Yeah they do seem to be trying to grab both slices of the pie.

Here's hoping the have as much success in that endeavor as SCO had vs. IBM on the one hand, and Novell on the other.

And maybe patent trolls will stop trying to find convoluted justifications for filing their suits in East Texas. A nice win in a "troll friendly" district.

"Information is not property."

So you say you run your home network with no firewall? What's the IP address? I want to get in and play, and none of the information there is your property, after all.

If it's used to conduct government business, I bet that Blackberry is a "company"-owned device.

No one is saying no portable devices on the network. THey're saying only devices that are owned by the business and have been validated as a secure configuration with standard methods to re-evaluate the security.

This is true. If company wants you available off-hours, it provides the means to contact you. On the other hand, why the heck do you need a data plan on a cellphone to conduct company business?

Any company concerned about its internal information has to be really cautious, even obstructive, about allowing non-company devices on their network, because of both information protection requirements and malware risks to other devices on the network.

People complain about the control-freaks in the IT department, but there are very good reasons that they have to exert this type of control. Yes, it's possible to be too paranoid about security (or is it?). But controlling whose devices access the network and what applications and capabilities exist in those devices is not paranoia nor a domination game. It's self-knowledge for the company. Remember, that apart from someone's job role, a large company has no way of distinguishing knowledgeable techies from PEBCAKs would click on every antivirus scam site that displays a popup on their desktop. For those companies, opening BYOD to all employees is equivalent to a home user removing the firewall from their router and just letting all the internet into their home network.

Their industry trade association, the ESA, still supports SOPA. So YES, all 3 companies are still supporting it "privately"
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/31/ea-sony-nintendo-pull-suppor.html

probably includes the entire operating budget of YouTube, and Google+. And possibly the other "free" services like Google Maps, Google Earth, and Gmail.

And if their accounting is finer-grained than that, I still bet it includes the revenue-sharing on YouTube.

The fee is being charged for _credit card_ (and other indirect) forms of payment online. If you authorize a onetime payment from your checking account (ACH) the fee is waived, and you don't incur the worst risks of automated bill pay. Yes, they have your bank account number, but you've only authorized a one-time transaction, so they can be fought if they try to take additional payments out.

On the other hand, this is a good argument for using a bill-pay service from your bank instead. At least until _they_ start charging a buck or two for each transaction.

"brings in an infected computer" ... also refers to an unauthorized device.
The board of directors will be firing Joe Blow shortly, if his actions led to losses of the size you imply.