You would license [GSM and UMTS patents] like everyone else.
Since my last post, I realized that GSM and UMTS patents aren't the only patents affecting mobile phones. Multitouch gesture patents are another, and the licensing structures for these don't seem to be as reasonable and nondiscriminatory as the licensing structures for, say, GSM and UMTS patent pools.
Huh? What does this have to do with making a phone?
Slashdot and Apple are based in the United States. In the United States, the three national carriers with decent coverage are Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. These carriers do not give a discount if you use a SIM-only (AT&T) or CSIM-only (VZW/Sprint) plan with your own handset instead of taking the carrier's subsidized handset. So in order to make your handset affordable to customers in the United States, you have to get your handset onto one of the United States carriers' subsidy plans. Nokia has had trouble doing this, leaving Apple and Google as the primary handset operating system publishers.
 T-Mobile is a national carrier that does offer a discount for bringing your own handset, but I'm leaving T-Mobile out of it because "there's a map for that" to an even greater extent than with AT&T.
You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.
So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.
Whoever said I was a creationist?
Which is my point.
No alternative theory can exist because you "priests of Darwinism" won't allow anything other than Darwinism to explain your view of the world.
If it is different than yours you immediately bring God into the picture and claim I am a religious nut cake.
Just remember though, you assumed I was a creationist and I am not, a creationist.
I simply observed all you people desperately, want to kill "God". Why you people always respond to any critique of the evolutionary BIBLE of Darwin as a attack by an imaginary being is beyond me.
You see, my position I don't care which is which, I want the facts.
Until biochemistry can solve all of these riddles and we begin to produce species out of the lab all the "quaint" little You Tube videos in the world are not going to convince me that Darwin is correct.
You change ONE freakin protein in the eye and it all comes falling apart.
One guy on here even thinks the whole thing is deterministic and doesn't work by chance and that "somehow natural selection" makes it work, ywet won't explain what the difference is between random probability and natural selection!
What a bunch of bull. If natural selection makes it work, then if it is that well understood, make a new species from a frog then. I want four eyes on the frog, and I want it purple with speckled poka dots.
Since it is very well understood "theory" then it shouldn't be too hard to do.
You Darwinists are so full of yourselves and you point at creationists that can't provide proof of God, yet turn around and endorse a theory of how life works, yet can't produce one freakin new species.
Your all hypocrites and THAT is one thing you have in common with creationists.
Frankly, Scarlett, I don't have a fix. -- Rhett Buggler