There should be an investigation, at the very least, started by the judicial departments to clarify this matter. There's a huge potential for corruption here.

By the way, I'm not sure why Samsung is given so much support here. If you replaced the judge above with the one who ruled in Apple's favour, and replaced Samsung with Apple, people here will be screaming "CORRUPTION", guaranteed.
Worse still, the top voted comments include ones mocking Apple (clearly off-topic, isn't it?).
Learn to look past your bias: this isn't right. Just think for a moment if such practices were condoned: as a judge looking to retire, he'd be more likely to rule for the big corps against the little guy, as there might just be a chance he'd get a nice job with a fat paycheck at the end of it.

When the 9.7" came out, people were mocking it as simply a "bigger iPod touch" with no market. This problem would only be amplified with a smaller, 7" form factor.
The 9.7" made it clear that it was in a market of it's own - it's not simply a slightly bigger phone, nor a netbook without the keyboard.
Considering the iPad's success, I think that it's pretty clear they got it right (with profits) either way.

Now, with Steve bashing the 7" screen factor - but OF COURSE! He's a salesman - naturally he'll work hard to tell you why his product is better, and why you shouldn't buy other alternatives.
Then again, there's some truth to his opinion: having had an iPad for 3 years and moving on to a 7", I felt like the tablet wasn't offering me enough screen estate to justify bringing it out all the time - my 5" smartphone could do everything just as well. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that for some people, a 7" tablet is sufficient for their purposes.

With the rise of 5.5" and larger smartphones though, I personally think 7" tablets are becoming a smaller market. If I want something bigger than my smartphone, I'd be looking for a 9" and bigger device, not a 7" one. The only thing 7" has going for me is the price.

This is so extremely disappointing. The most informative post here describing exactly what's going on gets modded as Overrated. On the other hand, a whole SLEW of misinformation and "Apple hate" gets modded +5 Informative.

Really, sometimes I feel that the majority of Slashdot's posters are high school students who haven't learnt the basics of research and verifying information before shooting off a comment.

P.S. I'm neither pro nor anti Apple. I disagree with their consumer lock-ins but appreciate that they sparked off the smartphone revolution and development.

The extra money pays for better specs and future proofing. The Nexus 10 can probably last you longer (longer support for latest apps, longer support for new Android updates from Google) than the Fire HD can. Long-term, the Nexus 10 is definitely the better value proposition.

A few points of contention here...

1.) You are implying I'm blowing 30% only to make a point, which is only partly true. The extra money pays for better specs and future proofing. The Nexus 10 can probably last you longer (longer support for latest apps, longer support for new Android updates from Google) than the Fire HD can. Long-term, the Nexus 10 is definitely the better value proposition.

2.) Tablets are in itself a luxury for most. 10 inch tablets are even more so the luxury than their 7 inch counterparts, where Nexus 7 is the priced the same as the ad-ridden Kindle Fire HD 7 inch. If you're spending 300+ dollars on a "want", 80 dollars more is barely a stretch, isn't it.

The Nexus 10 is larger, higher-res and better specced at $85 more (comparing ad-free).

I'll willing spend that much to vote with my wallet for an open, customizable device; not for one which is laden with commercials, locked to a single provider and essentially wants you to consume content only. I certainly don't want it to become like a portable TV, for viewing certain sanctioned content only.

I would also like to remind that the gap between East and West Germany is not even remotely close to that of the gap between North and South Korea.
Neither was the East as brainwashed, poor and so disconnected from the times as the North.

The North lacks electricity, education, basic necessities, and is essentially frozen at the point of the split, aka 1960s-style living.
Just think how different your town/city/country was 40 years ago, and how long it'd take (even on an accelerated path) to reach the present.

Kindle Fire HD isn't especially cheap or well-specced for its' price. For a little more, you can support the idea that Android users DO want devices not laden with locked bootloaders, operating systems, forced UI makeovers, etc. with a Nexus 7.

And dismissing it is the easiest way to avoid the problem and do nothing about it.

Fragmentation is a problem as it undeniably results in a subpar experience: apps that may or may not work, much more testing required for developers, slow update process (due to all those pesky vendor UIs), and apps contorted to fit resolutions it's not designed for.
But most importantly of all, it guarantees you a platform where finding an exploit is lucrative: because most people will still be vulnerable months after it is announced.

People point out that iOS is a nice, unified platform to target malware. True, but remember also that Apple doesn't have to wait at the whim of vendors to push updates. Your precious 0-day exploit will be patched long before an Android-equivalent is fixed.
From where I'm standing, competition is great, but fanboys from both sides are fiercely defending problems when their energies are better invested into pressurizing the developers to make something greater, which can they be proud of using.

Perhaps asking for carriers to take a completely hands-free approach to updates is too big a leap. Why not try pushing for a framework where critical system-level security updates can be distributed without carrier approval? Alternatively, just get everyone you know to stop buying devices with locked down bootloaders: I've recommended all of mine to get a Nexus, simply because they aren't as restricted. Every small effort counts.

Many users who run IE7 either have a.) no choice or b.) no idea what is IE7/IE8/IE9 and the differences between them.
Instead of imposing a tax on them which confuses non-tech-savvy end-users, why not display the "IE7 not supported, please follow these instructions to upgrade"?

This tax probably unnecessarily increases complexity in their billing systems, which is never a good thing.

Despite all the negative press around Foxconn, I'd still like people to take these matters into perspective.

