His writeup starts off with detailed install instructions, and then moves on to a informal “change log”. Cutting a lojng story short, he claims improved signal strength and music playback capabilities at the expense of 10% less battery life.

The full scoop is available here:
http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/7522/verizon-treo-755p-rom-howto-and-update-guide/

RCR reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nokia, AT&T and a retailer called CommClub. The reason:

The class has suffered injuries in fact and lost money or property as a result of the … acts in that members of the class paid the purchase price for a brand new Nokia cellphone and instead received a used or reconditioned Nokia cellphone that was worth substantially less

Once again: if you have an AT&T Nokia phone (and purchased it at CommClub’s) - please get in touch. You could be using a refurbished device without knowing it. Should you plan to purchase a device now: stay clear of CommClub until the situation clears up!

Ryan seems to really like the new paint job - he describes it to be:

… very vibrant and really “pops” in person. This color also has a subtle sparkle finish to it when viewed up close. It’s not overwhelmingly sparkly and it makes for a nice effect. The casing is the usual solid plastic. As a nice touch, the included stylus also matches the sapphire motif.

A big thank-you goes out to Tobias Kuderna for providing these images!

Fortte’s products ship via FedEx from the United States. Unfortunately, the Austrian Customs catch the parcels from time to time…

A small blister protects the case during transportation:

Our case was ordered with belt clip (as it is intended to be given away). The belt clip thus ships in a small satchel along the case. People who dislike belt clips can order their cases without one - the screw in the back is then omitted:

Getting the Centro into the case is easy. The device is slid in, and a clip in the back is then closed. Fortte’s method is more secure than the friction locking systems found in other manufacturer’s offerings:

The device remains perfectly usable while in the case:

Fortte did a great job at keeping the keyboard usable:

The controls at the top and the bottom remain fully functional:

A cutout on the left side keeps the volume buttons accessible:

The Centro’s memory card door is badly designed and requires you to remove the battery door when swapping memory cards. Thus, Fortte chose to cover up the “slot” - no functionality lost.

Finally, here are a few shots showing the Centro next to a QTek 8500 in a pink case. Of course, the case color can be chosen from dozens - the list is available at Fortte’s web site.

In the end, Fortte’s case for the Palm Centro is excellent. People who wish to be able to design their case from the ground up can now do so - but have to accept a higher price. The case we reviewed here costs about 80$…but is worth every penny…

Dave’s article begins with the following bold statements:

…
I had two consistent recommendations on what to focus on to maximize the success and competitive differentiation of Palm hardware and the Palm platform.

1) Build a great touchscreen phone with a 320×480 screen.
2) More importantly - build a great on-device application purchase experience, and provide the infrastructure to make it as easy as possible for both large and small developers to get rich.
…

Get the full scoop here:
http://www.twostepsbeyond.com/2008/07/11/iphone-eve/

Previously, my only real reservation about switching from SplashID to IDGuard was the lack of the desktop component, I have switched now.  Resco is honing the desktop component for release (there are still a few bugs, although not in the conduit).

More to come when I’ve more fully tested it!

The device has 128MB of program memory and 256MB of user data storage. External memory can be added via a MicroSD slot. The camera has a native resolution of 2MP, the screen indeed is 320×320. Finally, WiFi and GPS radios have been integrated for prosperity…

P.S. Should anyone of you want to access Sprint’s web site directly: use the ZIP code 60001 to bypass the ZIP entry box…

Then I installed Dmitry’s most recent FAT32 driver which is known to work a Tungsten C, T3 and T5 (and should work on others). Now, FileZ had no problems accessing the card anymore.

As the SDHC driver is an early beta - at least on the Tungsten C - it is still far away from working stable and not availible to the public. For example, it does not recognize the ejecting of a card. Inserting my 2 GB card makes the device freezing. But Dmitry told me that he now has a Tungsten C for testing, so the TC users can soon extend their handheld with 2 GB (and higher) memory cards.

1) Functionality
A term cannot usually be trademarked if it is purely descriptive of its functionality. For instance, you cannot trademark “mileage log” for an app that tracks mileage, but I don’t think “Trip” is considered generic by this definition because the name doesn’t describe exactly what it does (trip planner? assistant for clumsy people? Grateful Dead tribute?). Instead, it is considered a “suggestive” mark which can indeed be trademarked. Being a common word isn’t a problem as long as it isn’t “functional”, as “Apple”, “Flash” and many other words are trademarked in a specific application.

2) Incontestability
After five years, a registered term does not automatically become “incontestable”, but only if an “affidavit of incontestability” is filed with the PTO. Even then, the term can still technically be contested, but the term cannot be ruled invalid due to “prior art”, “functionality” or “lack of distinctiveness”.

3) Infringment
Even if it’s incontestable, just including the term as part of a competing product’s name is not automatically infringement, especially when only a limited number of words could apply to an app that tracks automobile mileage. Otherwise, people would just trademark all applicable words (”mileage”, “log”, and “trip”) and nobody would be able to name a competing product anything at all. The intent of trademark law is to prevent confusion, not limit competition.

When determining potential trademark infringment, the PTO assesses the “likelihood of confusion” on the part of customers, e.g. whether they might purchase one product believing it to be the other. If Steven’s product were called “Trip Deluxe”, or even “iTrip” then I think there would be a fair case for infringement. I think it unlikely, however that someone would think “TripLog” and “Trip” were actually the same product.