Not if you contractually agree not to tether when you sign up for service.

Of course, if they change my plan to charge me for tethering and I'm NOT tethering, well, that would probably not be legal.

Thank you for marketing WP7 in a post that seems like astroturfing. How does this relate to MS v Apple's updating mechanisms, again?

Other comments have taken to clearing up some of the misconceptions regarding first-to-file versus first-to-invent so I won't duplicate them. However, one thing not yet pointed out is that the vast (VAST) majority of the rest of the world uses a first-to-file system.

By switching our system, it reduces the burden on an inventor (and thus the legal cost) of obtaining a world wide patent as the systems become closer to the same. And note that Europe has not considered switching to first-to-invent as a way to combat patent trolls, which says something about how much the USA switching will help/hurt trolls.

It's really bricked. See here:

"... If this is successful, it should allow the handset to recover its original firmware and resume operation. But not everyone can get this to work, indicating that the devices are truly bricked, with the only option being to return them to the network operator and have them replaced under warranty."

The article has more details; the problems appear to be restricted to a few samsung firmware versions. Given how religious MS is about testing every combination of everything come patch time (how many times have we bitched about the slowness of a patch), I'm going to speculate the source of the cock-up is a miscommunication regarding which firmware versions are out there (MS didn't know they existed) or what the differences between them are (MS thought the differences were irrelevant come patch time) and at least half the blame lies with Samsung.

The people I want to hear most from are not the IP intellectual discussions about moot points of IP policy, but from actual patent holders who have innovative technologies that have been blocked from innovating by the patent system.

I used to be against most forms of US IP, but now in a position where I may be able to actually capitalise on some of my own IP, I find the system much more friendly than I thought. While I still find my own knowledge lacking, here are the two things I wish were reformed:

-A patent does not give freedom to operate, it only gives the right to exclude. For example if you patent A, and then I patent B, but B is a subset or derivative of A, I can't actually bring B to market because A blocks me, but the holder of A can't do it either because B blocks it. This ends up stifling innovation. To correct this problem requires an entire re-think of the rights given to patent holders.

Second, patent holders get the standard term to block others, regardless whether the holder intends to or ever does bring the innovation to the market. I wish we had a system that gave 22 years of protection, but only if the holder uses the patent within 2 years of granting (with an appeals process that allows extensions if reasonable work is still being done on it). Essentially, eliminate defensive patent library weapons of mass destruction.

I have been a comcast customer for 8 straight years now (give or take a few months)

Had the announcement broken 3 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but Comcast is on a long, upward trend in technical competitiveness.

They were the first major ISP to go DNSSEC, I believe, and have done DOCSIS 3.0 rollouts in most of their markets (we get cheap 20/4 service here, with a 50 down option available. Some parts of the service area have 100mbps down.) They also rolled out a bunch of 6to4 servers recently. While 6to4 is not a great technology, it is useful to have ISP servers, since my IPv6 traffic (auto tunneled via an Airport Extreme) goes through my local NOC and not first to wisconsin and then back to silicon valley as was the case before.

They still lag when it comes to technical support via phone, as they assume all of their customers are techno-illiterate, but I have to give them a lot of credit for being on the leading edge when it comes to their network and network technologies.

As soon as someone connects our fork to the existing fork of the internet, we'll be reduced to a connected network and not a true fork. You could decide that anyone who connects to the old internet will be blacklisted, but then we'll be reduced to controllers in the same form as those we currently deride. It's a beautiful irony built in to the design of the internet in the first place.

This seems like an issue for which representative democracy was created. We get the laws we ask for, and the reason we're having a debate is because the telecom companies are currently much louder than we are. It's because your average person doesn't give two shits about net neutrality right now, they just want a broadband connection good enough to do what they're used to doing. But, anyone I sit down for 30 minutes and to whom I explain what the underlying debate is out always comes out pissed we haven't forced net neutrality down the throats of all involved already.

You are conflating "Scientist" and "Professor". Aside from the academic track, as a Ph.D. scientist, you can work in industry, especially if you have a background in organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics or materials science. You could also skip to DC and work in public policy and education. Or you could join a law firm as a patent agent, work a few years, and have a J.D. from a top-tier law school paid by your employer while making top dollars as patent attorney. Or maybe you'd like to work VC as a scientific advisor, as you have knowledge and skills your average MBA graduate does not. Or perhaps you have an idea for a new technology you'd like to bring to market and know you've just spent 6 years working dilligently on one thing to have it succeed, so it's not like you don't have the drive. Or maybe you'd like to...

And the list goes on.

Well, I'm a scientist now and am so for two reasons:

1. Bill Nye. Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to have your own theme song that repeats your name 'BILL BILL Bill bill bill!' (And, really, the guy was legitimately cool)

2. Weird Science. It was always going to be way easier for me to synthesize the girl of my dreams than win her.

And now my early-teen horrible taste and design ability will live forever in it's terrible FrontPage '97 designed glory. Hallelujah!

As a buy-and-hold investor, why do you care whether high-frequency trading exists at all? The flash crash was largely erased shortly thereafter, so it wasn't like it artificially destroyed your wealth. As a person who believes that a core value of our moral system should be those things that do not impinge on the rights of others should be allowed (with notable and obvious exception), I find banning high value trading simply because we are afraid the market will do strange things is silly.

When it comes down to it, the flash crash was a boon for the buy and hold investor, since you got an opportunity to buy things at great prices. And, when it comes times to sell, having a bazillion automated trades in the system ensures your trade will get lost in the liquidity, practically guaranteeing a fair price. Wipe out market liquidity and you are suddenly at the mercy of whoever happens to want to buy that day.

Consider an extinction-level event, such as an asteroid collision with earth. Presume that we cannot deflect the asteroid because we detect it too late, or some other reason you can imagine.

In that case I would bet that humanity, although scattered to the wind all over the planet, would survive in some form. But, who will maintain the internet? Who will preserve all of the data? And, even with that data, we still have to find all of the necessary components to read it (SATA controller, display board, connectors, etc). And our future fractured selves are going to have a hell of a time finding the meaningful and important data, since hard drives do not look remotely unique.

Books do not have any of those problems. The entire OED is not exactly portable, but once you have re-created infrastructure enough to used wheeled transportation, it should be carry-able.

Putting more and more records online is a good thing because it increases access to that information for everyone. But perhaps some records, such as the definitive history of the words in our language, should be designated cultural artifacts worth saving and preserving in hard copy form, lest the unthinkable happens and we lose several centuries of our historical record. And the longer we continue to put stuff only online, the worst the results will be.

Of course, everyone will think planning for this eventuality is ridiculous until we HAVE to plan for the eventuality. I hope we have enough warning to preserve what we need to.

Easiest way to make a sure buck ever: just convince the professor to fix your grades and give him/her part of the profit.

You don't even have to be that pernicious-- just ask the professor how many points you'd have to lose to get a sure B or C, and then ensure you get a B or C.

Bet enough and you won't even care what grades you decide to give yourself since you won't have to work.