Visual Voicemail available now also for Windows Mobile phone

[gguruusa]

Originally Posted by gbm85

I wasn't aware that you are a copyright lawyer. The fact is, the only people who recognize my signature are those who already know what it is, so one could not possibly argue that I am enabling circumvention of a protection scheme.

Just because you know "what" it is, doesn't mean you knew "it". And, yes, they can argue you are enabling circumvention - people can argue damn near anything. But it is true, just because you publish the combination of a lock doesn't necessarily mean a crime has been committed - but you certainly are fostering the potential for a crime.

Originally Posted by gbm85

As for my "doom and gloom" comment, I don't know why you would find it offensive if there were no truth in it.

I think it's because it was largely misleading and irrelevant as to whether the video mail software will work or not. If you had said WM5 platforms will probalby not be supported, no one would have blinked.

[gbm85]

Originally Posted by gguruusa

Just because you know "what" it is, doesn't mean you knew "it". And, yes, they can argue you are enabling circumvention - people can argue damn near anything. But it is true, just because you publish the combination of a lock doesn't necessarily mean a crime has been committed - but you certainly are fostering the potential for a crime.

So if I had worn a T-shirt in the 70's with a picture of the Cap'n Crunch whistle on it, that would be fostering potential for a crime? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by gguruusa

I think it's because it was largely misleading and irrelevant as to whether the video mail software will work or not. If you had said WM5 platforms will probalby not be supported, no one would have blinked.

It's irrelevant for me to opine, in the Apache forum, that a particular piece of software may not work on the Apache? I don't see how you could possibly think it's misleading. I was just posting my opinion about whether it would ever work on the Apache.

Guys, it's a fscking cell phone. It's a $99 toy. Don't get your panties in a bunch over it.

[paynej]

Originally Posted by gbm85

The fact that the iPhone costs $600 tells me one major thing: innovation costs money.

Actually, all it really tells us is that the iphone isn't subsidized by the carrier. The true key to innovation isn't money; it's genius and determination. Just ask the OLPC people.

Originally Posted by gbm85

I wasn't aware that you are a copyright lawyer.

Actually, it's called Intellectual Property Law. It was a part of my corporate law practice. And I'm retired. But that is besides the point. However the irony of that you spoke the truth while you actually meant it as a smarta$$ comment isn't lost on me. Perhaps you should stick to the topic of conversation in the future rather than trying to discredit the people who converse with you.

Originally Posted by gbm85

The fact is, the only people who recognize my signature are those who already know what it is, so one could not possibly argue that I am enabling circumvention of a protection scheme.

My point entirely. That's why I likened it to gang colors. It only means something to those "inside". It's a statement, not a tool. I just find the statement hypocritical considering your initial response. And obviously I wasn't the only one.

Originally Posted by gbm85

As for my "doom and gloom" comment, I don't know why you would find it offensive if there were no truth in it.

It wasn't offensive (I don't believe anyone used that word but you just know). I was however in poor taste since it was completely off topic to the OPs initial question. It's somewhat akin to telling a terminally ill patient who asks for something that it doesn't matter since his is already dying a "not-so-slow" death.

[paynej]

Originally Posted by gbm85

Guys, it's a fscking cell phone. It's a $99 toy. Don't get your panties in a bunch over it.

Someone needs to take a step backwards draw a few calming breaths.

In reality it is *not* a $99 toy. It's retail up until about a month ago was $649.

However, I won't make the mistake of assuming that you do not know what you are talking about. It is entirely possible you know of what you speak and not just another irrelevant statement.

So please let me know where I can buy these for $99. Even if the supply is limited I would like to stock up. Heck on eBay they go for $250 and up refurbished. New they are still $399 and higher.

[unitypunk]

i got mine off ebay for 180, pretty neat deal.. there were 5 6700 for 500 bucks on ebay a week ago...

thats 100 a piece lol


i <3 the 6700

[Wizzard]

Paynej, you are casting pearls before.....well, you know.

[gbm85]

Originally Posted by paynej

In reality it is *not* a $99 toy. It's retail up until about a month ago was $649.

However, I won't make the mistake of assuming that you do not know what you are talking about. It is entirely possible you know of what you speak and not just another irrelevant statement.

So please let me know where I can buy these for $99. Even if the supply is limited I would like to stock up. Heck on eBay they go for $250 and up refurbished. New they are still $399 and higher.

http://www.ppcgeeks.com/6700-only-99...com-t6840.html

However it looks like we were both wrong... currently it is neither $399 nor $99. The 6700 isn't even offered for sale on the website anymore.

