bgates22,

You're correct about a vendor's need to protect its IP. (And while Samsung may be misguided, this is why you don't yet see the i760 at the Experience showroom.) As to transparency, you raise a fair question. Let's examine it.

This controversy is not some sort of Left vs. Right socio-political-religious-legal struggle (e.g., abortion) or a Napster/LimeWire-RIAA-college student drama. It's about a fundamental principle of accountability.

The concept for the FCC Equipment Authorization filing database is simple. As RF spectrum is a scarce public resource (although fortunately, non-depleting), radio devices are subject to regulation. Regulation covers, in various ways, products that emit, receive or transmit RF--and governs those who utilize spectrum for any application.

The specific regulations cited in the link below describe the terms of confidentiality to which a handset-maker may be entitled; we've discussed confidentiality at some length in the past. Confidentiality is what protects a vendor from premature disclosure of proprietary information.

The filing database is the public record. Transparency refers to the public's right to access this record as intended.

Now, the FCC's Short-Term Confidentiality provision allows a vendor to withhold access to a product's user manual, among other assets, prior to public marketing. But if a vendor commences such activity, it's obliged to remove the privacy lock and allow public access--as provided in the regs. The FCC's policy is very clear. If a vendor objects, it can lobby for change, but it cannot, as Apple is attempting, have it both ways or revise the regs at will.

One thing is certain: There is no information in iPhone's (or i760's) user manual that, if disclosed at the time of FCC approval, could possibly compromise Apple's IP. No manuals would ever contain privileged material or anything of useful competitive value. This tempest is simply about control.

Actually, most of what a consumer needs to know about this product was announced in Jan by Jobs himself. Almost everything we've learned since was leaked by Apple (Samsung) itself. While consumers could benefit from access to a manual prior to release, this isn't really the main event. It's that Apple (Samsung) is corrupting the FCC's rules. And it's a slippery slope. Once this maneuver becomes industry-standard, what's next? The door is open to a cascade of deceptive practices and public abuse.

As another example of predatory corporate behavior, consider VZW's "Unlimited" data claim in the face of its restricted, 5GB ToS. The jurisdiction for this particular insult is FTC as opposed to FCC, but the principle remains. And then there's wireless service as the largest consumer offering in world history without a warranty, subsidy-locking, ETFs, non-activation of 'foreign' devices, slipstreamed ToS changes (e.g., price hikes), crippled feature sets and so much more. There is no honor in the game.

It all comes down to this: We can't tolerate holes in the dike. If device-makers and carriers are permitted to hatch their own rules under a cloak of darkness, the public is denied accountability, a Constitutional precept.

Which leads to a question. Why, for 41 years, have video screens been the only rectangular product whose marketing is based on diagonal measurement?

--BAM


FCC regs regarding Short- and Long-Term Confidentiality are cited here: http://pdaphonehome.com/forums/616576-post4.html

FTC 'Picture Tube Rule':
P9242414 Picture Tube Rule Confirmation of Rule FR Notice