Obama: "We Need to Seriously Consider" A Constitutional Amendment to Reverse ... - Mother Jones

President Obama set the internet aflame Wednesday with his "Ask Me Anything" Q-and-A on Reddit, the massive web aggregator and online community.

Given Mother Jones' obsession with super-PACs, dark money, and the mad dash for campaign cash in 2012, one particular question stood out to us: "What are you going to do to end the corrupting influence of money in politics during your second term?"

Obama responded by decrying the "no-holds barred flow of seven- and eight-figure checks" into super-PACs' war chests. He worried that these outside groups "threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

And the president made actual news in his response by personally pressing for an amendment to the US Constitution reversing the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which freed corporations and unions to spend unlimited company funds on independent political spending. Citizens United also helped pave the way for the SpeechNow.org v. FEC decision that ushered in super-PACs. (Members of Obama's inner circle have previously made similar statements.)

Here's Obama's full response:

Jonah Minkoff-Zern, an organizer for group Public Citizen's "Democracy Is For People" campaign pushing for a Citizens United amendment, hailed Obama's statement. "We're incredibly excited at Public Citizen that Obama has called for an amendment. We see every day that we organize the passion that people across the political spectrum have for a constitutional amendment to prevent the voices of the many from being drowned out by the money-fueled megaphone of the few."

It's no secret that Obama, despite shunning public campaign funds and blessing the super-PAC created to support his re-election effort, dislikes the current big money politics in this country. Indeed, before endorsing the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action, Obama blasted super-PACsâ€"which can accept and spend unlimited sums of money, but ostensibly can't coordinate with candidatesâ€"as a "threat to democracy."

Hate for the Citizens United decision is common among the higher-ups in Obamaland. David Axelrod, an senior campaign strategist and longtime Obama confidant, told New York magazine back in June that, during a second term, the Obama administration "will use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment" to reverse Citizens United. "I understand the free speech argument," Axelrod said, "but when the Koch brothers can spend $400 million, more than the McCain campaign and the Republican Party spent last time, that's very concerning."

Obama and Axelrod's constitutional amendment comments aren't welcomed by all Democrats. Fundraisers, especially those working for outside groups, say these types of comments make their job more difficult. This public anti-Citizens United sentiment "still raises in people's minds an adverse view at the highest levels [about super-PAC giving] even though the president has said grudgingly said, 'I hope people will participate in this,'" says one Democratic fundraiser. "If David Axelrod is saying that, donors wonder, 'Is giving to super-PAC something I'm gonna be appreciated for?'"

Lenovo IdeaPad U410 - ComputerShopper.com

Introduction & Design

Ask us to recommend a thin, stylish ultrabook, and we won't be tongue-tied or shy: Recent Editors' Choices include the newly refreshed Apple MacBook Air 13.3-inch, the gorgeously 1080p-screened Asus Zenbook Prime UX32VD-DB71, and Lenovo's business-centric ThinkPad X1 Carbon, with its carbon-fiber chassis and first-class keyboard.

Those machines, however, range from $1,200 to $1,500 or even moreâ€"putting them out of reach of mainstream ultrabook buyers with three- rather than four-figure budgets, or back-to-school shoppers who don't want to risk deluxe laptops being stolen as they're carried around campus.

Happily, there are plenty of thin, attractive laptops in the $800 price rangeâ€"ultrabooks such as the Sony VAIO T Series (SVT13112FXS), Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M5 481TG-6814, and Lenovo IdeaPad U310.

The 13.3-inch IdeaPad U310, in fact, has a sibling that's perhaps an even better buy, and the subject of this review: The slightly larger, 14.0-inch IdeaPad U410 has the same processor as the U310 (a 1.7GHz Intel Core i5-3317U) and the same ho-hum 1,366x768 screen resolution. But the U410 doubles the standard RAM to 8GB and throws in dedicated (if low-end) Nvidia GeForce GT 610M graphics.

