Eighth Circuit declares RAZR a computer under federal law • Hacker News Board

Re: Eighth Circuit declares RAZR a computer under federal law

#11

Post by kelnos » Sun, Feb 13, 2011, 11:54 AM UTC

darklajid wrote: post #9

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #8

From the comments: "What you SHOULD be talking about is how, if smartphones are classified as computers, the Patriot act DEFINITELY ALLOWS warrant-less search and seizure of your smartphone at international borders." If you care, you should definitely be carrying a "travel phone" on your trips.

RAZR != Smartphone. That's even part of the article. We're talking simple feature phones here, so I think your workaround does not help.

His point is that you should have a separate "travel phone" that just has only necessary contacts, no access to your email, a minimum of personal information, no old text messages, etc. That way, if it does get seized, there's little for the authorities to work with. Whether or not it's a smartphone isn't relevant.

Re: Eighth Circuit declares RAZR a computer under federal law

#12

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 13, 2011, 4:12 PM UTC

wallygold wrote: post #7

wtallis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless by computer you mean programmable computer or general purpose computer, which most phones aren't by the time they reach consumers. For example, would the inclusion of the use of a cell phone render a method patent invalid under the machine-or-transformation test? Can any process implemented with a microprocessor satisfy the particular machine half of the machine-or-transformation test if the inclusion of the m…

RAZRs are programmable. I've used some of the programs. There's a difference between being able to program on a device and being able to program for that device.

[deleted]

Re: Eighth Circuit declares RAZR a computer under federal law

#13

Post by wtallis » Sun, Feb 13, 2011, 6:43 PM UTC

wallygold wrote: post #7

wtallis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless by computer you mean programmable computer or general purpose computer, which most phones aren't by the time they reach consumers. For example, would the inclusion of the use of a cell phone render a method patent invalid under the machine-or-transformation test? Can any process implemented with a microprocessor satisfy the particular machine half of the machine-or-transformation test if the inclusion of the m…

RAZRs are programmable. I've used some of the programs. There's a difference between being able to program on a device and being able to program for that device.

I understand the difference between programming on a device and programming for a device. For most embedded devices like cell phones, end users aren't allowed to do either one, at least without jailbreaking or paying for developer privileges. And most embedded devices are similarly restricted about what kind of software you are allowed to install and run on them. Should such devices really be treated as general purpose computers in the eyes of the law?