Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.
Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.
I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.
If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.
Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.
So I assume you'll come back once these FRAND patents are forced to be licensed and claim they're not FRAND and that Apple is being a 'bully' and doing it illegally.
Must resist urge to continue spinning this post back against Motorola?
So wasn't the issue that Apple wanted to write their own terms on FRAND licensing? All of these injunctions are dumb either way.
If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.
Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.
In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.
I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.
Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.
Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.
Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.
In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.
Yes - correct, but I did not mean SCIFs or VTRs which have more restrictive requirements than regular secure areas. I should have been more precise in what I meant.
I was unaware that the iPad had been approved for classified use. We are not there yet, but that sounds very promising.
Did you ft permission from School House Rock for that little soliloquy?
No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.
No, I'm not kidding at all. Which part of my post do you think was incorrect? The approved phones are definitely Android-based.
EDIT: I'll save you some looking around since since you might have better things to do. Google "Dell Venue".
"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."
Tweaked.
Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.
No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.
Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.
Motorola has to offer initial terms.
Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.
Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).
If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.
Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):
1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.
Your logic is backwards here... FRAND inhibits the patent owner, not the licensee. It's not the licensee that has to be fair, it the IP owner who has to fairly license its technology to ANYONE who wants to use it in compliance with an industry standard. This is the agreement they make with standards bodies in order to get their IP included as part of an industry standard. Licensees don't make the first offer here, the IP owner does. They set the fee and under standards agreements that licensing fee must be fair to everyone, meaning they can't charge one company significantly more than another company and they can't use the IP to coerce another company into other terms ... this is what Nokia tried to do with Apple; they eventually settled out of court.
This is basically Apple's tactic here. This is why they were a no show at the first hearing. They wanted to move the case to the EU Standards Commission. They now have grounds that Motorola attempted and successfully used FRAND patents to get Apple's products off the market. Next step, petition the EU to add Motorola to their investigation into Samsung, who has attempted, but so far failed to get Apple's devices off the market.
"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."
Tweaked.
Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.
Do you get it now.
ie. they can't just buy a phone and use it as is.
They can buy the Dell Venue. I don't understand why it's so important to you to find some technicality showing my post was incorrect. It wasn't. My original post:
"I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been."
Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.
There were many articles relating to the US military using iOS devices.
Here's the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for "iPhone deployed by military"
I still don't see anything about the iPad. In addition more recent articles indicate that Apple products are not (yet?) approved for secure Defense Dept or intelligence agency use, altho the government may have made some allowance for the head of the Joint Chiefs to use his personal iPad following specific protocols.
Comments
. . . Don't think GOOG will carry the looses beyond a year or two
With all the losers around here who can't spell "lose," I'd be careful not to be too loose in my spelling of "losses."
I say, welcome to the club. You're a few years late, Android. iPhones are already issued.
I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.
Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.
Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.
Biggest news flash ever at AI!
Hellacool Slaps Down Slappy!
I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.
If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.
Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.
So I assume you'll come back once these FRAND patents are forced to be licensed and claim they're not FRAND and that Apple is being a 'bully' and doing it illegally.
Must resist urge to continue spinning this post back against Motorola?
So wasn't the issue that Apple wanted to write their own terms on FRAND licensing? All of these injunctions are dumb either way.
So wasn't the issue that Apple wanted to write their own terms on FRAND licensing? All of these injunctions are dumb either way.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Banning devices for breaking some patents?
Injunction Junction, who has gumption?
I got three iDevices
that get slavishly copied?
Injunction Junction, what's their function?
iPad, iPhone, iPod,
they'll get you pretty far?
iPad.
That's a tablet, the first of the NEW tablets.
iPhone.
A revolutionary smartphone;
Not the first with a touch, but the first
to do it right.
i, Pod. When you want your music right
in your pocket. Or clipped on
as the case may be.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
They say they're competing but it's
nothing but flattery.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Et cetera.
If by secure you mean to handle classified information, then you are correct as far as I am aware. They (iOS devices) are approved for use in secure areas and to connect to internal government computer systems for unclassified email etc.
Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.
In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Banning devices for breaking some patents?
Injunction Junction, who has gumption?
I got three iDevices
that get slavishly copied?
Injunction Junction, what's their function?
iPad, iPhone, iPod,
they'll get you pretty far?
iPad.
That's a tablet, the first of the NEW tablets.
iPhone.
A revolutionary smartphone;
Not the first with a touch, but the first
to do it right.
i, Pod. When you want your music right
in your pocket. Or clipped on
as the case may be.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
They say they're competing but it's
nothing but flattery.
Injunction Junction, what's your function?
Et cetera.
