Tim Marman

Any word on Quad-band or US release of this device?

I may still pick it up if possible with the Euro Tri-Band, because 1900 seems to be fine for me in NYC. This looks sweet, and better than waiting for the GSM Q for another 6-8 months!

Too bad Telus isn't a GSM provider :)

1900 is fine for most of the US, especially the big metropolitan areas. If you don't do a lot of small-town travel, it will probably be fine.

In fact, I'm thinking of picking it up myself if I can find it online somewhere :)

For me, a 3G wireless stack is an absolute must these days. I don't care so much that it can do voice, but not having an always-on data connection is a mobile device killer for me these days. It's one reason I haven't bought a UMPC yet - if they integrate EDGE or EVDO or have a better solution for external connectivity (i.e., one that is portable), I would definitely grab one though.

I said essentially the same thing as Marty on Friday, though Marty probably put it better.

http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/05/26/The_Web_2_0_Trademark_Debacle.aspx

The point of trademark, as I pointed out, is to protect designations of source. The whole idea that something becomes generic - i.e., when it's a buzzword - it loses protection is because it no longer designates source.

And, even though CMP/O'Reilly is not policing the mark generally, they are claiming it so. "Conference" is clearly descriptive, so if "Web 2.0" has indeed become generic, then "Web 2.0 Conference" is not protectable without secondary meaning. Certainly, "Web 2.0" by itself as a service mark is not protectable.

I'd also like to point out that dilution and confusion are two entirely different concepts. Something can be dilutive without being confusing. This was actually the point behind the Supreme Court's holding in Moseley v. Victoria's Secret. The Court there said that, to prove dilution, you need actual proof of dilution, not just likelihood of dilution. Confusion, of course, requires only likelihood of confusion as per the polaroid factors. Congress has since addressed this in the yet-to-pass Trademark Dilution Revision Act, but the point remains that these are discrete things.

I'm not suggesting it would make Napster the dominant player. The simple fact is that any service that doesn't work on the iPod is at a huge disadvantage given the iPod's marketshare. Those are practical concerns, and adding the Beatles is unlikely to change that.

That said, even if we overestimate the commercial value of the catalog would have, it is still a high-profile asset that will garner attention. You can be sure Wall St analysts will notice if Apple Corps licenses the catalog to Napster instead of iTunes. It doesn't need to dethrone iTunes to be a big blow.

Just to reiterate my original point - we don't yet know whether the Beatles catalog is coming to iTunes, and the circumstances suggest to me that it's less likely given there was no settlement and that Apple Corps lost.

That headline is a bit misleading.

Apple Corps has not decided yet whether they will bring the catalog online, let alone whether they will choose to sell through iTMS.

The fact that Apple Corps lost suggests to me that they may try to "strike back" by NOT using iTMS. The Beatles catalog is important enough that choosing, e.g., a struggling Napster would be a big blow to iTunes.

I don't know why it matters. I'm a 220 pound former college football player. My girlfriend weighs half of that and is nowhere near as strong as me, but she'd still kick my ass :)

On a more serious note... doesn't the whole Redguard race strike you as a thinly veiled stereotype too?
They are the "finest warriors in the land", have a "sturdy constitution" - and the default hair is an afro (you can also select cornrows) and their default lips are very large. I mean... come on.

And don't even get me started on the High Elf stereotypes.

Of course, NYC isn't particularly well-known for its BBQ, but how does it compare to Virgil's or Daisy May's, etc?

I mentioned this on Tues (http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/03/21/Another_Apple_tablet_sighting_on_apple_site.aspx) and the consensus there, too, was that it's a tc1100. Still, interesting decision to feature it either way.