SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Nokia (NOK)
NOK 6.835-1.1%Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (8601)12/20/2000 7:16:37 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander  Read Replies (2) of 34857
 
The difference between CDMA and GSM is not that big
in terms of direct demodulation and modulation,
GSM need to function over a larger range of
levels, more channels, narrower band, 0.8,1.8,1.9Ghz
carrier frequency, while WCDMA must go up to 2-3GHz.

In both cases it is a matter of picking out a
couple of Mhz bandwidth from an 1-2Ghz carrier
with enough linearity not to cause crossmodulation
between other bands and within the band itself.

That is, almost nothing to do with the type of
modulation, CDMA or FDMA.

If anything, as I tried to point out, CDMA is
easier as the same information exists on
a wider band, more nonlinearity is allowed,
although GSM isn't that bad either after the
neighbouring channels are taken care of.

(this changes for both when going GSM->EDGE and
from 2-4QAM to 8,16,etc QAM in CDMA, same thing)

Lower carrier frequencies need to cope with
existing much high power, slightly out of band
AM,FM,TV,etc carriers, higher carrier frequencies
slightly different as they are less occupied with
high power signals (except if operated close to
some other 2-3GHz equipment and one doesn't
demand too much)

I thought the couple of pages of references to
similar patents as well as the 140 claims of
one of the patents mentioned in the Q-thread
was enlightning of how old a thing this is.

But as always one can easily make a detailed enough
patent in the 140th claim on anything, I'm especially
fond of using new definitions like "under sampling"
and "delay" to mechanisms that always have been
used.

Another sure thing is to patent a very specific
circuit diagram, although that is usually refered to as
copyright among authors, composers and other
entertainers.

But maybe Q has come up with a new feature of a normal
transistor?? (or a new transistor?? not just a new
abbreviation like ZIF)

However, I thought the limitation of moving vibrator
patents for pagers to mobile phones was historically
important, although there might be some not yet known
device one still can patent a vibrating action for??

Ilmarinen.

P.S. Maybe I could patent "Ilmarinen" with both a
vibrating I and spelled backwards with ZIF modulation??
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext