AT&T offering up unlock codes for pre and post-paid devices. iPhone sulks in the corner.

If you can’ beat ‘em, sue ‘em, right? That’s the general motto of the U.S. these days. Though in fairness, sometimes it is warranted. In the scope of the cellular world, something needs to be done across varying fronts as consumers often get the shaft. But justice does prevail from time to time as it did in the case — a pre-trial settlement that has AT&T giving customers something that they actually want. Unlock codes…

The settlement entitles each and every AT&T user (pre and post-paid customers) to receive if they so choose, an unlock code from AT&T providing they meet a few criteria. There’s a few strings of course. First, pre-paid customers provide proof of purchase of their locked handset while post-paid customers will be required to “have their accounts in good standing” and fulfilled at least 90 days of service. Doesn’t sound too hard does it?

And then there’s the biggest catch — iPhones are excluded…

Open wifi now illegal in Germany.

Want to hear something stupid? Alrighty then — in Germany, private citizens will soon be able to be fined for open WiFi networks to the tune of 100 euros ($126 USD). No password, no money. Pretty straight forward. If you look at it at face value, it seems like the government protecting citizens from themselves (and their technological incompetence). But in reality it’s just the government sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong.

There are various environments and network setups that actually benefit and/or require open networks. So to say this ruling is troubling is an understatement. How this affects businesses remains to be seen as the ruling had more to do with the little guy (read: you and I). If the ruling does or will be extended to larger corporations and businesses, the effect on could be devastating depending on how their networks are set up…

Incompetent US border patrol causing Crysis 2 hiccups as lead writer Peter Watts faces 2 years? [Update]

I’m just now working my way through Crysis: Warhead and let me tell you, it’s amazing. After seeing the screenshots of Crysis 2, I’m waiting on the edge of my seat literally. So it can be understood that when I say I’m upset and worried of Crysis 2′s future and story plot when it’s lead writer is facing 2 years in US Federal prison. No, Peter Watts didn’t get busted dealing, murdering, raping, or stealing. According to the stand up word of the US border patrol, Peter apparently went ape shit and attacked them. That was back in December. But now, a Michigan court found Peter guilty of assaulting US border patrol earning him that 2-year sentence highlighted above. It’s stupid really. He merely questioned why he was being searched at the border. For foreigners outside the country: merely questioning law enforcement is reason for a beating, peppery spraying, arrest, etc. So be forewarned, the US is not a friendly place.

I must say that yes, I believe the word of a video game developer more-so than the word of the US border patrol “untouchables” who claim that various illegal acts were committed by Peter. Police brutality in this day and age is unfortunately a common occurrence.

With all of that said, Peter again, was found guilty and now faces sentencing on April 26th. I can only hope that judge has a tad more common sense than the ones Peter has had to deal with so far.

So what does it mean for Crysis 2? I’m sure there’s more than one person working on the storyline. And, since this has been going on since December, I’m sure Peter has been working overtime drafting the storyline fully knowing things could end badly for him.

Whatever happens, I wish the best for Peter. Says a lot for the US’s image doesn’t it — the trigger happy, “shoot first ask questions later” country…

**Update: Thanks to “LKB” below for pointing out the actual “assault” charge was dropped for lack of evidence. Unfortunately, the reason Peter is still facing a 2-year jail sentence is because of “failing to obey a command fast enough”. What a crock of shit, huh?

For continuing updates from Peter himself, check out his site, Rifters.com.

1 Up

Pink Floyd wins court battle over single-song downloads. Is this a good thing?

In the digital age, the way we consumer music has changed. Gone (for most anyway) are the days of driving to the record/music store, buying that physical disc, and then driving back home to unwrap and listen to your new collection of songs while flipping through the album art. Nowadays, we download songs a-la-carte and rarely if ever are just listening to a song. With MP3 players being a common household item now, we can listen to music and do pretty much any other task we can think of, taking away the luster of reading album contents or listening to an entire CD all the way through. Naturally, many different labels and artists have been outspoken of this a-la-carte consumption for some time. To them, it cuts sales as instead of a $15-$20 album sale every time, most people are now opting for a few favorites from the CD. Seems fair enough, right — only paying for what we want?

