One phone is the 4.7-inch Titan — the largest-screen Windows Phone device yet — while the Radar is a 3.8-inch device crafted from a single piece of aluminum.

The Radar has a 1 gigahertz Qualcomm processor and a 5 megapixel rear camera, while the Titan sports a 1.5GHz chip and an 8 megapixel rear camera.

With the announcement, Microsoft VP Joe Belfiore said he can now confirm that Mango supports the additional front-facing camera, something about which Microsoft had been cagey.

“A lot of you have asked us whether Mango will support front-facing cameras — and now that these HTC phones have been formally announced, I can confirm officially that Mango does support these,” Belfiore wrote in a blog post. The post mentions video chat as among the features, but doesn’t specifically mention Skype, which Microsoft is in the process of acquiring.

Fujitsu-Toshiba has already launched a waterproof Windows Phone Mango device in Japan, while Nokia is also basing its first Windows Phone on the Mango software release.

Among the features being added with the update are improved browsing, better multitasking and integrated Twitter support. Microsoft finalized the software update in July.

The brief was actually filed back in June, and I found a better, watermark-free copy of it here on the Web site of the Winklevoss lawyers. Last night I took the time to read it in full, and it was surprisingly not boring.

Perhaps the most revelatory thing in the Facebook filing is that Facebook’s lawyers seem to be having fun with the case. Their writing is laden with imagery and over-the-top exasperation with the Winklevii’s allegedly poorly formed legal arguments. Here’s the dramatic intro to the brief:

This appeal arises from the settlement of rancorous litigation on two coasts. On one side were Appellees Facebook, Inc. and its founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. On the other side were the Appellants, who founded a failing competitor of Facebook’s called ConnectU. The CU Founders claimed that they had the idea for Facebook first, and Facebook stole their idea. Facebook denied those claims and, for its part, accused ConnectU and its Founders of unlawfully infiltrating its systems, stealing millions of email addresses, and then spamming them. During a global mediation, the parties signed a “Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement.” In the interest of achieving litigation peace, Facebook agreed to purchase ConnectU for [redacted] dollars and [redacted] shares of Facebook stock, one of the hottest startups in the world. Surrounded by a bevy of lawyers, the CU Founders signed the deal. Then they suffered a bout of settlers’ remorse. They ask this Court to relieve them of the deal they struck to plunge back into scorched-earth litigation.

Besides the writing, the other thing that’s interesting is the information about the terms of the relationship between Facebook and ConnectU. While the story has been simplified into a Hollywood-style betrayal as portrayed in “The Social Network,” the outcome of Zuckerberg and the Winklevii’s legal mediation is much less widely reported.

As part of its settlement with the Winklevoss twins, Facebook agreed to acquire their social network ConnectU (which they eventually did find someone to build), and has been “operating” it since Dec. 2008, the filing says (the site itself is offline).

Facebook contends that this earlier agreement to buy ConnectU was final, while the Winklevii are calling it a draft (their co-founder Divya Narendra has publicly said he’s moved past the Zuckerberg vendetta, though he’s mentioned in the filings as well).

The settlement came after closed-door professional mediation in February 2008. Facebook says it’s outraged that the Winklevii and their lawyers are bringing conversations from mediation back into the appeal, because all involved were sworn to confidentiality.

(You can also read the ConnectU appeal brief for the case to which Facebook was responding. However the bits from the mediation that were supposed to be confidential have been blacked out.)

But after the settlement, ConnectU came back to the table asking for its share to be revalued. It had originally negotiated using a publicly reported valuation from when Microsoft invested in Facebook, rather than an internal valuation from around the same time that would have priced the shares much lower ($8.88 versus $35.90). A revaluation of the shares to a smaller amount would give the twins a larger stake in the company.

And also, the Winklevii wanted the transaction to be labeled a merger instead of an acquisition so they could avoid paying some taxes on it.

Facebook replied in the June brief, again in remarkably florid fashion:

“First, the CU Founders try to leave this Court with the impression that the only valuation figure they knew was the $15 billion figure from the Microsoft press release, and that they, therefore, had reason to enshrine it as gospel. They also portray the one 409A valuation on which they rely here as some seismic event in the life of the company, as if an unexpected bolt of lightning from on high emblazoned $8.88 onto a couple of tablets. Both the impressions are false.”

Facebook, by the way, to add insult to injury, says the internal valuation of its shares at the time of the Microsoft investment was actually even lower than the Winklevoss lawyers are arguing: Six days before the Microsoft transaction, Facebook had filed a document valuing employee stock options at just $6.61.

The attorney who signed the Facebook brief is Monte Cooper of Orrick, an intellectual property specialist. I hope he also writes novels in his spare time.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

The site, OMGICU, encourages visitors to send their celebrity sightings, and Mr. Morgan is its most-seen subject. Its founder, Hugh Dornbush, on Tuesday created a second site, Twacy.org, to convince the comedian to get to tweeting.

