jpurv,

Referring to comments regarding Samsung's "marketing" the i760 at CES and FCC confidentiality, you said:

If that's a violation, then how did Apple get a confidentiality agreement from the FCC until May? They're already marketing the hell out of their iPhone.

Good point, and here's the story:

Apple's presumed iPhone confidentiality request won't go into effect until the product is granted authorization--and neither will Sammy's for the i760. Protection becomes an issue when the filing is "public."

There was a 'shopped Apple letter circulating that purported to request iPhone confidentiality until 06/15, but it was quickly exposed as a fake. Still, a similar and official letter will soon appear.

For both device-makers, what will happen is this:

When authorization is granted (perhaps within a month for both devices), we'll likely see letters requesting protection for the following:

1) External photos
2) Test set-up photos
*3) Block diagram
*4) Schematics
5) User's manual
6) Internal photos
*7) Parts list
*8.) Tune-up procedures
*9) Operational description

*Indefinite confidentiality can be requested for these items

For the items not subject to permanent protection, short-term confidentiality is available for an initial period of 45 days and may be renewed three times for a total of 180 days.

Now, from our earlier earlier discussion--

What's important about FCC confidentiality is that if the device vendor "engages in public marketing activities, or otherwise publicizes the device..." prior to the expiration of the short-term confidentiality, the protection ceases and the FCC places the restricted items in the public database.

--FCC Public Notice DA 04-1705, 06/15/04, "OET Equipment Authorization System Upgrade Permits Submittal of Short-Term Confidentiality Requests"
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Da.../dd040615.html

Thus, the point of the background set-up is this:

One can argue that neither vendor is entitled to short-term confidentiality once the products are authorized and listed on the FCC Web site. Both firms have clearly violated the terms under which short-term confidentiality is allowed for non-proprietary items.

Apple, of course, is the serial offender. Its public marketing activities for iPhone--months before release--are the most aggressive in the history of wireless.

iPhone's featured, as we speak, on Apple's and Cing/AT&T's home pages. And then, we have the iPhone network TV spot at the 79th Oscars...

We presume the FCC isn't likely to unwrap Apple's kimono unprovoked. But if it fields c-o-m-p-l-a-i-n-t-s that Apple has "marketed" the device, it's obliged to remove protection. Ditto Sammy.

Incidentally, while we can't yet know the iPhone's FCC ID, it will contain the prefix "BCG."

--BAM