I'm going to to be terribly pedantic here, but GST, like all VATs, does not work like that. It is not an expense (as in it does not effect profit and loss). Like all VATs, GST collected on sales is subtracted from GST spent on purchases, and if the remainder is positive, then you pay that to the government, and if it is negative the government sends you the difference. The point is to make a fairer sales tax, where goods and services are not taxed at multiple points. All these financial operations happen on the balance sheet as changes to assets and liabilities, and have nothing to do with expenses at all.

OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

I guess the point has to be, what has VMWare bought to the game. They've essentially grabbed the Linux kernel, stacked their own kernel extensions on top of it and called it their own. I've never heard of them as major contributors to the Linux kernel itself.

Whatever the motive, I'm glad Slashdot posted this. Sounds very interesting and I'd never have known about it otherwise. Might have to buy it for my nephew.

Software licensing is always complicated, particularly when a product is a assembly of separate modules and pieces. If they have violated the license for the Linux kernel itself, I highly doubt this would touch their actual VMWare software at all, though a court could determine that. Conventional wisdom would indicate that the license does not cross the API boundary, so the copyright infringement ends at their kernel drivers. My understanding from the article is that it's the kernel drivers themselves (the vmkernel module anyway) that VMWare includes borrowed code from the kernel sources, which are then released with a proprietary license. Had VMWare wrote all the driver from scratch, there wouldn't even be a case, even if the drivers are proprietary, non-free code.

We've seen enough corporate sociopathy to accurately answer that question.

Why didn't they just go with BSD?

To donate funds to Conservancy GPL compliance efforts see here:

http://sfconservancy.org/linux...

He didn't. This is a standard bit of Blackberry astroturfing. Instead of innovating, this is what BB does now.

Larry Niven as well. Was it the third or fourth Ringworld book that went on at great length about various humanoid species fucking?

What choice does Microsoft have at this point? If they simple cede the mobile market, they risk Google marching right up the middle with a series of devices that come to resemble a full computing platform. And that most certainly is Google's intent. That's why they're putting considerable resources into Google Docs; they want it to be good enough, and once it is good enough, then suddenly that Chromebook looks like a pretty decent competitor to a more expensive Windows laptop.

At the end of the day, Microsoft has to at least gain some market share or it will begin to see its most valuable market; Exchange-Office, begin to leak away.

Neither does saying "it is the greatest next thing", apparently.

As much as I need to access such documents on my phone, I can. I can't conceive of actually wanting to work on such documents on a smartphone, but to view them, Google Docs seems to a reasonably good job, and when I had an iPhone, Apple's ability to view Office files was good enough in most cases.

That's always been MS's problem, they bring nothing to the table that isn't delivered by Google or Apple, and the things that they could bring to the table, like AD integration, they don't. Coupled with an absolutely miserable app store that is a laughably stunted entity compared to the major Android and Apple markets, it's little wonder they've had such a problem.

So we need the Dr. Pepper of cell phones?

Will it be the year Microsoft takes the smart phone market from Android (aka:Linux)?

This is starting to sound a lot like the year of the Linux desktop.