more on re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Patrick Sinz <ps () ethiqa com>
Date: November 29, 2006 11:59:01 AM EST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
Reply-To: ps () ethiqa com

This illustrate why "RAND" licenses are not acceptable within standards.
The W3 consortium is very right in refusing these "compromise".

BTW if this "escalate", it could potentially throw wifi connections  
out for Free Software
platforms.
Unless the licensing is "imbedded" with the hardware there will be no  
way to collect the fees in a
Free environment.
And since it is quite possible that the licenses will be linked to  
the firmware: we might well be
in bad shape.
It might have an interesting effect on "open WRT" kind of efforts.

Cheers
    [ps]

--- David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: November 28, 2006 6:29:07 PM EST
> To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
> Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com
>
> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Mark Laubach.  DLH]
>
> From: Mark Laubach <laubach () inconvenient net>
> Date: November 28, 2006 10:11:23 AM PST
> To: dewayne () warpspeed com, "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne-
> net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
>
> I did a little checking through and old grapevine.  CSIRO and/or
> Radiata apparently did the right notifications with the IEEE standards
> group at the proper time back then.  Which is, filing a statement
> with the IEEE which commits to licensing on a "non discriminatory
> basis" and for "reasonable terms".  This is required practice with
> the IEEE for moving a draft to standard status.  (This could be the
> evidence that was mentioned....[?])
>
> Having said that.  My own personal guess is that companies here
> in the U.S. decided to try to ignore the Auzzie patent holder with
> respect to obtaining a license for a reasonable fee.
>
> Therefore nothing sinister or a "threat".  This is just normal  
> business
> of a known patent holder with known licensing terms whacking someone
> else to pay attention.
>
> Mark
>
> > At 12:50 AM -0800 11/21/06, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
> > [Note:  This comment comes from reader Robert Berger.  DLH]
> >
> > From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger () ibd com>
> > Date: November 20, 2006 9:38:54 PM PST
> > To: dewayne () warpspeed com
> > Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
> >
> >
> > On Nov 20, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
> >
> > The judge in the case issued a summary judgment, which indicates
> > the court is wholly convinced by the evidence, to the point where
> > there are no questions of fact. In general, a summary judgment is
> > rare in patent disputes.
> >
> > it would be nice to know why the Judge said that. It seems very
> > rare for this to happen. Does anyone know if this Judge is
> > particularly cluefull or not? According to the article its for some
> > basic OFDM tech, but that's all that mentions. Couldn't we get
> > CSIRO and WiLan to fight each other to their mutual death over OFDM?
> >
> > By the way, I believe that CSIRO (the entity that is claiming
> > infringement) was the entity that spun out  the early 802.11a
> > chipmaker Radiata which was purchased by Cisco in 2002 or so. WiLan
> > has been going around suing people over OFDM since at least that
> > long ago.
> >
> > Also like the following line in the original article not in the
> > snippet:
> >
> > Furniss said he doesn't expect CSIRO to sue everyone using the
> > 802.11a, 802.11g and eventually the 802.11n technology. In fact,
> > CSIRO is focusing only on obtaining licensing fees from equipment
> > makers, such as Netgear and Microsoft, and not chipmakers, such as
> > Broadcom, Intel or Atheros. He claims the chips themselves don't
> > infringe on the patents; it's only when the technology is used in a
> > specific device.
> > How could it not infringe in the chip but it does in devices that
> > use the chip if the "infringing" tech is baked into the chip only?
> > Sounds like a patent troll's approach to me...
> >
> > Patents need significant regrooving. They have become so not what
> > the founding fathers had in mind when they hardwired them into the
> > constitution....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as ps () ethiqa com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/


--------------------------
Tel: +33 672 99 11 59


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/