MR,

Will mull this over and see what can be done to address your point.

Essentially, the posted links fall into two categories:

1) Samsung-issued material (e.g., the "Insight" piece, Award Honoree press release, etc.).

2) News reports and coverage that result from Samsung's presentations/exhibitions to third party organizations at trade shows (e.g., Engadget, PopMech, etc.). While these stories and video segments aren't produced by Sammy, they're definitely not the result of stealthy enterprise reporting.

Samsung wants such (free) coverage and subsequent buzz and goes so far as to lend unreleased products to crews so they can report to the public. In the face of such brazen, assisted hype, no vendor can claim a right to FCC privacy--and this is our point.

Years ago, CES and other tech shows used to be "for the trade only." In that era, precious little "retail" news emerged; when products were ready for distribution, they were announced and marketing efforts commenced. Today, "pre-announcements" rule, and there are really no surprises. (iPhone was the rare exception, although its debut was very much "retail," not "trade." We'll soon see whether iPhone seeks FCC confidentiality. In the face of the record, this would be criminal.)

While the two categories aren't directly related, both evidence Samsung's formula approach to building demand. This is, of course, fine with us. What isn't permissible is a disingenuous, hypocritical cloak of secrecy at the FCC that distorts and compromises the public's right to transparency.

In fairness, we should note that the FCC filing process has nothing to do with a company's marketing machine. What we have here is engineering operations acting in good faith while hypesters Rock 'n' Roll to a different beat. To which we reply: "Tough!"

So let's see how best to capture this twisted mess.

--BAM