Like the U310, the U410 also has an excellent keyboard (for an ultrabook), though there's no backlighting here. And it comes in a trio of colors that don't remind us quite so much of spring holidays or baby showers as the U310's pastels do.

The result is a well-rounded ultrabook with a little extra graphics oomph that's a solid choice for $799. We just wish a higher-resolution screen were at least an option. The extra pixels are handy for productivity, and they could be put to good use researching and writing term papers.

Design

Our review unit came in what Lenovo calls Sapphire Blue, which added an appreciated splash of color to our test bench. If blue's not your bag, but alliteration is, the U410 is also available in Ruby Red and Graphite Gray.

The IdeaPad's overall appearance is pleasing to the eye, with rounded corners and a silver strip running around the exterior edges. The strip, which houses the ports on each side and a pair of activity lights up front, is plastic. But the lid and bottom section are both aluminum, giving the laptop a solid feel.

Because the IdeaPad U410's thickness (0.8 inch) is the same front and back, unlike many wedge-shaped models such as Apple's MacBook Air, the laptop is comfortable to hold in your hand and carry around without a case. The MacBook Air and some other skinny laptops have thin front edges that can dig into your palm, but that's not a problem here.

And while the laptop's 4.1-pound weight is rather hefty by ultrabook standards, it doesn't feel that heavy, perhaps also due to a more even distribution of components and weight thanks to its consistent thickness. That being said, if you're willing to step down to a 13.3-inch screen (with the same resolution) and live without dedicated graphics, Lenovo's U310 or Sony's VAIO T Series will shave a half-pound from your backpack burden.

  

Will AT&T's LTE network be more reliable than 3G for the iPhone? - CNET

The new iPhone launch is just around the corner. And eager fans are starting to consider which carrier might offer the best service.

In this edition of Ask Maggie, I help a reader, who has had poor experiences with his iPhone 3GS on AT&T, evaluate whether he should switch to Verizon Wireless for the new iPhone since it's likely to support 4G LTE. I also offer some advice about whether to buy the older Samsung Galaxy SII or the newer Galaxy SIII. And I explain why the recent court ruling in the Apple vs. Samsung patent case shouldn't factor much into that decision.

Also I want to let my loyal Ask Maggie readers know that my column will be on hiatus for the next three weeks. I'm getting married next Saturday and will be on vacation preparing for the wedding and enjoying my honeymoon for two weeks afterward.

I will return to CNET on September 24 and hope you all will check back with me for more Ask Maggie's. There should be plenty of great questions to discuss as we're expecting a flurry of product announcements over the next two weeks, including a Nokia Windows 8 Phone, a new Amazon Kindle Fire tablet, and of course Apple's big iPhone announcement (and fingers crossed, possibly a mini-iPad announcement.)

Will 4G LTE solve AT&T's reliability issues for the iPhone?

Dear Maggie,
I am planning on buying the new iPhone when it comes out next month. I've heard it will have 4G LTE, just like the Apple iPad. With Verizon's 4G LTE on my iPad I get service everywhere. Its great! I currently have an iPhone 4S on AT&T. But in my high school where I go to school, AT&T doesn't have great reception. But my friends with Verizon, on the other hand, get service everywhere. (Just thought I'd put it out there, I'm not one of those students that use a phone all day, but when teachers allow us to, I like to. And I would like to get service when I am allowed to.)

I have basically hated AT&T since day one when I got an iPhone 3G. I really want to switch to Verizon with the "New iPhone," but I don't want to be paying $100 a month. With the 'New iPhone' supporting 4G LTE on AT&T and Verizon, will Verizon's 4G LTE be more reliable than AT&T's 4G LTE just like the current CDMA service is more reliable than AT&T's GSM network? Or are they both evenly reliable considering they are both LTE? On my iPad I get 4G LTE everywhere in my school, will I be getting 4G LTE on my iPhone with AT&T in the same places my iPad gets it? Thank you for your time, I really look forward to hearing from you about this topic. And I hope you keep up giving the great advice and answers!

