The Washington Post reports that “[a] Canadian company has developed new technology to capitalize on that impatience [of spammers] to cut the volume of unwanted e-mail messages flooding the Internet.” More specifically, “MailChannels of Vancouver […] found that by forcing e-mail programs to wait a few seconds before being allowed to communicate with Internet servers handling the recipients’ incoming mail, most spammers give up and move on.”
According to FT.com, “China’s ZTE and Datang Mobile appear poised to win an early lead over international rivals in the supply of equipment for wireless networks based on the Beijing-backed TD-SCDMA ‘third generation’ standard for mobile telecommunications. An industry association and local media said yesterday that ZTE and Datang would between them supply more than four-fifths of 3G base station equipment to be used by China Mobile, the country’s dominant wireless operator, for ‘trial’ TD-SCDMA networks in eight cities.”
In more censorship news, the Washington Times writes that “[t]he Thai government continued its Internet crackdown by ordering one of the country’s most-popular chat sites to shut its political forum because of postings deemed insulting to the monarch.”
BBC News has an update on the U.S. WTO complaint against China, saying that “China has criticised the US over its decision to file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization over copyright piracy and counterfeiting.” In response, American officials have pointed out that “despite China’s promises to crackdown on fake software, DVDs, luxury goods, car parts and shoes, many of the goods were still widely available throughout the country.”
SFGate.com reports that “[a] group headed by a former state Supreme Court justice is planning a legal challenge to the millions of dollars in tax breaks used to lure Google Inc. to Caldwell County.” According to Bob Orr, executive of the group and Republican gubernatorial candidate, “[t][he provision is illegal because it gave special treatment to one company, ‘which would seem to run counter to the fact that there be uniformity in the tax law.’”