Recently, Pink Floyd engaged in a court battle with their label (EMI) over claims that EMI was skirting around “full royalties” as the amount paid on a per-song basis is noticeably less than a full album sale. In defense, EMI argued the digital landscape is completely different, therefore you can’t apply rules and regulations that were constructed around digital means. (Funny how that’s only a legitimate argument when it benefits the labels, huh?) The win for Pink Floyd means any and all single song downloads will have to be approved by the band beforehand or risk legal recourse. How will it play out for services such as iTunes, Amazon, and countless other music retailers? Will Pink Floyd’s content be pulled entirely?

In this particular case, the argument against single sound downloads has more-so to do with greedy labels yet again thinking of only themselves and not the artists which they claim to “be there for”. Not surprising really. However, it’ll be interesting to see how other labels/bands view this ruling and apply it to their own products. I’m pretty much against any label or band banning single song downloads. I completely understand that they have every right do sell their product how they see fit. But let’s be honest, when was the last time you purchased/downloaded an album and actually liked every single song? With as repetitive and craptastic as countless copycat albums/artists are today, a typical CD has 2-5 songs that are worth purchasing at best. Banning single song downloads (again, for different reasons than Pink Floyd) will only hurt the label/band. I for one will not purchase any content from anyone who forces me to buy the entire CD. Simple as that.

Critics will argue that an album or CD is a work of art from start to finish. In reality, that’s rarely true anymore. Sure, some musicians will actually create an amazingly well put together album that requires a start-to-finish approach. But that is rare these days. I’d go as far to wager that 95% of songs released today would be perfectly fine on their own. And of course, it all comes back to the physical vs. digital business models used. You cannot use physical business models and mindsets on digital products. They’re two completely different animals. Digital music now gives consumers the choice. Removing that choice and trying to enforce an old physical, “you have to buy the entire album” approach just won’t fly anymore.

So in the end, I’m glad that Pink Floyd stood up against their label for overstepping their boundaries and having their way with Pink Floyd’s property. At the same time, I’m cautiously waiting to see how the rest of the industry handles the ruling. Hopefully it doesn’t spark a wave of “physical purchase only” moves. Because frankly, I’ll just download stuff if they take that route.

It’s simple economics: Give the customer what they want and they’ll pay you for it. Force them into “your” mold of what you want and they’ll find ways around it.

Electronista

[Image Source 1] [Image Source 2]

Score one for common sense: Uk Court rules linking to infringing content isn’t infringing in and of itself…

Score one for common sense today.

The basis of the internet is that the flow of information should be unencumbered and open to all. As more and more businesses finally get around to making the move online however, paywalls, false restrictions, and other types of anti-consumer/greed driven policies are being thrown up all over the place. Not only that, but common sense has been thrown out the window. In numerous cases over the last several years we’ve seen rather harmless and innocent actions such as merely linking to a page with copyrighted content getting the person doing the linking into hot water. One such case that perfectly illustrates this is the case involving tv-links.co.uk.

For several years now, tv-links has been fighting the UK courts and entertainment industry for being accused of aiding in copyright infringement by simply linking to YouTube videos of infringing content. To the you and I, individuals with at least some amount of common sense, drawing any correlation between a simple link to outright “theft” (as the entertainment industry would like to call it) is rather shortsighted.

Cooler heads have prevailed however as a UK court ruled in favor of tv-links, stating that they did not in fact, infringe on any content. While a happy ending for common sense and the general internet population as a whole, it’s still a shame that so much time (years) and countless dollars were wasted on such a frivolous and stupid lawsuit.

When will big media learn the ways of the web…

TechDirt

Microsoft: About that Office/Word deadline…ya we missed it.

Looking to pick yourself up a fresh copy of Microsoft Office or Word ’07 versions? Hope you have a fresh copy backed up somewhere (or know a good torrent) because Microsoft has missed the January 11th deadline. That deadline mind you was the date in which Microsoft had to comply with a court ruling which accused them of infringing on certain XML code within Word/Office ’07.

Strolling through Microsoft’s online store will currently bombard your ocular cavities with several “Not Available” labels. Not exactly the best outcome for a multi-billion dollar company trying to drastically improve their faltering image. Oh well, there’s always next year right?

BGR

January 11th ban hammer date for Microsoft Word: Off again. Kind of.

Not even 24 hours ago we heard the news that Microsoft lost their appeal to i4i — a small XML developers firm — and that the presiding judge decided to uphold the January 11th ban on Microsoft ’07. Yesterday the two most obvious choices for Microsoft were to pay up and forget about it or appeal again, risking losing more money and another court case. Microsoft however is choosing plan c. Plan C is simply selling new versions of Word ’03 and ’07 without the infringing and “little-used feature” according to Microsoft.

