A malicious message sent to Windows Phone's message hub can disable the handset in a manner reminiscent of the "nuking" attack from the Windows 95 days. At the point the bad message is received, the phone reboots, and worst of all, it appears that the message hub application is permanently disabled. Back when people used to only use their phones to call and text, you'd perhaps think that having your phone reboot on you would be no big deal. But these days I find myself often as not composing some important missive.

I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?

When HP announced it was releasing webOS to open source on Friday afternoon, it surely didn't kill it, but it left the operating system badly wounded with few prospects for success.

Google Chrome offers more protection against online attacks than any other mainstream browser, according to an evaluation that compares exploit mitigations, malicious link detection, and other safety features offered in Chrome, Internet Explorer, and Firefox.

It's starting to look like the end of an era for Ubuntu users as Canonical mull the creation of an ISO that won't fit onto a CDR. The question is, does it matter? Canonical owes at least part of its success with Ubuntu Linux to the unique way that it has been distributed. From the start it has been available as a downloadable ISO image and a free CD, posted at no cost to the user. This was great news for people who wanted to install Linux but did not have the luxury of a decent Internet connection. In a sense, installing via a CDR image has always been like a kind of cache, in that you're moving part of the content that you need onto permanent storage rather than pulling it through the network connection

Just when I thought the company I once admired greatly couldn't sink any lower. "Over the last two years, Apple has been engaged in vicious legal battles over smartphone patents, many of which are aimed at squelching (or squeezing money out of) manufacturers of devices running Android. And now, for some reason, it has given valuable patents to a patent troll - which is using them to sue many of the top technology companies in the world."

The CrunchPad (and its eventual consumer incarnation the JooJoo) is often presented as proof of obviousness in the iPad's design. For the first time, we have an interesting insider view on this matter - Nik Cubrilovic was involved with Micheal Arrington's CrunchPad project from the very beginning, and has written a lengthy blog post about how the CrunchPad really is proof the iPad's design was obvious.

Not a good day for Apple. First, the Australian court has lifted the Australian sales ban on the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Second the Motorola has won an injunction against Apple's 3G products in Germany. What else is there to say at this point? Software and design patents still suck, even if karma is a female dog.

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other international leaders urged countries and private businesses on Thursday to fight increasing efforts to restrict access to the Internet by repressive governments and even some democratic ones. Opening a two-day conference on digital freedom here sponsored by Google and the Dutch government, Mrs. Clinton warned that restrictions on the Internet threatened not only basic freedoms and human rights, but also international commerce and the free flow of information that increasingly makes it possible." Uhm, Mrs. Clinton... SOPA...?

"Google's Android operating system has undergone a pretty incredible metamorphosis in the three short years since it debuted on the T-Mobile G1. Think about it: three years, eight major releases. Eight. To put that in perspective, there have only been ten major consumer-grade releases of Windows (give or take, depending on how you count) in over twenty-five years of retail availability. You could make a pretty convincing argument that no consumer technology in history has evolved as quickly as the smartphone, and Android has been at the very center of that evolution. With the release of Android 4.0 - Ice Cream Sandwich - on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, we wanted to take a look back through the years at how Andy Rubin's brainchild has evolved into the industry titan that it is today. What's changed? What has (sometimes stubbornly) stayed the same?" Fantastic article.

So, Marco Arment, John Gruber, and MG Siegler (has anyone ever seen them in the same room?) all jumped on a quote from Eric Schmidt which was supposedly very arrogant and proves Schmidt knows no developer likes Android. The joke's on them, though, since none of them actually bothered to watch the source video to verify Schmidt was quoted properly. As it turns out, he was not, as Julian Yap notes. Update: Arment, Siegler, and Gruber have posted updates.

"Apple could face disruption to its iPad sales in China after a court rejected its claim to own the iPad trademark in the country and a rival sought to halt sales of the tablet device in two Chinese cities. The developments are the latest in a long-running dispute between Apple and Proview Technology (Shenzhen), a struggling Taiwanese-owned company that registered trademarks for the name IPAD in many countries long before Apple conceived its smash hit tablet computer." Apple is clearly copying from this innovative Chinese company. If Apple fanatics are actually consistent (*), they would condemn Apple for this clear case of theft.

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case that raises a fundamental question: whether a physician can infringe a patent merely by using scientific research to inform her treatment decisions. Unfortunately, this issue was barely mentioned in Wednesday's arguments. A number of influential organizations had filed briefs warning of the dire consequences of allowing medical patents, but their arguments were largely ignored in the courtroom. Instead, everyone seemed to agree that medical patents were legal in general, and focused on the narrow question of whether the specific patent in the case was overly broad." One day, American policy makers are going to wake up and realise they've made their country irrelevant. The amount of stupidity American policy makers exhibit never ceases to amaze me.