Cisco fesses up to iPhone WIP300 GPL failings, is "taking steps"

Apple isn't the only one having trouble messing with intellectual property as it relates to its iPhone product. Cisco was apparently reprimanded in October by a certain Armijn Hemel over unreleased code which, under the GPL-license that the phone submits to due to its Linux underpinnings, is required to be made available publicly. After the chat in October, Cisco fixed a few of its other products that Mr. Hemel pointed out were in violation, but still hasn't come clean with certain bits of WIP300 iPhone code. "For someone talking about Apple using Cisco's property," said Hemel, "actually they're infringing on copyright themselves. So it's just a double standard." In a response on Saturday, Cisco's prolific blogger John Earnhard states: "Based on our investigation, Cisco is taking steps to resolve a single issue raised regarding this product's compliance with the GNU General Public License, or GPL." No word on when this will all be patched up, or whether Cisco's fixes will be sufficient, but for the moment it sounds like the GPL kids are going to get their way. Will the curse of the iPhone live on? Tune in next week for Pirates of the iPhone: Apple and Cisco At World's End.

[Via The Inquirer]

Read - Cisco's iPhone violates GPL, expert says
Read - Cisco responds

The Pirate Bay eying Sealand to escape digital persecution

While Sweden (and Russia, to name a few) has long been a country of choice when it came to hosting less-than-upstanding websites, the head honchos around the globe looking out for their precious content have somehow reached The Pirate Bay, and now the popular torrent tracking site is eying the micronation of Sealand as a safe haven for its dubious hosting needs. Sealand, which is loosely claimed as a principality, features its own flag, coat of arms, currency, stamps, passports, and most importantly, a quasi-coat of armor from any nation's laws. Although the background of 5,920-square foot man-made installation off the shore of Suffolk, England is quite remarkable, TPB sees its two massive columns as a perfect place for future hosting duties. Formerly the home of HavenCo, an off-shore hosting company that housed gambling sites, money transferring liaisons, and any other operation looking for internet freedom, Sealand could be a potential sanctuary from the claws of the RIAA, MPAA, and other content "owners." Although a principality can't legally (saywha?) be "sold," the family in possession of it recently began accepting offers "upwards of eight figures" for a transfer of ownership after (quite literally) holding down the fort since 1967, and while we highly doubt a fundraiser can scrape up that kind of loot anytime soon, nor do we believe it'd stop the barrage of content guardians, we must say the loca

Anshe Chung YouTube video is a 'terms of use violation'

The video that depicts the griefing attack on Second Life land baroness Anshe Chung--removed by YouTube after a DMCA copyright infringement complaint--has been recategorized as a "terms of service violation."

It's not clear why. At first, Guntram Graef, husband of Anshe Chung's real-life persona Ailin Graef, attempted to convince YouTube that the video contained copyright infringement because of the unauthorized inclusion of Anshe Chung's avatar.

Users own what they create in Second Life, and that was the basis for the copyright infringement claim. But according to legal experts, the video and its images were fair use because they were taken during the griefing attack in which Anshe Chung--while She was interviewed in CNET's Second Life theater--was bombarded by 15 minutes of flying digital penises and pornographic photographs. The attack quickly became worldwide news.

But now, loading the video produces a generic YouTube message informing visitors that the video was deleted for a "terms of service violation." YouTube provides no further information.

I will keep you informed, dear readers, as I discover the reasons behind this. But it's nice to know that YouTube no longer considers this situation in the realm of DMCA, as nearly everyone involved knew that argument to be specious.

Meizu thinks small, copies Apple again with Music Card

Sure, there've been props all around for Meizu's M6 Mini Player, but that still doesn't alleviate those concerns of iPod "homage." Now that we've spotted this upcoming "Music Card" nano foe, who's design was apparently inspired by a user submitted competition, it's pretty clear where Meizu is getting its design ideas, but we're not sure we'd have it any other way. With a shiny metal back, "reminiscent" of the original nano, along with that glossy plastic metal front and familiar screen size, the Apple references are hard to skip. Meizu mixes things up with its scroll strip and that little button on the bottom left, along with what we're assuming is expansive codec support and probably even video playback. Dimensions are familiar as well, at 6.9mm thick and 39mm wide, but enough about similarities: we're looking forward to a bit more info on this player to see just what Meizu has planned for us on price, availability and features.

