Ariel Horwitz

Oops, you’re correct. The point I was trying to make was that Facebook may or may not use the Bittorrent protocol, they may use any protocol, including one they may have devised themselves.

Trademarks are not owned, and hence not property (and most definitely not intellectual). Trademarking only means that others can’t trade or sell products using that brand (mark) that may confuse a buyer. The idea being that if I make a great product and it is well known as the “iProduct”, you can’t ride on my success and sell an “iProduct”. The word “iProduct” is not owned though.

I can use the words Coca Cola™ for whatever I want as long as I don’t try to sell a drink called Coca Cola that you may confuse for the trademarked Coca Cola.

(Monster cables trademarked the word Monster and tries to sue every company in the world using the name but they lose their cases because buyers don’t think they’re buying Monster Cables for their guitars when they go and buy Monster Toys for their children’s birthday.)

It just happens that P2P is the most popular protocol for sharing and transfering all things digital, regardless of legality. Shame the protocol is being delegitimized because it is efficient. Cars aren’t outlawed because thieves use them as getaway vehicles.

Facebook uses peer-to-peer transfer protocols, as do virtually all web companies.

P2P is a protocol. Bittorrent is a trademarked name. Since when are trademarks considered IP? I appreciate the articles’ sensationalism pointing out the “irony”, but anyone who knows anything about P2P knows this is non-news…

I am glad to hear though that Bittorrent is still working hard, and is alive and kicking. I have think it’s a shame P2P technology is being dismissed and delegitimized in the public’s eye because it is disruptive to current obsolete business models…

HTC is sucking up to carriers ATM, because of the last two disappointing quarters. And for some strange reason, US carriers prefer their own dumb brands they’ve invested in (Evo, Droid, Incredible, etc.) rather than the manufacturer’s brands. HTC is not gonna make a stink as long as they sell more devices for the next quarterly call.

You just wanted him to get on your nerves, didn’t you? It was an appropriate comment as much as it would have been if this article would have been about an Android or iPhone with a 41MP camera.

Relax, nobody hates on Symbian anymore. Everybody already knows it’s dead.

It’s not the car that regulates the speed, it’s simply a feedback system for drivers.
“… found that the display [for the driver]… increased overall speed…”

What you’re looking for, is Google’s self driving car. If Honda and the University of Tokyo would partner with Google’s project, this could make the effort not only safer, but also more efficient. Of course, as the article suggests, connection to a cloud network has immense potential for making traffic more efficient, on a city-wide level, and I’m sure Google is not only thinking about that, but also has a team working on it.

There is no difference between the browser and other stock apps. Even the HTML renderer is separate from the stock browser.

And there is no wasted space on the device, considering /system is r/o anyway.

It’s interesting how back in 2010 (that is, even after the Droid is launched as the first Eclair device) they listed relations with OEMs: HTC, Motorola, Samsung and LG. I wonder if they would have listed these differently today, considering Samsung is no. 1 globally.

I just realized how old this data is… Q2 2010 is a loooong time ago in this industry…

Usually. Sometimes one of them gets early access, especially if they’re working on the next Nexus or a flagship of the Android brand (such as Asus/Nvidia with the TF Prime). That happens to be why this article points out Asus.