Thanks,
Alec

Dear Alec,
As you know the new iPhone hasn't yet been announced, so we don't know for certain that it will support 4G LTE. But there's a very good chance that it will. While a recent survey of consumers indicates that nearly half of smartphone users don't get care if they get LTE, I think once they get a taste for the speed, they will find it hard to live without.

In general, Verizon Wireless has a superior 4G network compared with any other wireless operator around. Not necessarily because it performs better than AT&T, but because the coverage is far more extensive than anyone else out there building a 4G LTE network.

At the end of of the second quarter of 2012, Verizon covered 230 million potential customers in 337 markets with its LTE network. This is more than all the other carriers building LTE combined. By the end of the year, Verizon expects to cover about 260 million people in more than 400 markets.

By contrast, AT&T's LTE network covers only about 80 million people in the U.S. today, and it will only add another 70 million by the end of the year.

So what this means for many iPhone users is that Verizon will have LTE in a lot more places than AT&T will offer it. In your case, it's difficult to say whether AT&T will offer 4G LTE where you need it. You might want to check that out first.

If AT&T's 4G LTE network is where you live and go to school, then I think the networks will likely deliver very similar performance. In fact, in a recent JD Power customer survey, wireless subscribers noted that devices on LTE networks, regardless of carrier, experienced fewer data-related problems than subscribers using 3G devices. Customers on LTE networks had a better experience than with other 4G devices, such as those that use WiMax, which is the technology Sprint and Clearwire have deployed, or HSPA+, the current 4G wireless flavor touted by T-Mobile USA.

"It's very interesting to see the stark performance differences between the newest generation of network technology, 4G LTE and other network services that were the first offerings of 4G-marketed devices in early 2011," Kirk Parsons, senior director of wireless services at J.D. Power, said in a statement regarding the report.

The report points out that the improvement in performance on a 4G LTE network was regardless of carrier. In other words, AT&T's LTE network, where it's available, seems to perform better than its 3G and HSPA+ networks.

From my own personal experience using the Galaxy SIII on AT&T this summer, I can tell you that I thought AT&T's LTE network was amazingly fast. It nearly killed me when my device testing time ended, and I had to go back to my slow Galaxy SII on AT&T's HSPA+ network. The Galaxy SIII on the LTE network was so fast. It was truly like going from dial-up Internet service to broadband on my mobile device.

The bottom line here is that so far AT&T's LTE network seems pretty solid. Of course, you should also remember that the LTE network is not fully deployed and it's underutilized. Network usage is likely to go up sharply once the new iPhone is introduced with LTE. And once many of the LTE naysayers discover that they can't live without the faster speeds, there's likely to be even more subscribers on the network. And there's a chance that the heavier load on the network may affect performance in the future.

So what should you do? I will tell you what I tell everyone deciding which service provider to choose: You first have to make sure the service you want is adequate where you plan to use your phone. If AT&T's LTE network is available to you, I can almost guarantee you that it will be a better experience than what you had with the company's 3G network. There is a chance that AT&T's 4G LTE network will get better reception because of the frequency of spectrum it's using. Like Verizon, AT&T is using the old 700 MHz analog TV broadcast spectrum to build its LTE network. Signals using this frequency can travel over longer distances and penetrate through obstacles better than services using higher frequencies, which might result in better coverage and better indoor reception.

But if find that AT&T's LTE is spotty or not available at all to you, then I'd say Verizon is the better choice for you, especially since you know it already works in your school.

I know you mentioned price as a factor, but AT&T's plans aren't that cheap either. Still, if you do have a good deal with AT&T then that is definitely something to consider, since I wouldn't expect good deals from Verizon any time soon.

I hope this advice was helpful. And good luck.

How does Apple's patent victory over Samsung affect the Galaxy SII?

Dear Maggie,
My wife is up for a new phone, and I am thinking about getting her a Galaxy SII. Is that a bad idea with the recent court decision? What are the chances that that phone will be banned or have it's functionality reduced?

