One issue is whether Apple did the right thing or the wrong thing in modifying its software. One can have differing views, interpretations of what Apple should and should not support. I can certainly see why Apple would not want non-Apple iPods masquerading as such, especially if they have published an API that allows non-Apple devices to maintain pretty much the same functionality as an iPod in iTunes.

No, the bigger issue is that Palm has neglected the desktop, handheld, and smartphone aspects of its products for so long that folk have been abandoning their hardware in droves. So Palm finally brings out a shiny new smartphone OS that may work as advertised. Yet, Palm actually had to adopt windows CE on some of its devices because the Palm OS was such a hopelessly decrepit pile of yesterdays junk. While I think the hardware and software of the Pre is interesting, it's more of the too little too late, IMO. It's next best competitor (Android) has a lead start, no lock-in at the hardware level, and many other advantages. Multi-tasking by itself is not reason enough to jump to a new hardware platform, especially if you limit yourself to Sprint, a has-been phone network.

Recognize that what Apple has done is to create a "seamless experience" from connecting the device to calenders, etc. being synced up and ready to go. Palm dropped the ball by concentrating solely on integrating with iTunes instead of bringing out a similarly "revolutionary" desktop application to complement it's many Pre functionalities. By allowing another vendor to dictate the terms under which its device can be interfaced, Palm has capitulated the desktop side of the business and by extension a prime means of differentiating its product from those of Apple.

I still can't believe that Palm can't bring out a better, up-to-date version of its used-to-be-great Palm desktop application, for example that allows users a entourage-like (but hopefully better!) experience. By comparison, the Apple reliance on multiple apps to get the same job done (i.e. iCal, Addressbook, etc.) is inelegant not nearly as intuitive. There are plenty of ways to write better software and make better hardware than Apple. However, if you want your product to stand out, you better do a better job than Apple does at creating a "user experience" that is intuitive and which differentiates Apple products enough for folk to be willing to spend a premium buying them...

Nevermind bringing out a smartphone that actually runs on most of the worlds networks instead of having a 6 month exclusive with a CDMA-based carrier. Sometime at the end of this year the exclusive will end, Palm will release a GSM-based Pre and I doubt anything much will happen. If Palm had actually focused on bringing out innovative phones and desktop applications in the last 5 years, perhaps they wouldn't be playing 4th fiddle to Apple, Rim, Windows, and Android. A pity, considering what an innovative company Palm appeared to be at one point.

For one, I don't know why I'd ever hand a piece of computer equipment with a hard drive in it to the folk at Best Buy, etc. after all the exposes re: naughty technicians surfing the hard drive for porn and other things of interest. There are lots of guides out there on how to do common tasks like hard drive replacement yourself, I'd only hand over a machine with a clean drive, if that.

Secondly, one has to consider the possibility that the images stored on the computer were not deposited there by the person who owns it. Any technician in the store could have used the computer to do some surfing, there is no chain of custody. Next, the images may have been deposited by malware, yet another possibility that I imagine the defense will bring up. Lastly, the images may have been deposited by a previous laptop owner, roommate, etc. - issues for the courts to mull over.

Not that easy...

While I agree that the terms that most Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs) offer are rapacious, the benefits of having someone else invest $300K to secure worldwide patent rights also have to be considered. Particularly, if that institution has big pockets and hence some bloodthirsty lawyes only too happy to sue a big multinational for patent infringement. On the other hand, if you are a little company, a large company might just ignore your patent because patent litigation tends to be a civil affair, which means it'll cost you a lot of money to defend. Money you may not have, forcing you to settle. Never mind the many ways in which the process can get perverted by lawyers.

I think a bigger issue for most IPOs is that they are run as cost centers. Thus, the terms tend to be rapacious by design (i.e. kill what you can today rather than take a longer-term view by taking just an equity stake). However, that state of affairs is unlikely to change since Universities appear to have become addicted to licensing fees and up-front charges generated by their IPOs just as cities have become dependent on "traffic enforcement" revenues. At the end of the day, it simply means that smart students will be much more circumspect in terms of what they disclose to the university. However, I imagine that industry is also sponsoring less and less research since they'd have to share patents/licensing fees/etc.

