So what happened to the issue of the “Smart Phone Guard” being a RIPOFF and not truly original? I know it has been a year but I’m just curious, were they disqualified at all knowing that they broke the rules (at least to my understanding)?

If they weren’t disqualified, then that’s just a proof on how we Filipinos solve our problems: WE REALLY DON’T!!! I mean pinalilipas lang ang mga isyu at usapan pero in the end wala pa rin aksyon.

I’m not saying that their application is useless. It’s just that it wasn’t original or innovative.

I hope that Max, one of the judges in the said competition, can give us a light on this issue.

I’m glad to have browsed your page. The reason is that I thought nobody cares about this Smart/PhoneGuard issue. Like the others, I also noticed the striking similarity between the PhoneGuard idea and the Guardian(by symbian-toys) idea. As a subscriber, I tried to notify Smart, being the organizer of the contest. As of today, I haven’t received news about the issue except that they are looking into it.

In my opinion, if I may, it is important that the contestants write an original code for the application. However, it is equally important for them to make sure that the idea of their entry is an “innovation”. I think that it should be their responsibility to exhaust reasonable effort to make sure of that. How hard is it to browse the net for applications already available for symbian operated phones?

I think not only the reputation of the winners,organizer and judges is at stake here. Now that Mr. Bellino, and maybe other foreigners in the field of ICT, is aware of the issue, the reputation of the country is somehow at stake. Just imagine if Smart would adopt the PhoneGuard as a standard feature of their service. Wouldn’t that be embarassing for us Filipinos?

It’s been some time since the issue was brought to the attention of Smart. I wonder what happened to their inquiry. I mean, how long does it take to compare codes? If there is already a result, shouldn’t they inform the public in the same manner as when they announced the winners.

Again, the above are just my opinion. Thanks and more power to you!

You have a point regarding the codes, if the said application were the same from the original application, no amount of explanations needed but if the application was coded differently, you have a point also in looking unto whether the students copied the features, ideas and concepts of an existing application. If all this inquiries will result in innovation was based on existing application then should we accept that all applications will be based on ideas already existed? and should we also accept that concepts of one people can be the concept of the other?

As we are awaiting for the results… I have some questions and thoughts…

First, the innovation awards:
1. If the innovation award was based on existing application and they can encode it with their own codes without seeing the original codes then we should not be here.
2. If the innovation award was based on existing ideas, concepts of other people and they can encode it with their own codes without seeing the original codes then we should not be here also.
3. If the innovation award was based on features already on hand, and the so called “innovation” is like adapting new or adding new features but the main idea, concept, feature was based on other people’s idea, concept, feature and they can encode it with their own codes without seeing the original codes then we should not be here in the first place.
4. If the innovation award was erroneously tag by television networks as an “invention” why they haven’t ask or initiated to correct it?

If all this inquiries was based on this, and reacting to a news reports erroneously tagging the winner of the innovation awards as the creator of an “invention” by television networks and they haven’t done anything to correct it, then we should give all credits to the students and apologize for interpreting the informations available made by the organizer (the Competition Handbook) and the news organization.

Second, about the innovation awards’ rules:
1. Who created the rules?
2. Who set the rules?
3. Who should implement the rules?
4. Who should interpret the rules?
5. Can it be interpreted differently?
6. Can it be interpreted based on facts not by their own opinions?
7. Can it be interpreted based on references acceptable to all not by their own personal opinions?
8. Can it be interpreted based on the general rules of procedure not on bias opinions?

Hope we can find answers to these questions…

For the benefit of the public, I have asked the permission of Marco Bellino to republish his comment:

Hello webwires,

Guardian is not open-source, so I can’t provide you the source (c++ not java). That guys haven’t stolen the Guardian’s code, they took the Guardian concept/idea and wrote a new software (a clone) providing the same Guardian’s features (AntiTheft with Remote Control). They invented nothing. They just stolen mine original idea making their own clone. For sure, there isn’t nothing innovative in their clone.

Regards, Marco.

Again, we just want the truth and settle this queries as soon as possible.

I’m the official Guardian developer.
I’ve received many emails about this contest and the claimed “invention”.

First Guardian Beta (with remote control features) was released on 25/Mar/2005 about 2 years ago on some Italian newsgroups and forums

And the final version is available since 1/Feb/2006 on official website http://www.symbian-toys.com/

I haven’t any other words, of course, I’m really not much happy today.
Regards, Marco.

I think it is still important to look into how the programs were coded. Why? If the application submitted was a copy, with minor modifications, then the issue is settled. No amount of explanation from the students will suffice.

But what if the application was coded differently? We now then should look into whether the students copied the features of an existing application. Just to put things in perspective, though, the features of the application were proposed last October. As you said, an existing one already had the same features and it was already available two years ago.

Smart is looking into it. I prefer to wait until I get the official result of their investigation to comment on it. I want to know whether the application or idea was copied. Has Smart contacted you? Do send me an update if you have one.

What really gets my goat is that I had planned to blog about the finalists before the actual event itself. I though of trying to get as many comments as I can from readers by writing about the applications here. I also searched using keywords related to the features (not the name of the application) but I only stopped at the first page of the result because I have a lot of offline tasks. I went into “judging mode” when I was already in Manila for the event.

Guardian application by Symbian Toys is a freeware…

According to the… http://www.webopedia.com: Freeware is a copyrighted software given away for free by the author. Although it is available for free, the author retains the copyright, which means that you cannot do anything with it that is not expressly allowed by the author. Usually, the author allows people to use the software, but not sell it.

and also

According to the… whatis.techtarget.com: Freeware is Freeware (not to be confused with free software) is programming that is offered at no cost and is a common class of small applications available for downloading and use in most operating systems. Because it may be copyrighted, you may or may not be able to reuse it in programming you are developing. The least restrictive “no-cost” programs are uncopyrighted programs that are in the public domain. When reusing public domain software in your own programs, it’s good to know the history of the program so that you can be sure it really is in the public domain. Free software, a somewhat newer and unrelated concept, is software that can be freely used, modified, and redistributed with only one restriction: any redistributed version of the software must be distributed with the original terms of free use, modification, and distribution (known as copyleft). The definition of free software is stipulated as part of the GNU project and by the Free Software Foundation. Unlike freeware, free software may be distributed for a fee. Freeware is liable to be more limited in capability than free software.