Regina Porter most recently signed for the "iSlate" trademark for Slate Computing this past August—showing Apple's continued with "slate" beyond its initial registration for iSlate.com and the "iSlate" trademark in 2006. In Europe, a law firm Apple typically uses to register trademarks has also filed for major domains containing "iSlate," while another they use has filed for a trademark on ISlate in the European Union, registered to a corporation in Trinidad & Tobago, a country Apple's used to register European trademarks before, including for the iPhone.

Curiously, another trademark registered by Slate Computing in the US is "Magic Slate," which follows the same naming convention as Magic Mouse, obviously. MacRumors wonders if it might be something like a multitouch trackpad for computers, like with a screen (which we've wanted for a long time).

Whatever's going on, Apple's obviously gone through a lot of work to discreetly register a whole lot of "slate" stuff, which seems like a ton of effort for nothing, or simply a ruse to throw people off. It's funny, actually, that everybody "knew" what the iPhone was going to be called years before Steve Jobs took the stage to announce it, but no one really knows the tablet's name. I've always figured that, whatever it is, it'll have just two syllables. iSlate fits the bill. And for now, it's the only one with any evidence. [MacRumors, TechCrunch]

What we know: islate.com was registered to Apple in 2007, through an intermediary (to disguise its true owner). At the moment, that domain doesn't seem to lead anywhere—and there are a couple explanations. First, Apple bought it as a protective measure, to stop anyone else from using that "i" prefix with that particular word. Second, Apple had or has plans for either a product or a project by that name. Third, it's the tablet. Or fourth, it's Apple's take on Slate.com (sample headline: Why I Hate Christmas Presents). Maybe we'll find out just what that means in January, when the tablet is rumored to be announced. [MacRumors]

Apparently this batch of patent applications is for a dynamic surface which can "create physical bumps or dots for the user to feel when it is in keyboard mode." In theory, such a surface would allow you to orient your fingers better on the touchscreen for typing, but never interfere with other actions.

As usual, this is yet another neat tease about the lovely tablet which will fit into my handbag one day. Let's just hope it's soon though, because all the rumors, speculation, and gossip are starting to drive me nuts. [Apple Insider]

I don't even want to speculate what about this tablet makes Steve so happy or about what will be so surprising about interacting with it. I just want to interact with one. Period. [NY Times]

The first possibility—and the one that could put a welcome end to the endless fragments of tablet information that we've been parsing for the last few months (fuck that, years)—is that this is some kind of public demo. Apple's iPod and iPhone events have been dominated by apps since the App Store opened, sometime to a fault. If Apple's going to announce this thing, they're going to have app support.

The second possibility—the more likely one—is that this will be a closed demo; that it's some kind of private event to give app developers a heads-up before a public announcement, and presumably to comfort them about app interoperability between the iPhone and the new tablet device. According to SIA's source:

[Apple has] told select developers that as long as they build their apps to support full screen resolution — rather than a fixed 320x480 — their apps should run just fine

Essentially, it sounds like they're asking app devs to write quick'n'dirty fixes to remove specific resolution limits from their apps, so that they can run—though not necessarily gracefully—on a larger screen. That's the kind of thing that could put developers' interoperability fears at rest, but not the kind of thing that Apple would want to show the public.

The source claims the device isn't going on sale until later, which fits nicely with the WSJ's claim of a March release date, which falls roughly in sync with announcement-but-no-product Apple events of the past. Also, the source claims that the entire Apple tablet concept is a sick prank by Steve Jobs, and that he literally hasn't stopped laughing for, like, three whole years. [Silicon Alley Insider]

They claim that the new CMOS image sensors are 5 megapixels. OmniVision Technologies say the orders will increase too, from 20-21 million estimated this year, to 40 to 45 million CMOS for the 2010. [Digitimes]

Reporting on a White House and NASA meeting last Wednesday, sources say that the President has decided to give NASA an additional $1 billion in 2011. The extra funding will serve to create a new, simpler heavy lift rocket, as well as to increase the fleet of satellites controlling Earth's land, oceans, and atmosphere.