Cingular to become AT&T on Monday

Now that Cingular's co-owners have been united in holy matrimony, it looks like AT&T is wasting no time in killing off the brand to replace it with its own. Like, no time at all -- in fact, ComputerWorld is reporting that AT&T will begin using dual Cingular/AT&T branding this coming Monday. The new scheme will be used for some as-yet-undetermined period of time until everyone feels comfortable that the general populace understands what exactly has become of the nation's largest GSM carrier, at which point the AT&T name'll go it alone. So if anyone out there still has an old-skool AT&T Wireless handset kicking around, here's your opportunity to pull it back out and feel cool again.

iPhone: does Cisco miss out due to prior art?

Apple's argument that Cisco's claim to the name iPhone is "silly" is about to get a whole lot more cogent. It's still debatable whether Cisco has rights to the name, but eagle-eyed reader mrsalty points out the fact that Cisco's patent filings for the "Internet telephone" (and at least two others) reference the iphone name and attribute it to the Cidco (a company now owned by Earthlink) is not encouraging; the fact that the filing reads with the following language is even less so. "Also known [to Cisco at the time of filing the patent] is a dedicated 'Web phone,' such as the iphone, manufactured by Cidco..." Yikes. It's difficult to tell whether this iphone predates Cisco's acquisition of the patent holdings originally filed by Infogear in 1997, but prior art is prior art, and they admitted as much right in their own patent filing. What's more, the The Internet Phone Company has owned and operated iphone.com since 1995, and we don't see Cisco suing them. So basically we really hope this whole thing will be quick and painless since we don't think anyone wants another RIM vs NTP saga on their hands, but things will get very interesting if it works out such that the iPhone name is released to the commons and everyone and their mother can make an iPhone. (Sony Ericsson aiPhone or Motorola IFON, anyone?) Our advice to the people Behind the Human Network: focus on that human network of yours and let the iPhone go, kid.

Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"

Oh no they didn't! By now you already know it's on, and the latest round in the iPhone v. iPhone dance-off comes from Apple spokesman Steve Dowling, who was quoted as saying the Cisco lawsuit is "silly" and that several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products. He called Cisco's trademark "tenuous at best" and noted his company was the first to ever use the name for a cellphone. He goes on to boast that Cisco is gonna totally get served: "if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." Oh yeah -- Apple to Cisco: let's see you dance, sucka!

Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh!

"It is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?

More ways for Wii to fly off the handle

If Hong Kong-based Brando were a little kid, he'd be the one in the back row of the classroom getting everyone else in trouble. That, at least, is what the gadget maker seems to be doing (wittingly or otherwise) with its "Sports Pack" of accessories for the Wii.

The innovative "Wiimote" of Nintendo's new game system has gotten the company in some legal trouble with people who blame the device for gaming-induced injuries. Now Brando comes along with a set of attachments to the wireless remote, including pint-sized versions of a tennis racket, golf club and baseball bat, of all things. (Remember the De Niro scene in The Untouchables?)

Can the networks beat YouTube?

Fox, Viacom, CBS and NBC Universal are reportedly discussing plans to build a rival to YouTube, the Wall Street Journal has reported.
Taking on YouTube

The networks had already tried going after the popular video sharing site in the legal arena. Now it appears they'll try to best the site in the marketplace.

But will they be able to succeed? Bloggers didn't seem to think so, saying that what drove YouTube's success wasn't marketing or corporate sponsorship but letting the public do what they want with content; something it's doubtful the media companies will allow.

Blog community response:

"The chances that any one of the TV networks could get it right is slim. The chance that they could get it right in a partnership is nil."
--A VC

"When they show interest to do so, it has nothing to do with a sincere desire to give users what they want. They do so because they are envious with MySpace's massive rise in power to shape musical tastes, YouTube's rise to the TV platform by default with its 100 video streams, and for the $1.65B that Google could pay without blinking. In other words, their intentions going in are anything but virtuous. When you go into something driven by one of the seven sins, you come out a loser. What's that saying? Bulls make money, bears make money, but hogs get slaughtered."
--Hipmojo.com

"It seems far better to focus on what they're good at, which is content creation, and then to take advantage of the existing popularity of YouTube (and whatever the "next" YouTube turns out to be), perhaps by signing deals with them, to drive the popularity and attendant ad revenue of their shows."
--Techdirt