Mr. Morgan “is someone who just really resonates with people, and his sense of humor and his sensibilities are so well-suited to the medium,” Mr. Dornbush said. “Once you put it on their radar, it’s been pretty easy to find people who say, ‘I would rather be living in a world where Tracy Morgan is sharing his day to day life with us.’”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Today, things are different. Many parents buy cellphones for their preteen children to keep in touch and as a safety measure. Teens have the luxury of their own cellphones that some parents won’t even know how to use.

But cellphones introduce a host of problems. Parents have no way of knowing with whom their children are talking or text messaging, nor do they know what is being said in these calls or in text messages typed in abbreviated slang. Digital photos and videos can be captured and sent from one phone to another in seconds, and smart phones with Web-browsing capabilities bring the Internet and instant messaging to kids wherever they are.

Mobile alerts, which can be received via email or text message, are useful for on-the-go parents.

This week, I tested a new software application called Radar that can be wirelessly downloaded onto a kid’s cellphone to digitally monitor the phone’s activities, including incoming or outgoing calls, emails and text and photo messages. Alerts are sent notifying parents of any contact with unapproved people.

Radar comes from eAgency Inc., Newport Beach, Calif., and is geared toward 8- to 14-year-olds. Though Radar doesn’t yet work on the most basic cellphones and has limitations, including not notifying parents when a child uses a phone for Web browsing or instant messaging, eAgency says these improvements and others are in the works for future versions. Overall, Radar performed well and was user-friendly enough for tech-shy parents.

The company charges a monthly fee of $10 for one user or $15 for a family, which enables monitoring of up to five accounts. There’s no limit to the number of people who are alerted to a phone’s activities, as they don’t need to download Radar. Instead, notifications are sent via text message and/or email to a parent’s mobile device; they’re also collected on a Web site where all activities are listed together.

EAgency is careful to note that its software application isn’t spyware, lurking in the background of the device without making itself known. In fact, whenever the child’s phone is turned on, a message says it’s being monitored by Radar. This message also appears on the phone once daily.

For now, Radar only works on all BlackBerrys regardless of carrier, and eAgency has a deal on its www.MyMobileWatchdog.com site that can get BlackBerry Pearls free of charge for certain customers. But many parents’ kids already have basic cellphones or don’t want their kid to have a BlackBerry. In roughly a month, Radar will work with devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Mobile software, though this doesn’t help much, as these devices function more like BlackBerrys. Radar will be available for regular cellphones, like Motorola’s Razr, by mid-September.

I tested the product using a BlackBerry Pearl as the kid’s device and an LG Chocolate phone as the parent’s device that would get alerts of phone activity. To get Radar running on the Pearl, I sent a text message with a download link in it from the company Web site, and loaded the application onto the BlackBerry in a few seconds.

I used the Pearl as anyone might, adding names, numbers and emails of new friends and contacts that I wanted stored in my BlackBerry. I also used it to make and receive calls, and to send and receive emails and text messages. Every time any of these activities took place with an unapproved person, the parent phone was notified within seconds, as was my account on Radar’s Web site and the email addresses that I set up with my account.

Unknown people are automatically considered unapproved until you go onto the Radar Web site to change their status in your account. I accessed this account on MyMobileWatchdog.com with a username and password. EAgency asks that you call the number on its Web site the first time you set up a Radar account so that it can walk you through how the software application works with your child’s phone.

The account home page on Radar’s Web site is a clean space, organized using tabs at the top and six shortcuts in the center of the screen, including “Alerts,” which shows a comprehensive list of all the alerts.

Alert notifications are simple, stating who did what, when it was done, and what the message or call involved, such as the content of a text message or the documented length of a phone conversation. Radar won’t record phone conversations. Mobile alerts can be received via email (on a smart phone) or text message (on a regular cellphone or smart phone).

After using Radar for a few days, I realized some text message alerts were truncated due to the SMS standard that limits messages to 160 characters. So though your child might send a message with 100 characters in it, your alert might contain only 90 of those because characters are used up by notifications such as, “Katie has received an unauthorized text message from…”

Radar’s Web site offers a text message abbreviation dictionary so you can decipher what your kid is actually saying when he or she types “JTLYK” (just to let you know).

During testing my BlackBerry Pearl received an MMS, or Multimedia Message Service, containing a digital photo. My parent phone and email account were notified through a message with a link to this photo.

Alerts are also generated whenever a child adds a new contact to his or her device. A list of the most recent contacts added to the child’s device conveniently appears on the Radar account home page. By marking someone as “Approved,” a parent agrees not to be notified of contact between that person and the child. People marked as “Unapproved” and “Suspicious” will generate alert notifications.

Reports documenting your child’s interaction with specific people over certain time periods via text, email or voice calls can be generated at the click of a button. These reports can be printed out or digitally exported from Radar’s site using Internet Explorer as your browser.

For $10 or $15 monthly, Radar might be worth a try, especially with very young kids. But until Radar is available for the phones most popular with kids, parents will have to continue with their tried and true methods of keeping track of their kids’ phone use.

Edited by Walter S. Mossberg

• Email: MossbergSolution@wsj.com