IP: RE: UWB Player Compromises To Move Forward

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Steve Stroh.  Both good 
> questions!  To provide some perspective on this, look back to the spread 
> spectrum (SS) rulemaking of twenty years ago.  The debate and issues were 
> quite similar to UWB.  At that time in order to get a R&O out the door, 
> some compromises were made.  We got the SS rules and now, twenty years 
> later, we have an industry and devices that no one then could have 
> predicted.  What I'm saying is that compromises in and of themselves are 
> not necessarily bad things.  However, that being said, one does wonder 
> what things would have been like now if the original SS proposal of the 
> Commission had been adopted.  One thing that I'm pretty sure of though is 
> that in this case, if too much is given away to get some UWB rulemaking 
> out the door, that you're quite correct that the action will shift to some 
> other place in the world.  Time and technology march on....   DLH]
>
> At 20:48 -0800 1/29/02, Steve Stroh wrote:
> > From: "Steve Stroh" <steve () strohpub com>
> > To: <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> > Subject: RE: UWB Player Compromises To Move Forward
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:48:17 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> >
> >
> > Dewayne:
> >
> > If, as Xtreme Spectrum proposes, UWB can only emerge "above 4.2 GHz", will
> > it be the case that most of the unique characteristics of UWB, such as good
> > building penetration, have been rendered moot?
> >
> > If WECA's proposal to expand the license-exempt 5 GHz band from 300 MHz to
> > 555 MHz finds some support, that would seem to preempt a lot of the market
> > proposed for consumer UWB devices (other than imaging).
> >
> > Bill Gates and Andy Grove once had a public discussion about their
> > "partnership" in the PC business. When the interviewer asked if Microsoft
> > and Intel had differences of opinion, Grove mentioned an Intel technology
> > that Microsoft didn't approve as one case of friction between the two
> > companies. Gates tried to spin Intel's eventual withdrawal of the technology
> > as it being an inferior product. Grove's response was refreshingly direct,
> > something to the effect of (delivered emphatically) "No. We caved."
> >
> > XtremeSpectrum caved, perhaps to try to salvage something of their
> > investment by currying a higher likelihood of approval for UWB above 4.2
> > GHz. I think it likely if the UWB decision is as XtremeSpectrum proposes,
> > UWB patent portfolios will begin making the rounds of in other countries
> > capable of bringing UWB consumer products to market.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/