Thanks for your advice,
Paul

Dear Paul,
I do think it's a bad idea to get your wife a Galaxy SII. But I don't think it's a good idea, not because of the recent court decision. I think it's a bad idea because the Galaxy SII uses older technology and doesn't operate on the faster 4G LTE network of Verizon, AT&T or Sprint. I also think the enhancements to the software via Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich and Samsung's TouchWiz are noticeable. And I just like the look and feel of the phone so much more than the Galaxy SII.

I am sure you are considering the Galaxy SII because you're getting it for a bargain. I've seen some carriers offering the Galaxy SII for $50 or less with a two year contract. Prices that low are tempting, especially when the Galaxy SIII is selling for $200 with a two-year contract.

But remember that your wife will have to use this phone for the next two years. And over that time, all the major carriers will have expanded their 4G LTE networks. And new features and functionalities will be added to even newer devices. Meanwhile, you're wife will be stuck with a phone that is using technology that was already a year old when she got her phone.

As for Apple's patent victory over Samsung, I don't think you should worry too much about it. The hearing that would ban any of the Samsung phones cited in the case will be held on December 6, 2012. So at the very least, you would have until December to purchase the Samsung Galaxy SII. As far as I understand it, the ban does not affect devices or customers who bought the device prior to the ban. It only prohibits the sale of new devices in the U.S.

What's more the ban does not mean that Samsung can't sell this phone overseas, so I don't think that the support for Galaxy SII phones will fall off dramatically since Samsung still has to support the product overseas. The other thing is that Samsung is likely to appeal the decision. So this legal fight probably isn't over yet.

At any rate, as I said above, I wouldn't recommend the Galaxy SII now. Instead, you should show your wife some love and get her the more expensive Galaxy SIII. She will thank you for it!

Ask Maggie is an advice column that answers readers' wireless and broadband questions. The column now appears twice a week on CNET, offering readers a double dosage of Ask Maggie's advice. If you have a question, I'd love to hear from you. Please send me an e-mail at maggie dot reardon at cbs dot com. And please put "Ask Maggie" in the subject header. You can also follow me on Facebook on my Ask Maggie page.

Java security flaw: yada yada yada - Computerworld (blog)

Java is at an unusual state. Oracle, the company behind Java, is currently maintaining both version 6 and 7 with bug fixes. Version 7 has more features, but anyone that doesn't need these features can safely use version 6. 

Back in June, when I blogged about Defensive Computing with Java, I suggested sticking with version 6 because of its maturity. From a Defensive Computing perspective, new software is always suspect. Since it had been around longer, I argued that version 6 was less likely to have compatibility issues with existing software that required Java.  

 

It turned out that some of the new features in version 7 were not sufficiently debugged. As a result, anyone running Java 7 could get infected with a virus simply by viewing a malicious web page. Since Java 7 runs on Windows, OS X and Linux, that meant that the flaw in Java 7 could be abused on Macs and Linux machines too. 

 

Today, after a flood of bad press, Oracle released updates to both Java 6 and 7, with assorted bug fixes. 

 

WINDOWS 

 

Anyone running Java on Windows should now be at either version 6 Update 35 or version 7 Update 7. Anything else is dangerous. Too see which, if any, version of Java is installed, visit my www.JavaTester.org site. 

 

Windows users, since May, have been getting Java 7 installed by default. In my June blog, I suggested downloading Java 6 here, but it can also be downloaded here. I continue to prefer Java 6 over Java 7. 

 

OS X 

 

The situation on OS X is more complicated than Windows.

 

Java 6 is supplied to Mac users by Apple, whereas Java 7 is supplied by Oracle. Mac users that get all their software via the OS X self-update mechanism will have Java 6. The only OS X users running Java 7 are those that went out of their way to download it from Oracle and install it. 

 

Today, Oracle updated Java 7 for OS X to Update 7 and anyone running Java 7 on OS X should install this update. However, chances are that very few Mac users were running Java 7.

 

For one thing, Java 7 is only available on the two Lion editions, it is not available on Leopard or Snow Leopard. In addition, it only works with 64 bit browsers, which means it does not work with Chrome. For more about Java on OS X, see How do I get Java support for Mac? from Oracle. 

