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: Bernard Levy who wrote (5775)	10/31/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

Bernard, Peter, Hatim - Those of us who are untrained in this field have literally been thirsting for this discourse. Simply put, I (and others) have been unable to properly evaluate Wi-LAN's technology. My lack of knowledge and expertise has resulted the view that it's "a wash" when comparing VOFDM and WOFDM. One expects the wireless market to be segmented among several players and no one is suggesting for a minute that Wi-LAN has "bad" technology. (Disclosure: I have a substantial investment in Wi-LAN). I'm not even sure, in the end, whether the question of IPR's will measureably affect the progress of any of the companies involved. But this discussion lies at the heart of the purpose of these boards, and I thank you all for engaging in it. Best to all, Jim Kayne

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (5775)	11/1/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: Hatim Zaghloul	Respond to of 12823

Bernard, I do not know if you are familiar with the patent dates. Our patent is earlier than the first DMT patent. Our solution for the peak to average problem is the one adopted in the IEEE802.11a (I remind everyone that Wi-LAN did not develop the standard and only had one submission to it relating to the forward error correction). Also, I am not certain that DMT had any intentions of being wideband. We gave a number of definitions of wideband in our patent. These definitions include: 1. if bandwidth occupied is wide enough that the propagation channel is frequency selective meaning different subchannels are subjected to different channel characteristics, or 2. if the subchannels are far enough apart from each other that an implementation can be made without discrete (rf hardware) carrier recovery. As you must know, I cannot carry this debate much further since, ultimately, this is what courts are for. Hatim