Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Was Google's Motorola Mobility Acquisition a Mistake?

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the press-one-to-find-out dept.

Microsoft 189

Nerval's Lobster writes "Even before the Google acquisition, Motorola Mobility was engaged in a major legal battle with Microsoft, insisting that the latter needed to pay around $4 billion per year if it wanted to keep using Motorola's patents related to the H.264 video and 802.11 WiFi standards. (The patents in question affected the Xbox and other major Microsoft products.) Had that lawsuit succeeded as Motorola Mobility originally intended, it would have made Google a boatload of cash—but on April 25, a federal judge in Seattle ruled that Microsoft's royalty payments should total around $1.8 million per year. 'Based on Motorola's original demand of more than $4 billion per year from Microsoft,' patent expert Florian Mueller wrote in an April 26 posting on his FOSS Patents blog, 'it would have taken only about three years' worth of royalties for Microsoft to pay the $12.5 billion purchase price Google paid (in fact, way overpaid) for Motorola Mobility.' This latest courtroom defeat also throws into question the true worth of Motorola Mobility's patents. After all, if the best Google can earn from those patents is a few pennies-per-unit from its rivals' products, that may undermine the whole idea of paying $12.5 billion primarily for Motorola Mobility's intellectual-property portfolio.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot's criminal fraud was a mistake... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558191)

* Breaking news: corrupt Slashdot administration attempted to ban me for blowing the whistle on their illegal activities, while not banning the criminal who stalks, harasses, and impersonates me. Whistleblower abuse is a federal felony. Lunatic Slashdot admin's have been owned by me in so many tech debates over the past decade that they conspire with criminals to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts and censor me. Jealousy at it's finest.

=> Lawsuit's and criminal prosecution against Slashdot are now inevitable. Moderation+posting records will be sequestered and anyone acting aginst me will be dealt with permanently.

Previous notice:

A corrupt slashdot luser has pentrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 330++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:

---

A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 330 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here

---

(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March/April 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).

APK

P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March/April now, & 330++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:

--

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...

AND

2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.

----

Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik

Re:Slashdot's criminal fraud was a mistake... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558595)

Does anybody else imagine APK looks and acts like Milton from OFfice Space?

Re:Slashdot's criminal fraud was a mistake... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558659)

Don't take his red host file.

Re:Slashdot's criminal fraud was a mistake... apk (0)

NIX365 (2708889) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558701)

Kim Jong Un, is that you? Making empty threats, and just talking up a storm with no one listening to you?

Re:Slashdot's criminal fraud was a mistake... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559025)

No one cares.

I thought it was all about Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558221)

not Microsoft

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558247)

ftfh:

Was Google's Motorola Mobility Acquisition a Mistake?

first answer:yes
second answer:duh

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558497)

first answer:yes
second answer:duh

Yes, it is indeed another shining example of Betteridge's law in action.

Judicial activism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558629)

Sounds more like judicial activism rather than fact LOL.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558877)

Ummm, then the answer should be no. Betteridge's Law [wikipedia.org]

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559443)

I disagree. With this one judgement it's a 7 year repayment term and when evaluating a company you generally look at it's 15 year P/E so they're doing pretty well I would say.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (4, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559939)

order of magnitude fail. aquisition was $12 billion, while the ruling has an annual value of $1.8 million. "Doh!" said eric schmidt.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (2)

BigBunion (2578693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43560009)

You missed a few digits there. Google is getting 1.8 million (with an m) per year. They paid 12.5 billion (with a b) for Motorola. That puts the payback period at 7,000 years, which methinks is a little long.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (4, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558465)

It was all about patent defense from trolls like Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and others. Google bought Motorola for one porpoise: using its patent portfolio defensively.



New, bright and shiny, fish and clean -- all porpoise cleaner!

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (5, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558673)

Google bought Motorola for one porpoise: using its patent portfolio defensively.

baha if that was their goal then they should have bought a whale or penguin instead!

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559083)

It might have been cheaper to sue everyone.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559169)

Reading comments from the executives of Google, that doesn't seem to be the case. It was a big part of the reason that they bought Motorola, but not the "one porpoise" (I didn't know Google would have bought another company for a sea animal with such a weird name as "using its patent portfolio defensively").

Google has been saying they're also just interested in being in the hardware business, and they see Motorola as one means to that end (from the looks of it, not the only). It looks like they're achieving their goal of breaking into hardware more via Motorola, even if they haven't made it profitable. Still probably cheaper than if they had started the whole thing from scratch. And Motorola hardware has a name for itself--whether that's good or bad to different people, it's still a name (personally, I love Motorola hardware and just happened to hate their software enough to not care about the hardware--it looks like Google's influence over the software might be fixing that issue in the future; others, of course, feel differently than I do). Google doesn't have a name for itself in direct hardware at all (aside from the Nexus line, which still isn't much of a name at all compared to practically everyone else in those fields), and they don't have to build that name because they got Motorola's name.

The whole purchase of Motorola makes more sense when you take the whole breaking into hardware aspect into account. It just has to be seen whether Motorola can actually make Google any money still.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559417)

Unless I'm misunderstanding how lawsuits work, it seems to me that if Google's one purpose for purchasing Motorola Mobility was for defensive reasons, they would have halted the lawsuit against Microsoft after assuming control of MM.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43560193)

Google / Motorola is unable to halt the lawsuit as Microsoft sued Motorola not the other way around. Motorola requested Microsoft negotiate royalty payments then Microsoft sued Motorola rather than try negotiating. See Groklaw for details.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559963)

It was all about patent defense from trolls like Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and others. Google bought Motorola for one porpoise: using its patent portfolio defensively.

That's one expensive 12.5$ billion porpoise.

Re:I thought it was all about Apple (4, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about a year and a half ago | (#43560079)

I wouldn't call MS a patent troll, as they have a number of valid patents, and are willing to license for a reasonable fee.

Apple is not a troll either, but (IMHO), they seem to be all about scorched-earth tactics, so it is either the patent courts, or a bankruptcy court. Had they done like MS and said "we have patents and will sue to defend against them... but for $3/device, we will show you our patent portfolio, you take your pick, and we wish you the best", there would be a lot more innovation in the field. I'd probably go out on a limb and say that the residuals earned from Apple licensing in this manner would help their stock value, as it is money coming in even if they don't bother introducing an iPhone 5s or 6 this year.

Also, Motorola isn't just deadweight. They actually are the only phone maker which has file based encryption for SD cards. Yes, 4.0 and newer encrypt the /data partition with dm-crypt, and a lot of devices don't use a SD card, but there are some (the Samsung Galaxy S4) that have a good amount of onboard storage and a MicroSD card slot... and the data on the SD card needs some protection, even if it is using an EncFS-like filesystem which is on a file level (as opposed to filesystem/image like dm-crypt or LUKS.)

Motorola devices also have very good radios. I have a number of different brands of Android phones, and in general, Motorola's reception tends to be a notch above everyone else, and on par with whatever iPhone I am using.

Of course, there are killed technologies, such as the ability to attach a keyboard and monitor to an Atrix or Atrix 2, that would come in handy big time, especially with Citrix or other remote screen software.

Motorola has a lot of cool stuff... I just hope Google can get them off the encrypted bootloader kick. The locked bootloaders is the only reason I don't darken Moto's door when I look for a new Android phone.

Everything was fine yesterday.... (5, Insightful)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558255)

No one blinked an eye when Google paid what it did for Motorola. Now, one judge has brought out the critics and the second guessing. Unless you have a time machine, or can talk to every judge with a 'what-if', you can only do your due diligence. It's time to move on and look to the next problem, not rehash the past.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

zrelativity (963547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558377)

I think a lot of people at the time of the purchase did raise that the price was too high. From other sources, who were also interested in the Motorola IP, the IP valuation I was hearing was ~$3B. Was the rest of Motorola worth $9B?

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559475)

I think a lot of people at the time of the purchase did raise that the price was too high. From other sources, who were also interested in the Motorola IP, the IP valuation I was hearing was ~$3B. Was the rest of Motorola worth $9B?

The article is one sided, only mentioning INCOME from this IP.
It hardly addresses the defensive aspect of having this IP in their back pocket.

