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 : Aware, Inc. - Hot or cold IPO? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael F. Donadio who wrote (6197)	4/30/1999 1:47:00 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9236

Intellectual Property It is claimed that DMT is heavily patented and enclosed in a thicket of intellectual property. In fact, the situation of both DMT and CAP is remarkably similar. The principle difference is that DMT is documented in a standard, open forum, and independent vendors can use this to design compatible systems. The fundamental technology and research underlying DMT is in the public domain. There are several implementation aspects and specific techniques documented within the ANSI standard that are proprietary to particular companies (as in most technologies). In this case - as part of being a standard - the companies have agreed to license them on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. In many cases, it is alternatively comparatively simple to use similar techniques with equivalent performance that are non-proprietary. Similarly, there are a number of patents (owned by, amongst others, AT&T, Lucent, Globespan and Paradyne) on CAP implementations. However, the fact that all the details for DMT are publicly available in a document encourages independent developers. Several developers (including Alcatel, ADI/Aware, Orckit and Pairgain) have -completely independently- designed systems designed to the T1.413 specification. In contrast, CAP has been a proprietary and ‘closed' architecture; confirmed by the fact that not a single alternative supplier has delivered an open-market alternative. aware.com; Now I see you have a Phd...me too, my Post Hole Digger is kept in the barn. Anyway...As for G.Lite, you may be making an assumption which is incorrect. G.Lite is a splitterless application of ADSL. Aware calls it DSL Lite.... "Aware pioneered the development of a variant of ADSL known as DSL-Lite or G.lite. DSL-Lite technology delivers data transmission speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps downstream and up to 512 kbps upstream. The significance of Aware's splitterless DSL-Lite technology, which is DMT based, is that it has been designed for easy, low-cost deployment and removes the need for a voice-data splitter at every user site. The elimination of the voice-data splitter solves a major deployment bottleneck, the telephone company truck-roll, thereby helping to speed the deployment of DSL services. DSL-Lite is the technology that will enable an integrated PC modem solution for high-speed Internet access over existing phone lines." aware.com As for TI/Amati claiming infringement against Aware I don't think so myself. The reasons are in the License agreements, ITU standards activity by all parties, the UAWG activity and so forth. All of that has muted the TI claim to a point it is moot...IMHO. And my friend's too. <g> I do agree with you on the worst case resulting in cross licensing. If you study Amati and Aware you may find that while Amati was out flaunting their ADSL technology...at least some of Aware's technology was in use by the Navy for Submarine underwater communications.