Am I alone in always having assumed that this would be the case? In any litigation that I've ever been involved in everyone assumes that a compromise will need to be reached and so piles in every cost they can justify in any way at all, no matter how flimsy. The main aim of any initial filing is to raise the litigation risk for the other party, ie the amount that they would maybe have to pay if they lost. It forms a starting point for the negotiation over the course of the action.

My first phone was in the States and only had 10 speed dial slots (instead of an address book) and no text messaging. It was called two way paging at the time and required a separate device and contract.

Wow, all of a sudden I feel old...

In basic terms I don't see how anyone could object to this, it seems great. Obviously low end phones will have to move towards basic smart phone capabilities just as they once had to start including address books and text messaging, and linux is a good solution. The only worry is that Nokia, being a phone manufacturer, won't be making this cross-compatible so an opportunity for the android-of-the-low-end-phone is lost. It's still better than Meego!

I think that all of the net neutrality challengers should get together and head over to http://www.privateislandsonline.com/oceania.htm, where they could buy a volcanic island. Perfect for the super villain that has everything except an evil lair!

Once set up, /. readers could petition the local government to allow multi-tiered internet provision and drop all evil enterprises to the bottom of the list, throttling them back to dial up speeds! Mwha, mwha, mwha!!!