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature from these products. Therefore, we expect to have copies of Microsoft Word 2007 and Office 2007, with this feature removed, available for U.S. sale and distribution by the injunction date. In addition, the beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now for downloading, do not contain the technology covered by the injunction.

While Microsoft will escape the dreaded ban hammer on their bread and butter Office Suite, they will also still be responsible for a $240 million payment as awarded by the first judge and upheld by the second. That payment however is still up in the air as Microsoft has stated they are pursuing other legal options. We shall see…

Venture Beat

Square, the innovative new payment solution for iPhone faces patent problems

Patent and IP problems oh my. For a quick refresher, “Square” is an innovative new piece of hardware that attaches itself to any iPhone/iPod Touch and instantly transforms it into a mobile POS station. Cool, right? Definitely. But the startup is far from the finish line. A patent problem is looming that could derail Square’s launch and ultimately cost them big time.

The founders of Square consisted of Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and Jim McKelvey. The two coined the whole idea and plan you see in front of you. The brains behind the engineering side of things however was the work of Jim McKelvey’s friend Bob Morley. So we have the 3 amigos working to make an evolutionary new mobile payment system. Keep following…

From the beginning to what we have now, the Square hardware has undergone several changes though the underlying software behind it has remained unchanged. The software in particular is where it gets dicey. Apparently the 3 amigos had a minor disagreement that led to Morely filing a patent for the Square’s technology — in his own name. The disagreement allegedly centers around the fact that in return for ownership of the Square patent and IP, Morely wanted shares of the company. So far negotiations haven’t gone well. Complicating matters, chances of the patent being turned down are slight as Morely was in fact the man who did the software engineering work.

So now you see the problem. Square relies on this software developed by Bob Morely to function. If reports of a falling out are true, it leaves Square and it’s founders in an interesting mental limbo. Do they risk it and push ahead with the technology, at first ignoring any payments or licensing fees towards Morely. Or, do they buy/license the technology. The latter could end up costing quite a pretty penny, especially so because the three are all familiar with each other as well as the companies bank accounts.

On the flip side, pushing onward only to later face one or many lawsuits can quickly rack up costs as well. It’s again a problematic circumstance. If the patent is granted to Morely, how will he play his card? If it’s not, well then we have nothing to talk about. Business as usual, oh happy day. For the sake of Square’s members and the technology sector as a whole, I sure hope any looming problems can be settled peacefully and outside of court. Agreed?

Electric Pig > Fast Company

Beautiful Widgets developer receives C&D from HTC. BW to be no more.

You know, I’m not an “anti-protect your property” kind of person. I understand credit is needed where credit is due. With that said, the sad and downright maddening circumstances surrounding by far the best weather widget on the Android Market — Beautiful Widgets by LevelupStuios — are enough for me to voice my displeasure here. Time and time again we see companies wasting corporate dollars and time pursuing stupid ass lawsuits that won’t benefit anyone.

With that past us it is with great sadness that I announce HTC sent LevelupStudios a C&D over Beautiful Widgets. It was a nicely designed Weather + Clock widget that mimicked HTC’s widget found on Sense UI supported Devices. LevelupStudios used their own know-how and help from a few other outside developers to create their own version allowing non-HTC devices to share in the same weather + time sexiness their HTC toting brethren enjoy. In all honesty, a lawsuit because the two products were extremely similar isn’t all that surprising, however, I as well as many others expected HTC to ignore it as it’s not going to do any financial harm to HTC. No one is going to by a non-HTC device simply for Beautiful Widgets.

The only stipulation I can find fault with in LevelupStudios is that they were charging and therefore profiting on a design that even though was coded in-house, was a more or less copy of HTC’s weather widget. Even still, HTC could have added a clause that said either reduce Beautiful Widgets to free or remove it from the Android Market completely. That would have been a much better option. At $0, even less harm (read: none at all) would have been done to HTC or their profit margins and non-HTC users could still rock the weather + clock widget. Now I as well as countless Beautiful Widgets users are going to have to find illegitimate ways of getting the same style and functionality on our devices. If you’re a new Android user whom doesn’t use an HTC device, I’d pick up a copy of Beautiful Widgets now before it is removed from the store.

Nice job HTC. Now you simply come across looking like a typical corporate asshole.

Android Central