Did you ft permission from School House Rock for that little soliloquy?
I love CNN, but they are never completely accurate, and neither are readers like you. First, you won't see a single phone deployed that is officially approved for at least 3-5 years. Second, when it does deploy it won't be recognized as Android, more like a third cousin to Android. This is being looked into because Google doesn't care if we alter its code. Apple does. Ironically though, the Only device currently authorized to handle classified info? IPad. Thanks for playing.
Oh by the way, I deal directly in this field. Have for over 20 years.
Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.
Incorrect. No cell phones are allowed into SCIFs. Neither are tablets, mp3 players or anything that is off the shelf with the capability to receive or transmit or plug into a pc to download or store data. Remember wikileaks boy? Everyone went nuclear after that event.
In order to allow for such things, the electronic device is looked at on a case by case basis via the SSO or higher authority.
Yes - correct, but I did not mean SCIFs or VTRs which have more restrictive requirements than regular secure areas. I should have been more precise in what I meant.
I was unaware that the iPad had been approved for classified use. We are not there yet, but that sounds very promising.
Did you ft permission from School House Rock for that little soliloquy?
No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.
I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been.
Specific Android phones?
You're kidding, right?
This has nothing to do with the phone. It has to do with the operating system.
The US military had to actually tinker with the kernel (of course) to make it secure.
After the changes they can use damn near any phone that will accept the hacked system.
Specific Android phones?
You're kidding, right?
This has nothing to do with the phone. It has to do with the operating system.
The US military had to actually tinker with the kernel (of course) to make it secure.
No, I'm not kidding at all. Which part of my post do you think was incorrect? The approved phones are definitely Android-based.
EDIT: I'll save you some looking around since since you might have better things to do. Google "Dell Venue".
No, I'm not kidding at all. Which part of my post do you think was incorrect? The approved phones are definitely Android-based.
EDIT: I'll save you some looking around since since you might have better things to do. Google "Dell Venue".
"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."
Tweaked.
Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.
Do you get it now.
ie. they can't just buy a phone and use it as is.
No, but as it's a parody work, it's fair use and I don't need permission. Also, as there isn't music applied to it, calling it copyright infringement is even less possible.
Yea hide behind parody/poetic license lol
Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.
Motorola has to offer initial terms.
Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.
Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).
If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.
Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):
1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.
Your logic is backwards here... FRAND inhibits the patent owner, not the licensee. It's not the licensee that has to be fair, it the IP owner who has to fairly license its technology to ANYONE who wants to use it in compliance with an industry standard. This is the agreement they make with standards bodies in order to get their IP included as part of an industry standard. Licensees don't make the first offer here, the IP owner does. They set the fee and under standards agreements that licensing fee must be fair to everyone, meaning they can't charge one company significantly more than another company and they can't use the IP to coerce another company into other terms ... this is what Nokia tried to do with Apple; they eventually settled out of court.
This is basically Apple's tactic here. This is why they were a no show at the first hearing. They wanted to move the case to the EU Standards Commission. They now have grounds that Motorola attempted and successfully used FRAND patents to get Apple's products off the market. Next step, petition the EU to add Motorola to their investigation into Samsung, who has attempted, but so far failed to get Apple's devices off the market.
"A tweaked version of Venue running Android 2.2 – without Android Market access – joins members of RIM’s BlackBerry smartphone line as the only devices approved for use on DoD networks."
Tweaked.
Do you get it. There will be quite a few Android phones approved as time goes on... but it aint the phone... it's the operating system... tweaked.
Do you get it now.
ie. they can't just buy a phone and use it as is.
They can buy the Dell Venue. I don't understand why it's so important to you to find some technicality showing my post was incorrect. It wasn't. My original post:
"I don't think iPhones are approved for secure use by the US military or intelligence agencies. Specific Android-based phones have been."
Get it now?
Do you have a link that shows the iPad approved for use by the US intelligence services and/or military? You might be correct, but I don't believe so. The RIM Playbook was approved for the US Defense Network, but I'm not aware of the iPad passing muster yet.
There were many articles relating to the US military using iOS devices.
Here's the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for "iPhone deployed by military"
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...y-Duty-242593/
That article is from 2009.
There were many articles relating to the US military using iOS devices.
Here's the first listing Yahoo gave me when I searched for "iPhone deployed by military"
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-...y-Duty-242593/
That article is from 2009.
I still don't see anything about the iPad. In addition more recent articles indicate that Apple products are not (yet?) approved for secure Defense Dept or intelligence agency use, altho the government may have made some allowance for the head of the Joint Chiefs to use his personal iPad following specific protocols.