The objective is to have the heavy rocket ready for a 2018 launch, while Europe, Japan, and Canada would develop a lunar lander and moon base modules with their own billions. While this may make some NASA fans sad—after the US single-handely arrived to the Moon—I'm convinced that the collaboration with other countries is the only way to move forward in manned space exploration.

I mean, the Klingons will be here any minute, people! Let's get on with the program. And where the fuck is Kirk? [Science Magazine]

The WSJ says that Apple's plan for iTunes TV show subscriptions would have you pay a monthly fee for "access to some TV shows from a selection" of major networks, and that CBS and Disney are the two most seriously thinking about it. CBS would apparently offer up shows from both CBS and the CW, like Gossip Girl, while Disney would be offering up shows from ABC, ABC Family and the Disney Channel. What's interesting is that the networks could actually make more money per subscriber than they do from cable companies, with broadcast networks picking up $2-$4 per subscriber, and cable networks grabbing $1-$2. (Which has to piss cable companies off, no doubt why networks are treading carefully around this proposal.) Originally, Apple had floated something more like a traditional cable payment, like paying $30 a month for a big bundle of TV stuff.

All of this, of course, would fit into Apple's larger plan to remake the iTunes model with Lala, and Apple hopes to launch the service sometime next year. While the way Apple says songs and TV shows now would stick around according to the Journal, the combination of web-and-streaming-oriented music and TV subscriptions fundamentally changes the way iTunes would work.

Oh, and of course, this is all happening as Apple "finalizes its plans for a tablet device," Apple's trying to launch "by the end of March." Interesting, that's what an analyst heard not too long ago. Killing cable and up-ending the publishing industry in one fell swoop? That's a pretty busy 2010. [WSJ]

No word yet on exactly what drove Yelp to back down, but there are really just two main possibilities here:

• Yelp was uneasy with whatever Google's plans for their company were. Given that Google already has a Yelp-like service in Google Places, there was a good chance that their plans would've involved cannibalizing Yelp for review data, or at least subordinating the brand for something more Googly.

• Yelp got a better offer, or at least the sense that they could get a better offer. Not that many tech companies could offer more than $550m for something as ephemeral and low-revenue as Yelp, but of the ones that could, nearly all—Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Aol—are locked in one war or another with Google. Even if their plans were never firm, there are a lot of powerful companies with a vested interest in Google's local reviews staying somewhat lame.

So Yelp will keep Yelping, just as it has been Yelping for the history of Yelp, for the foreseeable Yelp. Let us know if you hear anything else. [TechCrunch]

Sure, you may've already downloaded an early Chrome OS build on your current machine, but unless you want it to be your sole platform, and running just the way Google intended, then you'll need to buy the official hardware. Acer's stated its intent to be first with a product release, presumably at the tail-end of next year, but ASUS, HP, Lenovo and Toshiba are also involved in the Chrome OS project too.

A "request for proposal" has already been issued to potential suppliers, such as those mentioned above, supposedly listing the specifications Google would like to see in that first netbook. Google is believed to be working with just the one manufacturer, to build the ideal netbook. TechCrunch's sources are claiming they'll be 3G-embedded, and quite possibly subsidized by a carrier.

Michael Arrington, editorializing at this point, goes on to say that:

"I'd be willing to bet one of our writers' right hands that it's ARM [as opposed to an Intel Atom processor]. And I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that they may very well be targeting Nvidia's Tegra line."

Adobe, Freescale, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments are the other parties already working with on the Google Chrome OS project, so presumably the netbook will contain some components from them as well.

So, which company do we think Google will choose in this all-important talent show? Acer, ASUS, HP, Lenovo or Toshiba, or even someone else? ASUS obviously has strong heritage with netbooks, thanks to inventing the market for it back in 2007, but Acer launched the first Android-powered netbook. HP, Lenovo and Toshiba have all produced some solid netbooks in their time, but haven't quite measured up to Acer and ASUS' success just yet. [TechCrunch]

Earlier today we got a tip from reader whose buddy was one of the selected recipients of Google's Nexus One Android phone. Google has admitted to "dogfooding" a phone—that is, testing it on its employees—so we expected reports like this. What we didn't expect, though, was his friend's response:

Two problems, however: first, the phone is GSM only, so he's not happy about that. Second, this phone is HIS BONUS for this year. His usual bonus is $1K in cash, taxes paid by Google.

