SiliconInvestor
     Advanced Search   [ sign in ]

sponsor
Sponsor

 Technology Stocks | Wi-LAN Inc. (T.WIN)

Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: P2V who wrote (12069)1/26/2008 10:51:32 AM
From: data_rox   of 16289
 
oldfaatek - was that his comment or your comment that 802.11 standards have nothing to do with fhss? wasn't fhss one of the original 3 PHYs accepted along with dsss and infrared?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: data_rox who wrote (12070)1/26/2008 11:52:32 AM
From: P2V   of 16289
 
Correct, my statement was too broad in THAT respect...

However,the dispute is over the implementation of the patented W-OFDM PHY in Wi-Fi & Wi-Max type 2-way radio systems ... And
in particular .... (802.11x) and (802.16x) implementations..

Clearly.. Frequency Hopping versions of the 802.11 standard
have NOTHING to do with them.

In summary .... the pre-standards FH argument is garbage.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: P2V who wrote (12069)1/26/2008 3:59:49 PM
From: axial   of 16289
 
Mardy, if I recall (and please correct me if I'm wrong) Wi-LAN either withdrew - or did not make - a Letter Of Assurance on 802.11b. Remember? Whereas, on 802.11a, Wi-LAN did provide IEEE with such assurances.

Is that right, or am I having a "Senior Moment"?

Jim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: axial who wrote (12072)1/26/2008 10:09:46 PM
From: WIN 1   of 16289
 
I believe the letters can be found here:

standards.ieee.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: axial who wrote (12072)1/26/2008 10:49:40 PM
From: P2V   of 16289
 
As I recall also, they made and withdrew the 11b.
And yep, re 11a.

And, 11g is essentially 11a & 11b in a multi-mode configuration... at frequencies lower than the original
11a idea.

Please CHECK INBOX, Jim.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: WIN 11/27/2008 9:28:41 PM
   of 16289
 
So I guess the primary defence being promoted by the defendants is that WIN withdrew their LOA improperly and then reinstated it when the standard was approved.

Well I say, SO WHAT my friends, sh*t happens!

While I have no legal background, my take is that the collective defence of those responding represents no real threat to WIN's case and claims.

There is a great deal of work to be done but I would bet that there are many high level settlements in the works which will translate imo into a significantly higher stock price for us all.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: WIN 1 who wrote (12075)1/27/2008 10:02:08 PM
From: Sleeperz   of 16289
 
WiLan withdrew inclusion in the draft 802.11b of its IP on multicode tech, but stated that its IPs are necessary for the implementation of devices incorporating the draft standard.


After using the patents and figuring they were useful. The infringers just want WiLan to join the standard to get the patents for next to nothing.



standards.ieee.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: WIN 11/28/2008 8:13:29 PM
   of 16289
 
I was curious about the accusations some defendants have cast against WIN re the LOA's etc and the tangent dialogue that occurred at the 1998 802.11 working group meetings. Well I tried to find the record of those meetings, in particular the November 1998 meeting in Albuquerqe NM. Interestingly the minutes of this meeting are not present in the November slot on the IEEE website page for such. Instead the September minutes are repeated as they were reported in the prior month of October. Any thought on this?

ieee802.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: WIN 11/28/2008 9:32:33 PM
   of 16289
 
BTW the minutes on the July meeting in La Jolla also are from September. Hmmmm.

Also more defences filed today, Intel and others. Using the same defence basically, claiming laches, estoppel and the bait and switch tactic by WIN in the LOA's.

Same law firm it seems is representing a number of the defendants and has apparently cooked up this all encompassing defence with help from one or more parties who were part of the 802.11 working group imo.

Now I think I read somewhere that a Cisco guy who was part of the working group is now a WIN shareholder, confirming that WIN's patents are fundamental.

But fundamental does not necessarily mean that WIN legally executed it's responsibilities as a patent holder to a IEEE
standard does it?

Well that's about all this amateur sleuth has to say about this case, tonight.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: WIN 11/28/2008 9:57:46 PM
   of 16289
 
Wow. Check this out. Has anyone seen this before?

secinfo.com 

Section 3.01(f)
In September 2000, Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) approached the Company with respect to Wi-LAN’s United States Patent No. 5,282,222 and Canadian Patent No. 2,064,975. Wi-LAN alleges any user or manufacturer of wideband OFDM products, particularly those in compliance with the IEEE 802.11(a) standard should take these patents into account. The Company researched the issues related to Wi-LAN’s offer, including the validity and breadth of the above-mentioned patents’ claims, and has determined no license is needed to commercialize the Atheros products or to implement the IEEE802.11(a) standard. In sum, the Company strongly believes that there is no merit to Wi-LAN’s allegations and no need to license the above-mentioned patents.

___________________________________________________________
Hope this finds its way into evidence. Sort of refutes the laches argument, no?




Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.