"how do you know that the agreement included video"
I don't, but I thought that Texrat's oblique post implied that it did. As always, he seems to know what's up. And, btw, I didn't mean to say that a lawsuit would be necessary. I would think that the threat might be enough, or merely a reminder that the agreement hasn't been followed.
Even if the agreement was to include video, and that was not fulfilled, I would not even start with a threat of a lawsuit. That's a surefire way to sour future relations. There are myriad ways to handle such issues along with the way they're communicated to customers... but if I go any farther I'm in risky territory.
There is a "damned if you do...." kind of vibe going on here. If Nokia had developed a proprietary machine, everyone would now be complaining about how it was not open. But since they went with an open OS and applications, everyone complains that they just are not doing enough, or not holding Skype's feet to the fire.
Since Skype only released a linux version with video recently, I think it is a bit much to expect that Nokia should have leverage to force a video version for the IT. As far as suing Skype for not providing software...how do you know that the agreement included video? I would say that Skype delivered a good bit--we can use their software on the IT...yes, video would be nice, but you still can make Skype calls on the tablet.
Great wrap up ! Personally I couldn't care less about Skype and/or video calls. In its latest OS2008 implementation, Nokia's SIP stack finally works with my ISP's VoIP service... which comes bundled with my DSL line, and gives me free unlimited calls to 70 countries (including mine :-).