 

Apple has not yet updated Java 6 for OS X to Update 35. 

 

Java 6, while immune to this weeks big security flaw, still needs a security update. Oracle's Update 35 to Java 6 includes a "security-in-depth fix." Exactly what this means, I don't know. How vulnerable this leaves Java 6 Mac users is not clear. I have not yet seen anything online that addresses this. 

 

LINUX 

 

Linux users too, have a choice of Java suppliers. From what I read, this weeks security flaw only existed in Java 7 from Oracle. Java from other sources, was safe. 

 

DEFENSIVE STEPS 

 

At this point, Java security flaws remind me of the movie Ground Hog day.

 

If you don't need Java, remove it. Sadly, as I mentioned previously, it's not simple to determine if you need it. The home page of my JavaTester.org site links to an Ed Bott article that lists some apps that require Java, and, extends his list too. If you don't use anything on these lists, then remove Java and see if anything breaks. 

 

Also, Java is used both by websites and by native OS applications. The security flaws this week only applied to website usage. Java used by, Open Office or the OS X version of Crashplan, for example, was never a problem. If you need Java solely for native applications, then disable it in every web browser. 

 

If Java is needed inside a browser, then it's now an unquestioned best practice, to disable Java in the browser you normally use and have it enabled in a second browser that is exclusively used on the site(s) where it's needed. 

 

The only gotcha here is that it's virtually impossible to disable Java in Internet Explorer version 9. There is lots of bad advice about this online. In fact, almost everything written on the subject is wrong. The gory details are best explained by US-CERT in Vulnerability Note VU#636312. Even there, the section on disabling Java in IE has been completely re-written twice, at least. 

 

 

VERSIONS 

 

Oracle takes a simple thing, identifying the version of their software, and complicates it terribly. So much so, that it confuses people who don't possess the secret Oracle decoder ring. Here's a cheat sheet for identifying Java 6 Update 35. 

 

On my JavaTester.org site, it is reported as 1.6.0_35. The decoder ring tells you to ignore the first and third digits. 

 

In the Windows 7 Control Panel, it is identified as version 6.0.35.0. No more leading "1", still the useless "0" in the middle and a new useless zero at the end. 

 

In their Release Notes Oracle says "The full version string for this update release is 1.6.0_35-b10 (where "b" means "build") and the version number is 6u35." 

 

 

Secunia's Online Software Inspector identifies it as 6.0.350.10. Again we see the useless zero in the middle and the decoder ring tells you to ignore the 10 at the end. Oh, and 350 is really 35. 

 

Not to mention the many articles that refer to Java 6 as version 1.6. 

 

BAD ADVICE 

 

These last few days have seen more than their fair share of bad Java advice. 

 

Just today, the "staff" at AppleInsider wrote "Because Java came bundled with older versions of OS X like Leopard or Snow Leopard, Macs running the legacy software are potentially more vulnerable to the attack than those with the latest 10.8 Mountain Lion". Since the Leopard family of OS X can't run Java 7, they were actually safer all along. 

 

Over at CNET, Topher Kessler wrote "... this vulnerability is in new features in the Java 7 runtime ... so if you have older Java runtimes installed on your system then you will not need to patch them." On the contrary, Java 6 on Windows should be updated to Updated 35. And, if Apple releases an update to Java 6 for OS X, it too, should be installed. 

 

And speaking of Java 6 Update 35, the Mozilla Plugin Check says that it is "outdated". It is current and safe.

 

 

 

When it comes to Java 6 Update 35, the verdict is mixed. The page reports both that "An old version of Java has been detected on your system" and that the "Latest Java is installed". 

 

Finally, anyone running a Chromebook or Chromebox has been safe all along. They don't support Java at all, which is looking more and more like a good decision by Google. 

Exclusive: Google, Apple CEOs in secret patent talks - Reuters

By Alexei Oreskovic and Poornima Gupta

SAN FRANCISCO | Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:20am IST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc Chief Executive Larry Page and Apple CEO Tim Cook have been conducting behind-the-scenes talks about a range of intellectual property matters, including the mobile patent disputes between the companies, people familiar with the matter said.