Who knows how many billion dollar judgements Apple might have been able to extract for bounce back scrolling or whatever. Having one of you own patents cover what you do pretty much makes it impossible for Apple or some random patent troll (pardon the redundancy) to come after you, saving billions of dollars.

Patents have value beyond JUST a revenue stream. In fact, only a Patent Troll would think of patents ONLY as a revenue stream. Which makes the whole article somewhat suspect.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (2)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559759)

I think a lot of people at the time of the purchase did raise that the price was too high. From other sources, who were also interested in the Motorola IP, the IP valuation I was hearing was ~$3B. Was the rest of Motorola worth $9B?

That's been mitigated somewhat by selling a part of Motorola to the ARRIS Group for $2.2 billion in cash along with 10.6 million shares of its stock issued to Google. This is the "Motorola Home" group that makes cable set top boxes, etc.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (5, Interesting)

bobaferret (513897) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558575)

Something in this part makes me twitch... "patent expert Florian Mueller ". I don't know much about Florian except that he gets the word 'shill' used next to his name on occasion, I can't even remember why. Therefor I do apologize if I am mistaken if my mistrust is misplaced.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558853)

Mainly because he is paid by Oracle and Maybe even Miscrosoft and is often biased in favour of his paying masters.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

bobaferret (513897) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559293)

That's right.... I knew there was something about him that's makes whatever he says questionable. thanks

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43560187)

"Shill" == "expert" in financial arenas. New to business?

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558711)

and this... 'it would have taken only about three years'

so what? Now it will take 6? They also bought a working company that oh I dont know makes product and not patents?

They make a phone OS. The motorola guys make phones. Seems like a good idea. They may have a helpful tip or two on what to do...

Over the years I have used may Motorola phones. You take care of them they work pretty good. My next one will prob be a samsung...

Sometimes things do not ROI on day one. Sometimes it takes a few years. Its called taking a risk.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558919)

You suck at math, don't you.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (2)

drakaan (688386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559031)

Not as bad as the judge in this case sucks at law. The discussion surrounding the appeal will be entertaining.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559613)

They make a phone OS. The motorola guys make phones.

The motorola guys also make a phone OS, and were doing so before android was a gleam in Andy Rubin's eye.

Somewhere in the development of the original Razr which sold well over 130 Million units, there must be some IP and experience worth a few bucks even today.

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43560107)

It depends on the phone, I have friends with great experience with Motorola products but my wife and a friend of mine had the Motorola Triumph, and after a few months the phone starts having hardware problems. And of course tech support is the typical nightmare.

But the problem with Google buying a mobile device manufacturer is that it puts Google into conflict with everyone else making Android products. Now Google has to work extra hard to convince all of the other Android device manufacturers that they won't give Motorola the best products, the first access to new Android features, more input on Android development priorities, and so forth.

Otherwise their Android partners will feel alienated, and are more likely to team up with Microsoft, HP, etc... or just write their own mobile operating system. (Lucky for the world, Microsoft's set Nokia on fire and has moved into conflict with is business partners even harder than Google by selling the Surface product line. That stops them from being a compelling alternative to Android for mobile device vendors.)

Re:Everything was fine yesterday.... (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559971)

It's my understanding that Google bought Motorola Mobility for the patent lawsuits Motorola Mobility was filing against other Android device manufacturers. Imagine if the Android manufacturers started waging patent wars against each other, on top of the Microsoft patent tax on Android.

At that point, some of the manufacturers might decide paying $30 per device to license Windows Phone, writing your own mobile operating system, or abandoning the market completely might become more cost-effective than using Android.

Stopped reading at Florian (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558259)

I stopped reading when I saw the name Florian.

He is a professional Troll, STOP POSTING HIS STUPID BULLSHIT!

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558333)

Seriously Slashdot editors. This guy is a paid troll. It's been proven on Slashdot repeatedly. PLEASE STOP POSTING HIS BLOG.

Between this and Timothy's Quirky piece I am definitely leaving. (Yes yes I realize I'm an anonymous reader, have been for 10 years. Privacy/anonymity is a good thing right?)