As for the relevancy of my statements... I disagreed with stealing software, which was brought up by the OP, making it a relevant statement. I also opined that the software would not be made available for the Apache. This is the Apache forum, and that opinion was also relevant.

Originally Posted by paynej

My point entirely. That's why I likened it to gang colors. It only means something to those "inside". It's a statement, not a tool. I just find the statement hypocritical considering your initial response. And obviously I wasn't the only one.

I think the word you are looking for is ironic. It is not hypocritical to look down on pirated software just because I like to watch movies I paid for using the OS of my choice.

Originally Posted by paynej

It wasn't offensive (I don't believe anyone used that word but you just know). I was however in poor taste since it was completely off topic to the OPs initial question. It's somewhat akin to telling a terminally ill patient who asks for something that it doesn't matter since his is already dying a "not-so-slow" death.

One typically does not request that another refrain from repeating a statement unless one finds it offensive. Although you did not say the actual word itself, I inferred it. As I have already said, my comment was not in poor taste and it was on topic. This is the Apache forum after all. All I did was state my opinion about whether a particular piece of software would be made available for our device. I see no reason why that should not be considered prudent.

@Wizzard: I do, however, find it quite rude to call me swine just because you disagree with my opinions.

[OffUrRcker]

I would like to present myself in contrast to Wizzard as an inconsequential supporter of GBM, though perhaps in a less ignorantly offensive light. While I do not disagree with any of the facts you presented, Payne, I don't believe that you had a case in the first place.

First of all, GBM's statement that this most likely will never operate on an apache is completely legitimate. First of all, does Verizon/Sprint have any plans to introduce visual voicemail? How would it be implemented? While theoretically, Qualcomm or some third party could create a BREW application to install on any number of the currently capable phones, but there would be no way to integrate it in to the actual operating system of the phone, as Verizon/Sprint, in many cases, does not create it itself.
More importantly, however, this would require HUGE changes as far as big red's network structure is concerned. Voicemail would have to be entirely digitized and offered as files stored online somewhere, as this is the only way one could create a program that would access this via a data call.

Actually, I'm realizing that you weren't so much (or at all) arguing about that. Well, I put it out there. But on a more relevant note, the Hex String can be considered more than one thing, maybe. A method, on one hand - in which case it violates no law. It is not illegal to know, and share, how to rob a bank. It is illegal to plan to do it.

On the other hand, it can be considered a trade secret, say - something which corporation HD DVD does not wish the public to get its hands on. What I will not say anything definitive about is whether or not it is actually possible to copyright a simple character string. Where I, by some miraculous chance, to spew that set of characters, could I be held liable? Hm. This string possesses no unique features, it is not the product of any brilliant design - it is simply a code.

Edit - Ah, I forgot to bring something up. While it may be true that the 6700 is not dying off, I'm rather sure you would be lying if you said that nobody wanted a 6800. Those of us on Verizon are unfortunately forced to wait for better technology to present itself to us, Big Red gift wrapped. I don't believe there are any drawbacks to the 6800, with the exception of the transflash card, and the slightly smaller keys, neither of which are perpetually crippling but rather things that have a getting over period.

[paynej]

Hi all,

I think what every one needs to do is look at the first two posts in this thread. They form the foundation from which everything was said.

The first thread contains a link to a press release which describes an entirely new data architecture (as needed and justified by my friend OffUrRcker ).

It also contains a single word, formed as a question : "torrent".


The second post contains an accusation of piracy (even though the press release shows that the solution is not entirely software based).

It also contains the inference that the 6700 is somehow different from other WM5 machines in the fact that because it is "dying" it will be unable to run software written for "a variety of Java, BREW, and Windows Mobile handsets."

The OPs request for a torrent could only supply a non-functional client. Thus "stealing" (which is a legal accusation) is unwarranted.

And the statement that "I wouldn't expect this to work on he Apache ever" has nothing to do with the facts, and nothing to do with the OPs original post.

In fact, all it did was call the OP a thief, and then present the opinion that the 6700 would never run a program written for "a variety of Java, BREW, and Windows Mobile handsets."

[paynej]

However, I must point out that piracy is defined as the unlicensed use of software.

Which is what gbm85 is doing with his Linux DVD playback.