It is rather trivial to change the keybord of a laptop. You might be able to order one for your brand for quite a small sum. Otherwise go to a local shop and check with them if they can help out. My experience is the smaller ones are willing to order a specific version for you and exchange the keyboard.

Note, local shops often have local keyboards in stock as there are always customers requesting English versions which they replace.

Good luck.

COTS != EOL != availability.

Going to COTS is in general a good thing, but any respectable company will focus on End of Life, Availability and MTBF when going for COTS. Those are not mutual exclusive.

Seems management approving the PS3 solution without having a solid contract with Sony should be fired on the spot.

> Part of being able to write good software is actually understanding how computers think.

Time for a Dijkstra quote: The question of whether Machines Can Think... is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.

I am more confused by people mixing b (bit) and B (Byte).

The implementation of this all is left to the owners of the IPR. 3GPP only wants to ensure that nobody can block others from implementing the specification. Guess it is up to the local courts to decide what is fair.

Without having insight, I assume that in this case the discussion is more about the value estimation of the IPR portfolios. My guess is that Nokia does not consider the Apple portfolio as very valuable for them as the only need a part of the Apple IPRs.

And as an other poster pointed out, the discussion could be as wel regarding a per-unit fee based on sales price. As Apple is into deals with operators (keeping initial price low) they might not like Nokia going for the secondary payments.

Again, all is guessing. We will need to wait.

3GPP includes as well the original GSM (2G, phase 1) specification and my interpretation therefore is that patents related to GSM phase 1 fall under RAND as well.

GSM standardization activities started in 1982 (GSM == Groupe Spécial Mobile). In 1989 the responsibilities were transferred to ETSI and in 1990 Phase 1 was completed. That means, the original GSM technologies should be patent free (20 year).

3GPP initially copied the ETSI specifications and started working with that as a basis.

The GSM Association you refer to is according my knowledge not working on any technical standardization. They seem to be more operator focused.

The FAQ on 3GPP.org is very clear on the terms:

  What is the 3GPP IPR Policy?

The 3GPP Organizational Partners have agreed that their IPR policies should be respected and that their respective members should be encouraged to declare "their willingness to grant licenses on fair reasonable terms and conditions and on non discriminatory basis" (Article 3.1 of the Third Generation Partnership Project). For more information Look Here >>>

The above-mentioned principles are further reflected in Article 55 of the 3GPP Technical Working Procedures which request that each Individual Members should declare "at the earliest opportunity, any IPR which they believe to be essential, or potentially essential, to any work ongoing within 3GPP".

What is the 3GPP policy on licensing?

Some aspects of 3GPP systems are covered by essential Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - that is, patented technologies without which equipment cannot be implemented. The IPR vests in - i.e. the patents are held by - individual companies, and not by 3GPP itself or any of its Organizational Partners (OPs). All Individual Members of 3GPP abide by the IPR policies of the OP to which they belong; all such policies are broadly similar (see FAQ 3.1), and require IPR holders to make licences available to all third parties, whether or not they are 3GPP Individual Members, under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

O yes, I've seen it happen. Sites like yours killed my favorite independent magazine. They lost subscribers that were lured by the 'free' web sites. They had to increase their advertising volume and which drove away their last subscribers.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the problem but please don't try to make me feel guilty. You killed many more jobs than that you are now trying to protect. You're no different and that is just the free market we're living in. Accept it.

What is it about the iPhone that's got people so worked up? As best I can tell it's a great UI experience with crappy hardware that's got only about 75% of the functionality that any other phone has. It's manufactured by a company that doesn't really have any experience making phones, and could easily get out of the phone business, leaving you high and dry.

Problem is, Nokia holds patents on CDMA and general phone concepts as well. No way Apple will be able to sell a CDMA phone without licensing Nokia IPR.

In fact, this fight is not over only the mentioned 10 patents, but covers hundreds of patents. But due to the cost of fighting about all patents, a few key ones are selected for the legal fight. This is standard practice.

Apple has no choice other then creating a licensing agreement with Nokia or leave the market.

Some mentioned 'fair' agreement. Problem is, how much is the value of your patent portfolio. Take for example Ericsson, they hold key patents in cellular technology. 10 of their patents have more value for Nokia then 10 of Apple patents. Apple patents do not apply to e.g. their low end, PC-card/module and network product. (Assuming here Apple patents are in majority covering the field of UI)

Got the point.

Sarcasm is harder to spot when being used in a language you're not raised in. Apologies to the poster for not spotting that.

Are we talking about the same topic?

From the article:
---
The law, which critics argue would block access to other, innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship, could breach Germany's constitution, experts believe.
---

Shame on those who modded you up. Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low. Furthermore, this is Germany you're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.

Just remember, what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws.

> This is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. The murder is a simple fact, but it's something that happened almost 20 years ago.
> The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.

Public trials, public records are public because of certain laws make them public (simply ignoring to check if it was a public trial in this specific case). In order to be able to have public trials, there is the need for additional rules. In Germany the people (being a democratic country) have decided to provide some kind of protection to offenders. So, when claiming information is public one must honor as well the limitations set that made this information public.

> But I just wanted to point out that just because something is a simple fact, does not mean that it's OK to publish it on the public Internet.
> The question is not whether this fact may or may not be published; it has been published and is part of the public record. The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts.

Wrong. The question is whether the subjects have to right to request said information to be removed from public records that were illegally added to such public records. Note, in Germany the government has nothing to do with this at all; they wrote those laws in the past. It is now up to a judge to decide which law/right to uphold. As op said, there are different approaches to prison. Some countries see it as punishment, others as a correction tool where wrong behavior is adjusted. Study both approaches carefully and you'll see they are worlds apart.

Good plan in my opinion.

Quite often, one can produce your product using component A or B. A is cheaper, but less environmentally friendly. Component B is more expensive.

As the price of a TV does not depend on the selected component (not significant), the cheaper option is selected. Volume starts making a difference.

Conclusion, environment is sold out to maximize profits.

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema

"In 1950 Dillema was expelled for life by the Dutch National Athletics Federations. A gynaecologist concluded that Dillema was an intersex."

"In 2008, a controversial DNA-test on dead cells from her clothing found that she may have been a Genetic Mosaic, having both 46XX (female) and 46XY (male) chromosomes in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. "