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (0)

meatspray (59961) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558561)

I forget about /. for a few years, come back and it just feels like home.... :)

They're still WAY better than lifehacker.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558893)

I forget about /. for a few years, come back and it just feels like home.... :)

They're still WAY better than lifehacker.

How do they even compare? Lifehacker is a blog about, well, whatever. /. is a news discussion site about geeky stuff. Not the same at all.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (1)

Pope (17780) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559011)

Bathroom graffiti is better than LifeHacker.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558359)

And you are an amature. Speaking from jealousy I see?

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558691)

Man, if I could be paid to troll the Internet, I'd at least throw in some dick jokes for teh funniez. However, as I am yet unpaid at the moment, I shall refrain from including any in this comment.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558513)

Florian Microsoft is a paided shill. Don't quote him. He has a considerable record of being wrong. See Groklaw.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558937)

Groklaw is bought and paid for by IBM, so what's the difference?

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559279)

I can think of one major difference: The way the names work with their bias.

Groklaw doesn't give any wrong impressions. It doesn't necessarily leave a lot of impressions about any specific topic they're going to cover.

FOSS Patents gives an impression that it would be in favor of FOSS, if you've never heard of it before. More often than not, the articles all support proprietary patent use and put down FOSS left and right.

So, yeah. Right there, I'm a little biased to like Groklaw over FOSS Patents, because at least Groklaw's name isn't annoyingly deceptive.

(Not DickBreath)

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (1)

crizh (257304) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559315)

That was a bold statement.

Evidence?

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (5, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559407)

Do you have any evidence of that? That false accusation has been spouted for years by SCO shills.

Groklaw is archived by the Library of Congress. That's quite a privilege and compliment. Groklaw has won numerous industry awards.

Years ago, in court filings, IBM expressly disclaimed any connection with Groklaw. If SCO, or anyone for that matter, had any evidence of this, it would definitely have been pointed out to the court that IBM was making false statements.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558775)

I think the most annoying thing about Florian is the knowledge that someone actually pays money for this behavior. I guess the point is to try to decrease the value of googles stock and... what exactly? Then they'll go out of business leaving MS, oracle, amazon, and apple to split up the territory?

It's fucking absurd. Whoever is wasting money funding this guy should give it to me. For half of whatever they're paying him, I'll buy a windows phone. That seems like a much better return on their investment.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558869)

You are right. I can't take his seriously. I am deeply concerned about the slashdot editorial policy.

Re:Stopped reading at Florian (1)

dubdays (410710) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559359)

THIS. Why does this guy seem to end up as an "expert" in so many of these patent-related articles? The guy's an idiot and has been downright wrong so many times it's laughable. /., please let us filter out any articles with the word "Florian" in it. It would at least give me back a few minutes of my life every month.

No. (5, Insightful)

HaeMaker (221642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558317)

How many lawsuits have been avoided because Google now has a formidable patent portfolio. Was the money spent on a nuclear arsenal wasted because there was no actual nuclear war?

Re:No. (5, Insightful)

darkain (749283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558369)

Exactly. The portfolio isn't about MAKING money. It is about PREVENTING THE LOSS OF MONEY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management [wikipedia.org]

Re:No. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558597)

Well, at 12.5 Billion dollars, they just failed miserably at preventing the loss of money.

Re:No. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559603)

Indeed.

Google stole from Apple then paid the then shareholders of Motorola, who must be laughing, $12.5B to cover their asses.

Re:No. (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559487)

no, it was extortion

Moto was threatening to sue other android phone makers unless google coughed up the cash. that's why the former CEO left as soon as the sale completed.

in the end most of Moto's patents are FRAND. the kind where they declare them to different standards organizations and agree to tiny royalties for whoever asks
the others are easy to get around

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559699)

If Google gives me some money and I can guarantee to be so effective at stopping patent lawsuits Google will never even hear of them.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558395)

Probably none. Motorola Mobility's patents are mostly junk.

Re:No. (5, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558547)

Lots of mostly junk patents can be successfully used to extort money, or even ban competitors products from the market.

Bouncy scrolling. Rectangles with rounded corners. Slide to unlock. Etc. Obviously these patents must be worth a mint, while Motorola's patents on actual underlying technology, developed by engineers in a lab, are worth little.

Re:No. (5, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559533)

I would actually chalk this up as a Google win (while simultaneously being a Motorola loss). The reason Motorola was seeking $4 billion was because they were asking a flat 2.25% of the [i]device price[/i]. Products like the Xbox use H.264 as a small subset of their total features, but the norm in the industry seems to be that patent royalties are based on the total device price. This paper [investorvillage.com] on patent royalty rates in the cellular industry puts the total royalty burden of a GSM handset at 10%-40% of the device price.

The judge here decided that, for FRAND patents at least, basing the percentage off the device price was silly, and reduced it accordingly. Arguably that's a much more sane way to do it, considering that devices are becoming more and more multifunctional. Motorola still gets 2.25%, just of the part of the Xbox which uses H.264 instead of the entire Xbox price. If that becomes the norm in the industry, that would be much better for Google and anyone actually making stuff. The losers would be patent trolls and companies which make most of their money licensing their patents instead of building products which use them.

The only issue that remains is the discrepancy between FRAND and regular patents. This decision only covered FRAND patents. If FRAND patent royalties get reduced to a percentage of specific features, while regular patent royalties remain a percentage of the device price, then we will have the backwards situation where a patent on bouncy scrolling and rounded rectangles is worth more than a technical H.264 patent. But that should sort itself out in a few years. If regular patents become worth more than FRAND patents, nobody in their right mind will submit their patent for FRAND anymore and there will be compatibility chaos in all industries. Either regular patents will be reduced to a percentage of specific features as well, or this judge's decision will be overturned and FRAND royalties will return to a percentage of the device price.

Re:No. (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559681)

That is an excellent point. That sword cuts both ways.

So Google (or anyone, eg Samsung, etc) could point to this decision as precedent that an Android phone should only be charged some small percent of the part of the device that does the bouncy scrolling, based on how much money the bouncy scrolling feature earns of the overall device price. (Basically not much.)

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558405)

Your 2nd question: Yes

obvious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558321)

Seattle judge, Microsoft is located in Redmond near ... (hint 15.3 miles away)

a Mistake? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558331)

I sincerely hope it turns out to be a big one. Gotta take the profit out of speculation somehow.

Florian Mueller is like a Microsoft PR guy (5, Interesting)

Sushubh (2908401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558343)

You do not take his words seriously. Google has bigger plans for Motorola. Some of which we would see later this year. They need Motorola for a possible situation where Samsung forks Android away. Patents are a big part of the deal but I doubt Google thought that they would recover their investments through royalties. Loads of people said acquiring YouTube was a mistake. Just give it a year or two. Microsoft paid 7 billion dollars for Skype. Around the same for aQuantive which they now admit was a bad move! Google paid same for Motorola Mobility and I am sure it is worth much more (IP and assets).

Re:Florian Mueller is like a Microsoft PR guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558577)

As usual at MS, one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. MS is engaged in a PR gag-fest related to their continued flogging of the fat32 patents with agreements like the one with ZTE, claiming they 'go out of their way' to pay royalties due. Oh, except where that would actually cost money, like here.

Re:Florian Mueller is like a Microsoft PR guy (1)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559061)

Google's purchases tend to be investments. Youtube, Android, Doubleclick, etc. all took years to develop into a viable product and bring in real returns. There's no reason to expect Motorola's going to be any different. If I were a betting person, I'd put money on something coming out of this purchase in two or so years.

Microsoft made several such smart purchases in the past as well. Not so much recently though.

The Inevitable Has Arrived (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558375)

There was never any chance of Motorola getting what they were demanding in this case, in fact they might very well have gotten more than what the court determined here if they would have not been such douches about it, not to mention still been able to negotiate their own terms with others which is now largely down the drain.

Was Google's Motorola Mobility Acquisition a Mistake? - Well only if Google was really counting on Moto prevailing in this case, which I can't imagine they were, the court document is quite a comical read.

Idiots (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558401)

There is a lot more going on at Motorola Mobility then that lawsuit.

Re:Idiots (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558653)

Do you mean the layoffs, more layoffs, and $250 million a quarter in losses?