The two executives had a phone conversation last week, the sources said. Discussions involving lower-level officials of the two companies are also ongoing.

Page and Cook are expected to talk again in the coming weeks, though no firm date has been set, the sources said on Thursday. One of the sources told Reuters that a meeting had been scheduled for this Friday, but had been delayed for reasons that were unclear.

The two companies are keeping lines of communication open at a high level against the backdrop of Apple's legal victory in a patent infringement case against Samsung, which uses Google's Android software.

Last Friday, a jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages and set the stage for a possible ban on sales of some Samsung products in a case that has been widely viewed as a "proxy war" between Apple and Google.

One possible scenario under consideration could be a truce involving disputes over basic features and functions in Google's Android mobile software, one source said. But it was unclear whether Page and Cook were discussing a broad settlement of the various disputes between the two companies, most of which involve the burgeoning mobile computing area, or are focused on a more limited set of issues.

Competition between Google and Apple has heated up in recent years with the shift from PCs to mobile devices. Google's Android software, which Apple's late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a "stolen product," has become the world's No.1 smartphone operating system. The popularity of the software has been in tandem with patent infringement lawsuits involving various hardware vendors who use it, including Samsung and HTC.

The latest complaint was filed by Motorola Mobility, now a unit of Google, against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission claiming some features of Apple's devices infringe on its patents. A previous lawsuit between the two in a Chicago court was thrown out by a federal judge, who said neither side could prove damages.

Apple in recent months has moved to lessen its reliance on Google's products. Apple recently unveiled its own mobile mapping software, replacing the Google product used in the iPhone, and said it would no longer offer Google's YouTube as a pre-loaded app in future versions of its iPhone.

Cook took the helm at Apple a year ago, and Page stepped into the top job at Google a few months before that.

The conversation between Page and Cook last week did not result in any formal agreement, but the two executives agreed to continue talking, according to one source.

Google's Larry Page, who sat out several public speaking engagements earlier this summer because of an unspecified medical condition affecting his voice, has continued to run Google's business.

Apple and Google declined to comment on any discussions.

(Reporting by Alexei Oreskovic and Poornima Gupta with additional reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Jonathan Weber, Martin Howell and Leslie Gevirtz)

TEXT-Fitch: Samsung - US jury decision, short-term reputation setback - Reuters

Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:18am EDT

Aug 30 - Fitch Ratings does not plan any immediate action on Samsung Electronics' 'A+'/Stable rating following a decision by the US Jury on 24 August in favour of Apple Inc. The ruling stands in contrast to a split ruling on the same day in South Korea, and a decision by a UK court in July in favour of Samsung.

The agency does not assume that this verdict will be automatically followed in other global jurisdictions, and foresees only a limited impact on Samsung's financial profile over the next 12-18 months. This is on the assumption that the sales restrictions in the US are unlikely to include the company's latest Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note flagship models.

The USD1.05bn in damages recommended by the jury represents less than 5% of Fitch's operating profit forecast for Samsung in 2012, and 5% of the company's cash balance of USD 21bn as of end-Q212. Yet Fitch notes that the implied penalty per smartphone sold - of USD49.40 or 14% of sales - is nonetheless quite severe. The district judge in California is due to deliver a final ruling over the next month, when it is possible that the USD1.05bn may be either increased or decreased. In any case, the matter is unlikely to be finalized within the next 12 months, as Samsung would be expected to appeal this decision to a higher court.

Nevertheless, reputational damage could affect Samsung's US sales in the short term, albeit marginally. The US is currently the largest single market for smartphones (Q212: 15.3%), and US consumers may gravitate more toward Apple's products following this decision. Fitch believes Samsung will need to place greater emphasis on more distinctive design features. Samsung's leading mobile display panel technology, and its pending transition to smartphones with both unbreakable and flexible AMOLED screens, is one important development that may enable its future smartphone models to look markedly different to Apple's iPhones.

