Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (5758)	10/30/1999 1:05:00 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi, Peter - Your answer is extremely helpful. For many of us, the questions go beyond the specifics of IPR's on the IEEE front, but also to the ITU jurisdiction. In both areas, the phrase concerning licensing on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" recurs. My question - Given the swamp of R+D preceding each application, is the pattern of licensing decisions often clear-cut on one side's favor, or is it more often a decision to apportion some to each, in effect, cross-licensing agreements? With respect to WOFDM, my understanding of that nascent technology is that the basic research was done in the early 90's, but the actual implementation awaited an increase in processing power thru DSP's. On the DSSS front, with regard to Wi-LAN's application to the ITU - biz.yahoo.com patents.ibm.com Not asking you to make a judgement here, but, if you can, to give us an understanding of how these things typically evolve. My thanks for any insight you can give us. Best, Jim Kayne

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (5758)	10/30/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Hi Peter, Thanks for the illumination. Your posts are very much appreciated here. I have one question regarding the 802.11a and b standards. I was under the impression that 11a covered the Wi-Lan OFDM patents and that the 11b section pertained to the work of other vendors. Am I mistaken about this? Reason I ask, is that I saw an article in the EETimes recently, penned by Loring Wirbel, and he mentioned that Wi-Lan had claims on the 11b section as well. I had thought not. Can you clarify? TIA Ciao, Ray Duray