China is experiencing growing pains, where it sometimes sacrifices the benefits/rights of its citizens to ensure more people are fed and its economy can grow to support its population. Most other countries have experienced such pains, and have taken time to progress past that stage. Some point out that we can try to reduce the length of that stage by applying pressure. Well, the only non-destructive plan would be to inject huge amounts of money into China for them to develop their infrastructure and economy. Otherwise, any plans by a "rights activists" will simply stunt China's growth, jobs, economies and throw their citizens into poverty and joblessness.

Now, on the other hand, if your goal isn't to encourage rights in China but to "bring the jobs back" as an act of vengeance or desperation, then arguing for better rights in China might serve your goal. But don't argue for such under pretenses of desiring "far rights to all". As such arguments will do nothing to help them, and will certainly backfire.

Your government will never do that.

You can't just penalize Apple, you literally have to penalize every company producing something that is more than a few components.
It's not just assembly that's made of cheap labor: from resource extraction, to the production of individual components, to assembly, that exploits cheap labor.
America as a whole will lose competitiveness if this was applied, as believe me, no other country will be foolhardy enough to follow.

If you thought the economy/job market was bad, try checking after this regulation is passed.
Companies will literally FLEE overseas.

It's not irrelevant at all. Focusing all the attention on one company isn't going to do anyone any good. For one, the focus becomes on the company and not the workers. It attracts all the haters who prefer to focus their attention on "how apple is doing bad" and not "how we can make this better". Frankly, I've not seen a thoughtful solution here besides "Boycott Apple!". How about an organization that promotes/advertises/labels products which are made with fair labor?

You're assuming a lot of things without any evidence.

a.) Nobody, including people protesting, want to put anyone out of business.
REALLY? Because any intelligent onlooker will know how this ends. Either Apple/China/Foxconn will do nothing except some basic PR, or Apple decides Foxconn's suicides are too costly and moves to another third-world factory. So yes, you may not "want it" but that's going to happen in reality.

b.) They're "forced to be content"? Have you even met a significant number of people from China? They're GRATEFUL for the opportunity to work, because they have never had so much as a stable job before. Many of these factory workers are funding their children's education. That's the China Dream, to give their children the opportunity they never had. They're not going to fulfill that dream if they're homeless on the street or working on a farm.

(This might sound like a pro-China shill, but seriously, change your perspective. You'll probably never understand how much they prefer working in a factory than sleeping in the streets/farming.)

Strawman. I never said Time was the SOLE cause of anything, which is what you are implying above.
Time is needed, given their current growth trajectory, to grow wealth as a nation and allow their people to accumulate wealth, to pass on to their children, who will eventually climb the social-economic class through education. This takes time in terms of generations. Just as in the US, the minorities accumulated wealth and had more education opportunities over time, allowing them to improve their standard of living. Trying to act as a global gatekeeper and short circuiting this process is an exercise in futility.

Most people commenting about Foxconn have lost all perspective because they allow themselves to be blinded by Apple hate.

Let me explain why bashing Apple and Foxconn about this is so, so foolish.

1.) Poorer working conditions aren't exclusive to Apple's factories, or even Foxconn.
If you're trying to uphold your ideal working conditions on workers who create products you use, please take a step back and stop buying any product from any store. I can confidently tell you that all the products you use: your computer, tech gadgets, electronics, shoes, clothes, etc. are all made by workers in poor conditions, often even poorer than that of Foxconn. Instead of protesting against Apple/Foxconn, vote with your wallet instead of bitching in an online forum and feeling self-righteous after doing so.

2.) Workers are -happy- about their job and working conditions. It's you who feel unhappy about them.
Many workers are happy about their job and working conditions, in Foxconn and other such factories. These factories provide a lot of things (not just money) that they would never be able to dream of: a shelter over their head, varied meals, water, electricity, and more. Many of these people are uneducated and would be jobless otherwise. They need and are happy about these jobs. Your protesting will NOT IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. You will render them jobless (as you boycott these products and companies pull out of these countries) and effectively kill off their means of living.

3.) Progress takes time.
Most Americans have forgotten their past when there were still slaves, often in FAR worse conditions than that of China. It's been proven that a country needs time to develop, and attempting to shortcut the process will lead to disastrous results. 10 years ago, these people whom you claim to be working in "poor conditions" were starving because a drought wiped out their crops. Their lives have improved, and will improve as long as they have jobs.

The article seems to gloss over the most critical point that breaks this deal, painting LightSquared as a victim in the process:

LightSquared's spectrum (which was bought from another company) was for SATELLITE transmissions, not TERRESTRIAL.
Satellite spectrums are much cheaper, but can't be used for terrestrial transmissions.
LightSquared is in fact trying to cheap out by using a cheaper spectrum.

Analogy:
LightSquared tried to buy a plot of cheap residential land to start a chemical/manufacturing plant, which affects nearby residents.
They should have bought a piece of commercial land that supports their requirements.

More technically:
Satellite signals are weak as they are sent from huge distances from satellites with limited power. To receive these signals, the receivers must be tuned to be sensitive to these signals. If LightSquare were to transmit terrestrially from the bordering spectrum (to pass through walls and what-have-you), the transmitted strength will be thousands of times stronger than the GPS signals, invariably causing interference with GPS signals. Even if GPSes are built with a filter (which they shouldn't need to, the nearby spectrums should also be weak signals!), it would be prohibitively expensive/unfeasible to filter the strong terrestrial signals.