According to an article on 9to5Mac, Apple’s new iPhone 4S antenna design may infringe Samsung patents. From the article:

Pedersen and others at the Aalborg University think Apple will run into legal issues related to patents the professors sold to Samsung in 2007. The report also notes Samsung has not yet used these patents in litigation with Apple.

Regarding implementing a multi-antenna design that intelligently switches to improve reception, Danish professor Gert Frølund Pedersen stated:

“I can not say that they are directly breaking the patent, but there are not many ways they can choose the right antenna, without coming to break many patents.”

Samsung Mobile Unpacked 2011, originally slated for October 11th, has been cancelled. Samsung passed along the following comment from their HQ in Korea to Stuff:

Samsung and Google decide to postpone the new product announcement at CTIA Fall. We agree that it is just not the right time to announce a new product. New date and venue will be shortly announced.

Google and Samsung were expected to announce the Galaxy Nexus and Android Ice Cream Sandwich at the event. With such a generic reason for cancellation given by Samsung, it makes me wonder what transpired behind the scene. Is the phone not ready for primetime? Are their issues with Android Ice Cream Sandwich that warrant a postponement?

Update: Ina Fried from AllThingsD has posted and updated statement from the companies announcing this delay is out of respect for Steve Jobs. From the article:

We believe this is not the right time to announce a new product as the world expresses tribute to Steve Jobs’s passing.

Dustin Curtis provides his reasoning as to why Apple sticks with a 3.5” screen:

Touching the upper right corner of the screen on the Galaxy S II using one hand, with its 4.27-inch screen, while you’re walking down the street looking at Google Maps, is extremely difficult and frustrating. I pulled out my iPhone 4 to do a quick test, and it turns out that when you hold the iPhone in your left hand and articulate your thumb, you can reach almost exactly to the other side of the screen. This means it’s easy to touch any area of the screen while holding the phone in one hand, with your thumb. It is almost impossible to do this on the Galaxy S II.

Makes sense to me. Apple doesn’t compete on a feature list, they compete on experience.

David Pogue of The New York Times provided his perspective on Steve Jobs, and how his death triggered the end of an era. He focused on how we may never see another person like Steve Jobs, and how even with enough studying and practice you cannot truly copy him.

He goes on to describe how even a young kid in their garage possessing all the skills of Steve still has no chance. From the article:

[…] Suppose, by some miracle, that some kid in a garage somewhere at this moment possesses the marketing, invention, business and design skills of a Steve Jobs. What are the odds that that same person will be comfortable enough — or maybe uncomfortable enough — to swim upstream, against the currents of social, economic and technological norms, all in pursuit of an unshakable vision?

Zero. The odds are zero.

I have to disagree with this comment. The odds may be extremely low, but they are never zero. Possessing Steve’s marketing, invention, business and design skills alone will not guarantee his level of success. It was his drive and fearlessness combined with these skills that enabled him to move mountains.

It’s the pessimist in me that acknowledges that I may never experiencing another visionary like Steve in my lifetime. It’s the optimist in me that hopes I am wrong, and can be surprised yet again.

As reported on October 2nd, Verizon filed a legal challenge against Net Neutrality in hopes of derailing its implementation on November 20th. According to Phone Scoop, the FCC has moved to dismiss Verizon’s suit. From the article:

The FCC explained, “Verizon’s theory of jurisdiction is that the FCC modified its radio licenses within [certain statutes] because the Open Internet Order cited the agency’s authority to modify licenses, among numerous other statutory bases of authority.” Verizon’s attempt to appeal the rules on a statutory basis, “however, applies only when this Court is asked to review an FCC order that modifies specific individual licenses. It does not apply to review of generally applicable Commission orders that, like the Open Internet Order, regulate a broad group of licensees as a class. … Verizon’s notice of appeal … should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”