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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13253)	1/30/2006 7:00:47 PM
From: shades	Respond to of 46821

the Dr. Seuss answer(Score:5, Funny) by nekoniku (183821) <justicek@co[ ]st.net ['mca' in gap]> on Monday January 30, @03:52PM (#14601355) (http://www.garageband.com/artist/kimjustice \| Last Journal: Wednesday July 14, @08:50AM) You patent wifi on a plane? I'll patent wifi on a train! I'll patent wifi in a box. I'll patent wifi with a fox! Plane, train, box, fox! Can I patent wifi socks? yro.slashdot.org Boeing Granted Patent On Mobile Wireless Lan Posted by Hemos on Monday January 30, @03:25PM from the yay dept. xoip writes "Boeing Corporation has been granted Patent number 6,990,338 Mobile Wireless Local Area Network and Related Methods. The Luddite Lounge questions the wisdom of granting a patent that leverages existing technology and grants protection based on the application of this technology." The RF characteristics of this wireless network are specifically tailored to meet applicable standards for electromagnetic compatibility with aircraft systems and RF exposure levels for passengers and flight crews." Then they go on to suggest that such a network operate in the 2.4Ghz range. Even a bit later they suggest that it follow a current standard for interoperation (802.11b). Their later calculations show that at standard levels, 802.11b does not currently interfere with equipment currently in use on planes. Basically, this is just a patent of standard WiFi on a moving object, despite their claim that it is "optimized for airplanes." I'd think the patent office would have noticed that -- but then again, I must assume too much. Prior Art!(Score:1) by Plocmstart (718110) on Monday January 30, @03:53PM (#14601364) I claim prior art by previously creating a "mobile" network of wi-fi users. My buddies and I were on a road trip while one of us dialed up via a cellphone and shared the connection via wifi with everyone else in the car that had a laptop (minus the drive of course). While not documented anywhere, I'm sure there are quite a few claims out there of prior art to shoot it down. [ Reply to This ] 1 reply beneath your current threshold. interesting...(Score:2) by blackcoot (124938) on Monday January 30, @04:05PM (#14601504) ... i imagine the dod may have a thing or two to say about this, since wireless networks are a perennial favorite sbir / sttr topic. in fact, i could see some really nasty fallout for boeing from this if they use their patent to stifle small business innovation in the areas that the dod cares about. Re:already exists for trains(Score:2) by xoip (920266) on Monday January 30, @05:07PM (#14602184) (http://ludditelounge.blogspot.com/) What about Point Shot [pointshotwireless.com]? They have systems on trains and buses. [ Reply to This \| Parent ] Prior Art(Score:4, Interesting) by WindBourne (631190) on Monday January 30, @03:42PM (#14601230) (Last Journal: Friday June 24, @01:33PM) Back in 1997, several companies that know did wifi for car travel. Basically, it was being funded by some saudi prince so that the cars would remain in communication. Likewise, a company that worked with in 1998 approached Denver RTD to do wifi on buses. Showed them it, but did not land the contract due to the costs of putting wifi on the light poles. But both of these were prior art.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13253)	1/30/2006 7:58:32 PM
From: tech101	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 46821

Yes, yes, yes !! I have been saying this for more than 5 years. This is definitely a $200 billion broadband scandal and more. The incumbents blocked American people's right to broadband access for so long, and they will continue to do any thing to maintain their monopoly regardless how much they will hurt our people and economy. It is time to let American people know the truth.

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (13253)	1/30/2006 11:04:33 PM
From: shades	Respond to of 46821

marginalrevolution.com Tax fact of the day Have you ever noticed you pay three percent federal excise tax on your phone bill? Some say it's absurd. According to seven federal courts, it's also illegal. But one thing is for sure: America's excise tax on phone service has soaked consumers for more than a century. Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., recently introduced legislation in the House — supported by 98 co-sponsors — aimed at repealing the tax, which was imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. The war was over in six months, but the tax stayed. The general excise tax has so far cost consumers about $300 billion, says the Congressional Research Service. The entire Spanish-American War cost only about $6 billion, adjusted for inflation. Here is the link. Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 21, 2006 at 06:55 AM in History \| Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: typepad.com Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax fact of the day: