<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Canada not happy with South Korea&#8217;s ban on the BlackBerry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/</link>
	<description>Industry coverage, news, original feature articles, how to guides, videos, podcasts and reviews of BlackBerry service providers, software, accessories, hosted exchange providers and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:53:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: jk</title>
		<link>http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/comment-page-1/#comment-1833</link>
		<dc:creator>jk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/#comment-1833</guid>
		<description>joe,

you evidently need to do your homework on how this works in the ROK.  the reasoning by the MIC for preventing the blackberry to run is simply to keep it out of korea.  all the stops are pulled out to prevent competition with better technology in the global phone market whether it be blackberries or iphones.  i suggest you really do your homework before scolding the canadian governments comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>joe,</p>
<p>you evidently need to do your homework on how this works in the ROK.  the reasoning by the MIC for preventing the blackberry to run is simply to keep it out of korea.  all the stops are pulled out to prevent competition with better technology in the global phone market whether it be blackberries or iphones.  i suggest you really do your homework before scolding the canadian governments comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RIM introduces BlackBerry to Bangladesh &#124; BB Geeks</title>
		<link>http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/comment-page-1/#comment-1266</link>
		<dc:creator>RIM introduces BlackBerry to Bangladesh &#124; BB Geeks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:13:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/#comment-1266</guid>
		<description>[...] Now, if they could just get it into Korea [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Now, if they could just get it into Korea [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous WIPI Opponent</title>
		<link>http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/comment-page-1/#comment-1111</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous WIPI Opponent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-issues/canada-not-happy-with-south-koreas-ban-on-the-blackberry-88136/#comment-1111</guid>
		<description>Joe, with respect, you are way off base.

The problem with Korea&#039;s bullshit WIPI standard is that it is clearly crafted not so much to establish a standard for functionality, but to be a barrier to foreign competition. And it has very much been a moving target.

For example, the Korean Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) now requires that WIPI have both a Java layer and a C layer. Both languages must be available to the programmer.

As it happens, the Blackberry doesn&#039;t have a C language implementation on the device. So WIPI-C is impossible without a complete re-engineering of the platform and its software, to get C onto the device just to &quot;check-the-box&quot; on MIC&#039;s irrelevant standard.

Is it a coincidence? MIC had previously advised interested parties that WIPI-Java would be sufficient. Only after &quot;That&#039;s a relief, we can&#039;t do C&quot; was uttered in meetings did MIC come back and say &quot;Sorry, we meant both Java and C.&quot;

What makes this all the more frustrating is that in the case millions are spent on implementation of WIPI, it&#039;s not at all necessary for the functioning of the Blackberry device. WIPI adds no value to Blackberry, and does nothing for the user. Aren&#039;t standards supposed to address function?

Still think this is all a tempest in a teapot? There are no fewer than 30 non-WIPI compliant PDA-type communications devices which have been approved for sale in the market. MIC admits this, but says all of those others were &quot;mistakes&quot;. Well, if you make the same mistake 30 times for others and then suddenly get religion when a real competitor arrives, it smells an awful lot like the closed-market mercantilism for which Korea is deservedly well-known.

If Canada refused to allow the import of Hyundai cars because the ashtrays didn&#039;t meet some nonsense ashtray-size specification, while not enforcing the ashtray-size rule against other manufacturers -- &quot;Oops, those were all mistakes&quot; -- would you be so forgiving?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe, with respect, you are way off base.</p>
<p>The problem with Korea&#8217;s bullshit WIPI standard is that it is clearly crafted not so much to establish a standard for functionality, but to be a barrier to foreign competition. And it has very much been a moving target.</p>
<p>For example, the Korean Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) now requires that WIPI have both a Java layer and a C layer. Both languages must be available to the programmer.</p>
<p>As it happens, the Blackberry doesn&#8217;t have a C language implementation on the device. So WIPI-C is impossible without a complete re-engineering of the platform and its software, to get C onto the device just to &#8220;check-the-box&#8221; on MIC&#8217;s irrelevant standard.</p>
<p>Is it a coincidence? MIC had previously advised interested parties that WIPI-Java would be sufficient. Only after &#8220;That&#8217;s a relief, we can&#8217;t do C&#8221; was uttered in meetings did MIC come back and say &#8220;Sorry, we meant both Java and C.&#8221;</p>
<p>What makes this all the more frustrating is that in the case millions are spent on implementation of WIPI, it&#8217;s not at all necessary for the functioning of the Blackberry device. WIPI adds no value to Blackberry, and does nothing for the user. Aren&#8217;t standards supposed to address function?</p>
<p>Still think this is all a tempest in a teapot? There are no fewer than 30 non-WIPI compliant PDA-type communications devices which have been approved for sale in the market. MIC admits this, but says all of those others were &#8220;mistakes&#8221;. Well, if you make the same mistake 30 times for others and then suddenly get religion when a real competitor arrives, it smells an awful lot like the closed-market mercantilism for which Korea is deservedly well-known.</p>
<p>If Canada refused to allow the import of Hyundai cars because the ashtrays didn&#8217;t meet some nonsense ashtray-size specification, while not enforcing the ashtray-size rule against other manufacturers &#8212; &#8220;Oops, those were all mistakes&#8221; &#8212; would you be so forgiving?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