Re:Idiots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559399)

Actually, the layoffs are quite important. Its never easy to cut people, unless they're begging to be cut. When Mobility was part of the prebreakup Motorola, it was used as dumping ground of employees not quite good enough for the other divisions. Prior to the google takeover, Google had its observers in each working group. They were kind of in shock over the lack of talent... Senior engineers that couldn't do CS 101 programs. Forget Google style interview questions, they couldn't have gotten past Mc Donald's rigorous competency standards.

Re:Idiots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559161)

Like developing handsets that run ass-old versions of Android, which will never be updated, and will be declared end-of-life 3 months after they start shipping?

I mean, that's what Motorola Mobility has been doing for 3 years, don't know why they'd change it up now...

Re:Idiots (1)

steveg (55825) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559393)

Frankly, I wish that were true.

My Bionic just upgraded to Jelly Bean, after upgrading to ICS just a few months ago.

I want Gingerbread back. It was faster and more responsive.

In any case, my 18 month old Motorola phone just got a major upgrade (less than a week ago.) So I call BS.

Yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558471)

HELL YEA!
Is this news?

Beside the point. (5, Interesting)

OmniGeek (72743) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558507)

Two important things are missed here:
1) Google mainly bought the patent portfolio for defensive purposes, not as revenue engines in themselves. The point of the suit is that MS wants to use the patents without paying for them. It's basically a move in the MS-vs-Android war.
2) The judgement doesn't pass the smell test. Read the articles over at Groklaw for the details, but the judge here is ruling that Motorola must accept patent pool rates for a pool they don't belong to, rather than negotiate rates using the methods of the group they are a member of. The whole proceeding has been slanted toward the home team (MS) the judgment seems to be very much an overreach, and probably won't survive appeal.

Re:Beside the point. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558723)

Google is a member of MPEG-LA. As part of that, they agreed to put their patents in the MPEG-LA pool. When Google bought Motorola, those patents went in the pool.

Re:Beside the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558945)

That was MS theory yes, Judge did not agree though.

Re:Beside the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559043)

Nope, and frankly MS didn't even make that case, or it's not mentioned in the summary and judgement. Besides this case started prior to that acquisition anyway.
   

Re:Beside the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558733)

Any court ruling that brings the non-ending extortionate demands of codec patent holders down to earth is good for the entire tech community, including vendors and their customers. Even if MS happened to be on the winning side of this one.

Re:Beside the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558981)

The point of the suit is that MS wants to use the patents without paying for them.
---
Not true they do want to pay for them, just not the absolutely insane non-FRAND rates Moto proposed in violation of their commitment.

The judgement doesn't pass the smell test.
-------
You need a new nose. Clearly you didn't spend any time actually reading through the ruling (a summary doesn't do it justice), or else you would know that they are not getting any "pool rates", h264LA and Via pool rates among other valid comparisons (including moto's own hired consultants suggestions years ago) were used however to determine the ballpark which were then otherwise adjusted. I bet it does materially survive any appeal, and by that time even more of patents will have expired (several already expired during this case).

Re:Beside the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559667)

No, it's wonderful.

Read between the lines.

This impacts Nokia's VP9 threat.

Unfortunately... (1)

lord_mike (567148) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558545)

Hardware patents which require actual innovation, research, and significant funding aren't worth very much. Software patents, which seem to often be pulled out of one's behind without much thought, are worth billions of dollars and are strong enough to shut other companies down. Hardware patents? Pennies and no leverage against infringers. What a joke this patent system is. True innovation is left essentially unprotected, whereas trivial, obvious "inventions" get massive, industry crushing protection.

mod uP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558567)

TCP/IP stack has are She ha3 taken

Aw shucks... (1)

almitydave (2452422) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558625)

Google/Motorola Mobility might actually have to manufacture and sell a product to justify their capital expenditure! The horrors!

Also, I agree with posters above, I thought the patent portfolio aspect of the deal was a defensive one.

Re:Aw shucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559199)

Anyone that didn't see Motorola Mobility acting like Google's legal pit bull from day 1 was kidding themselves.

