That's odd.. My Atrix has internal storage (and an SD, but it works without the SD just fine), and it lets me mount the internal storage as mass storage on Windows. It's clearly partitioned, but works fine.

My Motorola Atrix on Gingerbread has the ability to set a proxy server on an individual basis for wifi APs. I suspect this would be the case of most recent Motorola phones.

So, aside from what everyone has pointed out already - that these are not really direct competition - it should also be noted that google probably didn't just code this all up in a couple weeks. It's likely been on their roadmap and under development for months.

perhaps, but the key for me is whether or not they're being transparent about it. This instance is not a big deal to me because they explicitly and publicly stated their intentions and reasoning. What would be extremely damaging in my eyes is if they failed to follow through with their public commitment to release ICS, or if they kept doing this. I just can't get worked up over one release. The reasoning holds water, and they have done everything they said they would do so far. And as further weight to that argument - your argument about putting 3.x on a handset - They didn't release 3.x specifically because they didn't *want* someone to put it on a handset and provide a royally effed up experience, because it's explicitly for tablets.

Isn't a developer free to license something however they want, within the constraints of the licenses of whatever is being used? If Google suddenly said they weren't ever publishing source again, I'd be pretty peeved, but they had reasonable, non-evil reasons for not releasing 3.x, and have committed to releasing Ice Cream Sandwich. I'd like to see 3.x released, but as long as it's a non-regular occurrence, it doesn't bother me any - but i'm not quite as idealistic as RDS - if that were possible.

We could only hope, but most likely they'd just become ambulance chasers or work for Apple.

I'm fairly sure that they pay for the patent office people with fees from those applying for patents. In fact, until recently, 10% of their fee revenue was diverted to the general fund - meaning not only were they not costing the taxpayers anything, they were generating revenue. Yeah, companies probably have better things to do with their times, but the people that generate and file patents are different than those who do manufacturing. Unless you know a lot of lawyers who work on a factory line or similar ;) Besides, if they're not being jerks with their portfolio, how does it hurt anyone? Heck, it probably provides some high paying jobs. That said, I still think absurd patents are absurd.

Not directly, no, but they're clearly waging a proxy war through the Samsungs and HTCs and Motorolas. Maybe it's not 'new', but Google has to assume they're on the apple lawyers' list somewhere..

Yes, absurd patents are absurd, but when you have people suing you using absurd patents *coughapplecough*, and absurd patents are how the US landscape is, then you file absurd patents too. This is only problematic if Google goes and attempts to use this to sue people with. There's mountains of absurd patents, and the vast majority only come into play as defense against trolls *coughapplecough*

if you read the RTFL, it had to be made for under $65. Even a cheap circuit board might not leave you with much room in the budget.

Oh, uh, nevermind.. One supposes the metal tin would obscure its insides. Remind me never to have altoids in my backpack.

Kinda, but on an x-ray, wouldn't it be fairly clear there's no material that could actually explode?

So, uh, a university joins 57% of other peer universities in doing something, and it's news?