SO according to him the phone is just going to sit, unused, in a drawer in his apartment. Hoo...ray?

Complaining about getting a free phone might seem sour at this proud time in our nation's economic history, but if you're accustomed to getting cash—you know, money, that you can spend on things you might need—instead of a niche smartphone that you probably can't even use properly on your carrier, I can understand the bitterness. And what kind of Googler doesn't already have a smartphone? Didn't they all get Android handsets back in 2008, when Google pulled a nearly identical bonus stunt with the HTC Dream? People loved that! —Thanks, AndPreciousLittleofThat!

A January release date sounds reasonable based on what we know about the phone so far, and the information gleaned from the FCC details also makes T-Mobile a potential carrier, should Google take that route. A $199 subsidized price seems like the standard we are seeing elsewhere.

What I really want to know is how much this thing will cost without a contract. [HTC Source via Android and Me via ABC—Thanks, Steven!]

Which is what matters at this point, really. The WSJ continues to insist it'll be sold "directly to consumers" (emphasis mine) and Google will "market" it, so let's assume it isn't just a dev or template phone, but a genuine consumer play. Even with Google's enormous weight, a $600—or even $400—unlocked phone does face some harsh realities, even if it does send a strong kind message as The Google Phone. If Google subsidizes it themselves, though, making it actually affordable in a "we just want everybody to use the internet (and therefore, Google)" kind of play, it'd be as huge as everybody panting about it says it would be. If not, well, you know.

Sprint saying they'd support this business model is interesting, BTW—my guess at this point, is that Verizon said no because it likes being deeply involved in, and tied to, the phones on its network. In Verizon's world, it's all about the network, not the phones, so it's easy to see where being reduced to a mere contract service wouldn't sit well with its sense of self.

Still curious, though, are these two bits, that "Google focused more on designing a phone in the past year, one person familiar with its efforts said, as the company battled to get some partners to accept its software" and that "Google designed virtually the entire software experience behind the phone, from the applications that run on it to the look and feel of each screen, they added." 'Cause, uh, haven't they designed the experience and applications on every stock Android phone? And it's weirder still, cause Engadget's close-up photos show 2.1, which, on the face of it, looks a whole lot like 2.0, just with a few new interface elements (more desktops displayed using a webOS card-like interface above, and 3D flourishes). The only thing "more Google-y" is that it comes with Goggles by default. So, um, "huh," I say to the WSJ.

We keep hearing first quarter of next year is when Google's loosing this thing, so even if Google's brilliant plan—a sekrit phone in the hands of a thousand people—holds tight, we'll know soon enough what's really going on here. [WSJ, Engadget]

Google isn't saying much, but the way the post ends with "We hope to share more after our dogfood diet" suggests that there's something coming. It's much more coy than their usual outright denials (by the way, Google, what about those?).

TechCrunch is reporting that the mystical Google Phone is indeed the HTC Passion we saw leaked a few weeks ago (pictured above). Our sources are calling it the Passion, too. Update: Now the Wall Street Journal is calling it the Nexus One.

Update: TmoNews is also saying that the device will be sold directly by Google, but supported by T-Mobile at launch. No word on if T-Mobile will be the exclusive carrier.

Everything keeps lining up. Judging by how fast this news is coming, I wouldn't be surprised if this thing pops up in the wild soon. [Official Google Blog via TechCrunch, TmoNews, thanks Travis]

Update 2: Google speaks!

Update: We're hearing from our sources that it's the HTC Passion. We're not sure if it's the same Passion we saw a few weeks ago, but we're on the lookout for pics.

