just all of a sudden stopped working. The iPhone is no different in this regard, but a San Francisco woman has sued Apple, alleging that the iPhone's sensors generate false positives, letting Apple skip out on warranty obligations. The woman alleges she's had to replace her iPhone at her own expense twice, after the sensors showed her device had been exposed to water, even though it had not. For what it's worth, Apple says the sensors work just fine. This case may seem pretty pointless, but should the woman prevail, it could set a powerful precedent for all types of phones sold by carriers here in the US, and impact how they carry out their warranty replacement and service plans.

Filed Under: iphone
Companies: apple

The Real Reason Skype's App For Verizon Phones Won't Work On WiFi

from the questions-answered dept

Back in March, Derek Kerton noted in a post here on Techdirt some peculiarities popping up around Skype's plans for mobile devices. In particular, he pointed out how Skype announced a version of its client for several smartphones on the Verizon network, but the app looked crippled because it couldn't function over WiFi and routed Skype calls over a standard voice connection. When the app became available, I downloaded it for my Android device on Verizon, and I too, noticed that it forced me to shut off the WiFi connection on my device. This didn't make much sense to me: I'm already paying for a flat-rate data plan, so it's not as if this would force me to spend more money. In addition, given the way that mobile operators have been saying their networks are overwhelmed by data traffic, why would they force me to use the mobile network when I could offload the Skype traffic to a WiFi connection? Then, when I placed a Skype call through the app and saw that it was actually routed through a voice call to an access number, I was confused even more.

As Derek noted, the Skype app for Verizon followed a series of several other moves that call into question Skype's actual commitment to open networks, and that combined with US operators' historical positions against openness, it was natural to assume that the app shut off WiFi on Android devices because of some nefarious purpose. But Verizon has explained itself, saying the app behaves this way because of a combination of technology and legality. In short, Verizon lawyers felt like voice calls made through Skype needed to be treated like standard voice calls from a legal perspective. This means conforming to 911 regulations, as well as the CALEA act, which opens networks to wiretapping by law enforcement. Verizon contends that CALEA dictates that call-signaling info travel over its data network, rather than unknown (and possibly unsecure) WiFi. This is where the technology comes in: apparently it's impossible for the Skype app on Android to choose to use the Verizon data network if the device is connected to WiFi. So therefore it has to completely shut off the WiFi connection to be sure its data travels over the mobile network. On BlackBerry devices, this isn't the case, so the app doesn't force users to shut off their WiFi.

Given mobile operators' past penchant for closing off their networks, it's forgivable that somebody would assume one had nefarious purposes for blocking WiFi access to Skype. That may not be the case in this narrow instance -- but many of Derek's other questions about Skype's much-touted commitment to openness remain unanswered.

Filed Under: skype, verizon, wifi

AT&T More Upset About Stupid Analyst Report About Its Network Than Actual Network

from the forest-for-the-trees dept

AT&T is apparently "miffed" that a recent report from a research firm said that it carries less data traffic on its mobile network than either Verizon or Sprint. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to figure out exactly why the company cares so much. AT&T has been much maligned for its network's inability to keep up with iPhone users' data (and sometimes, voice) demands; perhaps the company is concerned that ranking third in overall data traffic will somehow push the perception that its network is underpowered even further. AT&T's own analysis of mobile data traffic shows it carries more than half of US mobile users' data, it says -- which is great. But that figure doesn't matter much to an iPhone user who can't connect to the network or whose device doesn't live up to their expectations because of spotty coverage. And those users' stories are probably much more persuasive among consumers than some pretty meaningless stats.

Filed Under: network, study
Companies: at&t

Mobile Phones Suck... But Isn't It Amazing That They Exist?

from the everything's-amazing-and-nobody's-happy dept

By now, hopefully, you've seen that clip of comedian Louis CK on Conan O'Brien's show (the old, old one) which went kinda viral, where Louis talks about how "everything is amazing and no one is happy": It's hilarious and oh-so-true. I'm reminded of it because of David Boaz's post over at the Cato @ Liberty blog, where he talks about how amazing it is to think how far phone communication has come in the past three decades:

When I was a kid in the 1960s and we came back from a visit to my grandmother's, my mother used to call my grandmother, let the phone ring twice, and then hang up. It was important for my grandmother to know that we'd arrived home safely, but long-distance telephone calls were too expensive to indulge in unnecessarily. When I entered Vanderbilt University in 1971, my parents had to decide whether to pay for a telephone in my dorm room. They decided to do so, but most of the thoroughly upper-middle-class students on my floor did not have phones. Phones cost real money back then. Then came the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1984. Phone technology and competitive service provision exploded. In 1982, Motorola produced the first portable mobile phone. It weighed about 2 pounds and cost $3995. Within a very few years they were much smaller, much cheaper, and selling like hotcakes.

Today there are some 4.6 billion mobile phones in the world, and counting, or about 67 per every 100 people in the world. The newer ones allow you to carry in your hand more computing power than the computers that put Apollo 11 on the moon.  You can cruise the internet, find your location with GPS, read books, send texts, pay bills, process credit cards, watch video, record video, stream video to the web, take and send photos -- oh, and make phone calls from just about anywhere. Unimaginable just a few years ago.

But the point of the post is to question why some are now putting together an event about "Why Your Cell Phone is So Terrible," pointing out that it's a bit silly to complain when you compare it to what we had.

It's a really good point -- but I have to admit I can see both sides to this argument. It's the very fact that, even when we do amazing things, we can still see the faults with it and that drives us to keep improving and to keep innovating. It's the very "culture of improvement" that drives growth and innovation. So, while I can agree that it's sometimes a shame how much we feel a sense of entitlement towards making things better when those amazing things didn't even exist just a few years ago, it's hard not to sympathize with the feeling of wanting things to be even better.

And, by the way, I'm not alone in seeing both sides of all this. That Louis CK video at the top? The one where he mocks the guy sitting next to him on an airplane for getting upset that the WiFi in the sky suddenly stopped working? Yeah, he later admitted that it wasn't someone sitting next to him, but himself getting pissed off at the WiFi not working, even though he didn't even know in-flight WiFi existed until he got on the airplane. So yes, everything is amazing, and no one's happy... but maybe that's a good thing.

Filed Under: cell phones, complaining, louis ck, mobile

Turns Out Not Everyone Drives Worse While Talking On A Phone (But You Probably Do)

from the so-how-do-you-deal-with-that? dept

For years, we've questioned the wisdom of straight-up "driving-while-yakking" legislation for a variety of reasons. It always seemed to strike at a symptom, and not the real problem, which is just outright bad driving. While some have falsely interpreted this to mean that we support free reign in letting people drive and talk on a phone, what we argued is more nuanced. The problem is when driving and talking makes things more dangerous. But the same could be true of driving and doing anything else -- and unless we're going to outlaw driving distractions one at a time, it's sort of missing the point. Instead, the focus should be on better driving education on the dangers of being distracted. But, at the same time, there should be a realization that it's not always a terrible thing for a driver to talk on a mobile phone.

In fact, Slashdot points us to a recent study that found a small number (a very small number) of people do not seem to drive worse while talking on their phones (and, in some cases, they even seem to drive better). These so-called "supertaskers" are apparently amazingly good at multitasking. Of course, this probably doesn't apply to you and you (yes, you) probably do drive worse while talking on a mobile phone -- which is why you shouldn't do it. But shouldn't we focus on stopping bad driving in general, rather than a blanket ban on driving while yakking?

Filed Under: cellphones, distracted, driving