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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (8601)	12/20/2000 6:53:05 PM
From: Kent Rattey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

All his posts are obvious FUD.

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (8601)	12/20/2000 7:16:37 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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??