Assuming this isn't some sort of coordinated Twitter joke (trust me, it happens), here are the details we can extract:

• It's running Android 2.1 on HTC hardware (the Passion, see above)
• It should be coming out in January
• Employees were given unlocked versions
• "It's beautiful," "a sexy beast."

No one grabbed any concrete hardware details, but hopefully those are the next to come around. Great White Snark elaborated on his original tweet in the comments over at TechCrunch:

Yeah, it's a hot, sexy mess. And I mean that in a good way. Similar form-factor to the iPhone, but with a smooth-brushed-metal-looking shell instead of a glossy one. And perhaps a smidgen lighter.

Super fast, speech-to-text in EVERY app, awesome "live wallpapers" in the background that respond to touch in really beautiful ways. Like water ripples that emanate out from a touch.

Confirmation, or mass hysteria? It's confirmed, see above. Whatever it is, we'll be on the lookout for more details. [TechCrunch]

You won't need software anymore to buy songs from iTunes. iTunes will just be on the web—you'll be able to buy and listen directly, through search engines or other sites, much like you can with Lala now. Or if you're not familiar with it, think about the way Amazon is embedded on the internet, and imagine that for music, through iTunes. It's a kind of ubiquity would make the biggest music store in the world even more influential and intractable, a fact that's not lost on record labels.

It's an uprooting of the entire iTunes model: Not only would you buy songs and manage your iTunes library through the web, iTunes could shift to having a serious streaming component, away from "download to own," as Apple's been evaluating the impact of Pandora and Lala on iTunes, though the WSJ is more tentative on this point.

Also, you may very well be able to put your music in the cloud. Essentially, you would own right to listen to the song anytime and anywhere, not just the digital file you downloaded. There's also a chance that Apple will use Lala's ability to scan your current music library, match it up with the files on their servers, and give you access to the songs you already own anywhere via its servers.

Two mildly tangential points: Lala Chairman Bill Nguyen appears to be heavily involved in the new effort, making joint calls to the labels with Apple's Eddie Cue, indicating it's a classic Apple tech-and-brains acquisition, and the WSJ backs up the previously rumored $80 million pricepoint, saying Apple paid $85 million for Lala.

This whole iTunes revamp could happen as early as next year, although there's expected to be some pushback from a music industry already cowed by Apple's strength. But Cupertino's been keeping the major labels on life support for so long, there's just not much they can do about it. [WSJ]

The editor of Mobile Review, which has no track record on Apple rumors, is claiming Foxconn has just received an order for the next generation of iPhones. Foxconn, as you know, makes the iPhone for Apple, so that's not exactly big news.

Now the question is: Does this mean we are going to see an earlier release of the next iPhone? Or is it going to be June, like always? [Twitter via UberGizmo]

The new trademark covers the iPod and "portable and handheld digital electronic devices." Of course, this trademark renewal could just an obligatory update to the old one, but Seth Weintraub at 9-to-5 claims that there have been lots of talk about Think Different at TBWA Chiat's MediaArtsLab. Nothing solid yet, but lots of rumbling and rambling.

I sure hope so. I'm tired of all the on-your-face Hello-I'm-a-Mac ads, and I would love Apple to get an inspiring short up there. Because that's what the Think Different campaign was: Inspiring, especially in a moment in which Apple was about to fall into oblivion. Watching it still makes my eyes all glassy. Maybe to warm up towards the launch of the mythical Apple Tablet, which after all is all about thinking differently. [Patently Apple via 9-to-5]

He says that Apple is offering 30/70 revenue split to book publishers. That's 30% for Apple, and 70% for publishers for a non-exclusive distribution contract. Amazon—who apparently has pissed off everyone in the book industry—only offers 30/70 for exclusives, and 50/50 for the rest. He claims that the Apple device will make "ebooks more relevant for education by simplifying functions such as scribbling marginalia."

As for the specs, he claims the same screen technology of the iPhone but in a 10.1-inch size, ironbarring the concept of a super-expensive OLED display—which I always thought was absolutely stupid.

Fine, Mr. Reiner, your predictions seem reasonable. But I reserve the right to ironbar you myself if they don't become true. [AppleInsider]