The logic is quite good (1)

howardd21 (1001567) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558697)

How can payments over a three year period on the patents alone, from one infringer no less, be worth more than the company was valued? We need more judges like these that just use common sense.

Was reading Slashdot a mistake? (5, Informative)

perrin (891) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558747)

I've been following this site since before it had user accounts. It has really been a downhill ride in recent years. It is more and more just about click-whoring.

This article is a case in point. Slashdot editors must know by now that Florian Mueller is a professional troll who is paid to spew FUD about his clients' enemies in the media. That the editors do not care, since FUD articles apparently are click magnets, just makes me feel nauseous about coming back here.

There are so many more intelligent commentaries about this ruling that could have been posted instead.

Re:Was reading Slashdot a mistake? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558967)

I fully ensorse this message. We should start an Avaaz petition to ban Florian Müller news from slashdot.

Re:Was reading Slashdot a mistake? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558991)

catering to the masses, because success is measured by numbers alone.
click, the new sound of money.

Re:Was reading Slashdot a mistake? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559049)

I think you're completely wrong. It makes you feel nauseated.

Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558829)

So many butthurt Android lovers, defending everything Google does, denying reality and find justifications for everything...like...like...a sheep!

Yes it was a mistake. Not one lawsuit was killed of, the patents are worthless (see : 1,7 million instead of 4 billion a year from MS), are declared invalid (Apple lawsuit) or can't be used (SEPs) to attack without producing threats of serious intervention by US and EU officials due to FRAND abuse. SEPs can't even be used as a defense as you have to license them and can't use them to sue someone.

GOOG Does Ads, Period (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558833)

Google knows jack-squat about anything not related to placing ads in results. Luckily for them, they are so very good at that one core competency that they can afford to stupidly thrash around with quite good ideas that they simply cannot implement because the organization is a collection of rudderless savants.

If anyone can do that, it's Google (1)

Azure Flash (2440904) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558835)

Sergei: "Uhh, Larry?"
Larry: "Yes, Sergei?"
Sergei: "I, umm... I misclicked."
Larry: "On what?"
Sergei: "Motorola. I was browsing Corpazon and I accidentally clicked the 1-Click Buy button for Motorola."
Larry: "How much is that?"
Sergei: "12.5 bils..."
Larry: "Meh, just keep it. Not worth the bother to cancel that."
Sergei: "Alright... I guess we might be able to use them for some of our Android stuff."
*Larry shrugged*

Epic fail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43558871)

Quoting Florean Mueller that is.

Was quoting Florian Mueller a Mistake? (2)

andydread (758754) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559331)

It seems this submission is garbage.

Don't forget about the tax benefits (NOLs) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559357)

By acquiring a company with huge net operating losses, Google is expected to reap $700 million a year in tax deductions from future profits each year through 2019. Google also will be able to immediately reduce its taxes by $1 billion due to Motorola Mobility's U.S. net operating loss, and by a further $700 million due to its foreign operating loss,

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-motorolamobility-google-tax-idUSTRE77U1QX20110831

Misatake? Probably not (1)

Dracos (107777) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559747)

Google now has a handset maker in house, which gives them certain advantages in the mobile market beyond the patent portfolio.

Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility is certainly more honest than Microsoft's ongoing stealth assimilation of Nokia.

If so, so what? (1)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#43559791)

If you're buying a company because you expect it to win big in IP lawsuits, you're doing a bad thing.

Judge just shot himself in the head... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559857)

The judge will be found in contempt of federal laws, namely being bought and paid for by Microsoft or under orders of politicians bought and paid for.

In other news, a German court finds the American Judge to be in contempt of the German court, and ordered to spend 350 years in prison for being a pompous asshole.

why in hell ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43560161)

why in hell is ANYONE still citing the malignant moron and Arch Shill Florian Mueller in any context at ALL? Mueller is the same level of 'expert' on patent law that Glenn Beck is an expert on constitutional law. Whatever Florian says, the reverse is true and can be verified and discussed with actual rationality over on Groklaw.

patent expert!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43560179)

Florian is a "patent expert"?????? That makes me a Brain Surgeon......why? Cause I say so.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?