Out of Samsung's 22 smartphones deemed by the US jury to be infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, Apple has requested the courts to ban eight models that are still being sold in the US market. An injunction hearing is scheduled for December. Fitch understands that Samsung's latest Galaxy SIII will not be included as it was not part of the recent court case, and it is separately scheduled to be considered in March 2014. Under this scenario, the most severe setback for Samsung would be the inability to sell its Galaxy SII model in the US, but the impact on Samsung's future sales in the US may be limited with the Galaxy SIII set to overtake the Galaxy SII in terms of unit sales in Q4.

However, there is an outside risk that Apple may on this occasion be able to fast-track the Galaxy SIII, and possibly the larger Galaxy Note model, on to the banned list via a "contempt proceeding" before the judge. Under this scenario, the negative impact on Samsung's financials could be more meaningful in 2013, although Samsung is likely to mitigate this by releasing the next version of its flagship Galaxy smartphone series in a timely manner.

Fitch expects it will be more difficult for Apple to block the sale of Samsung's Galaxy SIII and Galaxy Note models, given that both models are significantly larger than any of Apple's iPhone's released so far. Moreover, Samsung has already changed the disputed scroll and bounce-bank features in its smartphones via software updates, and is certain to provide further software updates and recalibrate future US model releases to ensure it is not in breach of Apple's utility patents.

What happens to the value of Samsung's 'outlaw' phones? - CNET

What will happen to the value of "outlaw" phones like this one?

(Credit: CNET)

Earlier this week I heard from Gazelle.com that the buy-back site saw a 50 percent jump in trade-ins of Samsung phones, particularly the Galaxy S II, in the three days immediately following a jury's finding that the GSII and a number of other Samsung phones had infringed on Apple patents.

Now, on its own, that's not really enough evidence to conclude that Samsung device owners are discarding their phones in utter disgust at the lack of respect for our ridiculously murky and inefficient patent system. After all, a lot of those trade-ins could be people simply unloading an old phone in favor of another blockbuster Samsung phone like the Galaxy S III, which is not part of the patent suit. Or there's always the specter of a new iPhone around the corner that could encourage a trade-in for some extra cash.

After hearing from Gazelle earlier this week, I immediately contacted another buy-back site -- eBay Instant Sale -- to see if it had seen the same pattern. They hadn't yet but promised to pull more data for me to check closer.

That data came back to me earlier today, and it offers even stronger evidence of a run on old Android smartphones following the jury's smack-down on Samsung last week.

"In the three days following the verdict, Android smartphone trade-in offers generated by people using eBay Instant Sale grew by 60 percent when compared to the three day period prior to the verdict," an eBay spokesperson wrote in an e-mail to CNET.

Could it be that when word of the verdict hit, thousands of owners of Samsung and other Android phones started selling in a panic, worried that the value of the devices would soon plummet? Looks like there's evidence to support the theory, and as with a bank run, devaluation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When sites like Gazelle were suddenly hit with a glut of Samsung phones, their trade-in value did sink as a result of the over-supply. But in the past two days, it looks as though they've recovered a bit, and you can currently get as much as $166 for a flawless Galaxy S II on Gazelle.

But are the long-term value of Samsung phones doomed, especially with the possibility that future updates could disable some features and the potential for injunctions and sales bans on some models looming?

"At this point we are taking a wait and see approach since we are not yet sure what impact this will have on secondary market values," says Jeff Trachsel, chief marketing officer at NextWorth, yet another trade-in site looking at the impact of the verdict on its business. "There is a possibility Samsung secondary market values may actually benefit from the decision. As Samsung takes the time to design around the Apple patents there will be a constraint on supply, and since many of the impacted devices are in-demand, values in the secondary market should hold up well. But again, we can't be sure what will happen, so we are holding our values fairly steady for now."

That's right Galaxy S II fans, now that your patent-infringing gadget just gained outlaw status, it actually might not be the time to sell. It could turn out to be a collector's item. Bonus!