So, in the end, this obsession with licensing fees and patents will reduce innovation, not enhance it. Never mind the many mechanics involved in pacing an idea through the IPO...

While I agree with some of your points, please allow me to disagree with your Mertz analogy.

IMO, the suitability of a CFL for a given application is directly tied to the construction and quality of the CFL and its electronics versus the application it is being used in. Some applications will never be good candidates for CFLs, I'll get to that in a bit.

The biggest issue with CFLs as I see it right now is that a lot of junk is being imported with nary a focus on issues that affect consumer utility. Instead, the focus is solely on the lumens/watt, which is but one aspect of how people benefit from a light. For example, most lamp manufacturers do not publish how long it takes their bulbs to come up to temperature, what ambient temperature effects are, nor the color temperature, nor the variability in color temperature, etc.

In other words, other aspects of the light not tied to the lumens being emitted are completely ignored and the cheaper the bulb, the worse the above issues tend to be. For example, I tried buying some CFLs for my in-laws at Home Depot and I was amazed how slow they were to come up to temperature, how nonuniform the light temperatures were, and so on. One bulb would be a dim yellow, the other more orange, etc. and none would have the same luminosity either. In other words, the QC in that factory on that run was completely and utterly off.

Then again, having bought them at Home Depot, I should have known better!

In my own home, I have used CFLs throughout, with a few exceptions. The only areas where CFLs are not used is one hallway that uses a combined light/movement sensor (CFL power supplies hate that due to the method which the light sensor uses) and then there are maybe 5 old sconces with exposed light bulbs where we prefer skinny traditional bulbs. Other than that, everything is CFL, including bathrooms, hallways, outdoor overhead lights, etc. None of these bulbs have needed replacement in over three years of use.

The brands I have had good luck with are TCP and Panasonic. The Panasonic gen IV bulbs we have are perfect replacements for globes, etc. even in antique light fixtures since they have the same approximate shapes as standard light bulbs. They are somewhat slow to warm up to full brightness (maybe 10 seconds - it's our version of a fancy dimmer effect) but we have had great luck using them even in applications that some bulbs are not rated for (i.e. ceiling cans, for example). The TCP springlamps have also been super, offering a wide range of almost instant-on CFLs in many color temperatures with even results. I've not worked for either company, not affiliated, your mileage may vary, etc.

Last but not least, the technology of LEDs will advance just as that for CFL has for the last 20+ years. At some point, manufacturers of CFLs will perhaps get together and come up with a industry standard for electronic dimmer wall switches to talk to CFL ballasts so that CFLs can successfully enter that application also. Unless such interoperability is assured, that is one application where CFLs are unlikely to have a lot of success. Being tied into a single-vendor solution (like the Leviton series of electronic ballast and switch combinations for overhead flourescent lights) is not a solution! And CFLs that can work around ancient rheostat, etc. technology are expensive and not very reliable.

... many years ago, it was illegal per AT&T to attach anything but AT&T-approved equipment at home or in a business alike to their network. Eventually, the anti-trust folk, PBX equipment vendors, etc. broke up that racket, IIRC. At the time, AT&T made dire predictions about network reliability, etc. if "non-approved" devices were attached to it. In the end, it was clearly a rear-guard action designed to maximize the lease-money that AT&T was deriving from equipment rentals. This Comcast rethoric is no different, they want to lease a $30 cable box for $4 month ad infinitum.

So, I would very much welcome a requirement to open up the the consumer choices with regard to cable boxes. Ideally, someone at the FCC will have the foresight to look to the EU or other places that have already gone through the trouble of designing a secure option and require an "open" standard instead of allowing content providers to reinvent the wheel yet again to create a NA-only product. While cable-boxes are definitely not as portable as let's say cell-phones (and hence will not derive as much value from being interoperable), economies of scale definitely apply in this business and the more competition, the better for the consumer.

Plus, interoperable product ensures that if cable content providers ever get competition, that cable boxes don't get discarded simply because provider X has a different encryption scheme than vendor Y. Besides the unnecessary lock-in at the set-box level, I would also like to see a requirement by the Feds to allow consumers and content providers to chose their packages à la carte (i.e. disallow bundling requirements). This is the only means of breaking the oligopoly of the content providers and to restore some semblance of consumer choice to the market.