Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Someone better tell CLYW Management that if they want the world to be "revolutionized" by their "disruptive" technology, they better start telling them about it!
Don't you think they should have been at the VON this week...
"The VON Events focus on the convergence of the Telecom and Internet Industries. We are the meeting place for the IP Communications Industry...and we focus on the issues effecting the VoIP revolution. While Voice over Packet technologies are covered at the VON events, we are not just about voice."
www.von.com
Not exhibiting, not presenting, not even being talked about...
Yup. Can't buy back now - not today anyway. Let me know when it hits $3 again.
bbaa....
Its on a plane now too!
http://www.silicon.com/networks/wifi/0,39024669,39119585,00.htm
This application uses a staellite feed to the Wi-Fi device.
Free Wi-Fi (lol) - this one will run you $30 per trip (over 6 hrs) - but the Wi-Fi portion is free!
I wonder of qed's Wi-Fi phone would work?
Formulas are correct but....
I get just under 15,000 Wi-Fi Hotspots!
Cell Site:
5580X6 = 33,480 ft radius
33,480 squared = 1,120,910,400
X 3.17 = 3,553,285,900 Sq ft
Wi-Fi Hot spot:
300 squared = 90,000
X 3.17 = 285,300 Sq Ft
Dividing the above numbers and you get 12,455 Wi-Fi stations to cover the 6 Mile radius, but as you point out it is at least 20% more to cover the overlaps - so the number grows to around 14,946.
A little off topic:
Any engineers on this board know (or care to calculate) how many Wi-Fi hotspots it would take to cover the area of a cell site? I have done my own calculation, but I am not sure of its accuracy and am looking for confirmation. Use as a given that the cell site covers a 6 Mile radius and the Hotspot a 300 ft radius.
I know that matching a 6 mile radius cell site foot print is not part of any Wi-Fi hotspots business plan, and that Wi-Max may best compete in this arena, but for arguements sake, what is the number?
qed:
I agree with you about using the technology itslef. The only VOIP I use is a webcam set up through Yahoo IM. Even though its voice quality is sub par, I regularly use it. I will try to find the device you recommended and give it a shot as well.
Regarding Wi-Fi - I have been using Wi-Fi for over 4 years, and use it regularly at my two offices and my wifes 2 studios (4 locations). I have also tried it while traveling in airports and hotels, but honestly I prefer to connect through my 1XRTT phone connection at around 100 Kbps since it is already paid for. I agree Wi-Fi is the greatest thing since sliced bread - but even so, I have not found a company to invest in to profit from Wi-Fi over this time period.
As much as I use Wi-Fi and LOVE it, I believe the world is greatly misinformed about it. There are many people out there who think Wi-Fi can or will provide them free internet access. Wi-Fi is only free if you decribe it as a technology to connect your device to your already paid for internet feed.
I that vain, Wi-Fi "internet" access costs me $60/month at my home, $150/month at my office, and $90/month at each of my wifes studios. It would cost me an additional $20.month to use it at Starbucks, another $19.95 month to use it at T-Mobiles hotspots, another $19.95 a month to use it on Boingos network, etc. etc. This is not "free" internet, nor "free" Voip.
You mentioned that you can't wait to get Wi-Fi and VOIP on your blackberry device. When do you think you may be able to get CLYW's switching technology built in to a blackberry?
Regarding the value of the patent, don't you have to cut your number in half due to the profit sharing arrangement this board recently uncovered?
I'm off to read the data in the links you provided.
(The CNBC segment should be good for another boost in this stock at the end of the April early May).
Of course you are correct Charles - the greater the risk the greater the reward!
As I have said, I am (as we all are) always looking for that great investment and will continue to explore CLYW in that vein - no "secret agenda", nothing as sexy as that. I have no intention to "bash" CLYW nor wish them or any of their investors bad will.
Sorry qed, but I really hope CLYW is all you think it is and that I discover it as well before it is too late.
Until it does become a "sure bet", I will continue to trade it.
qed:
For the sake of all the shareholders, I hope you are correct about me missing the steepest gains. Of course, if I find evidence of legitimacy, I will definitely get back in and try to reap those rewards as well.
You bring up a valid point on skepticism and suspiciousness, and honestly I have to admit I am both. But I do seek to relieve these two symptoms in time to reap more rewards from CLYW stock.
I am skeptical of the need for the technology, which is why I look for industry endorsement, or at least praise for what CLYW has accomplished, and how much the industry needed it.
I am suspicious of the company for the following reasons:
1. They may have exaggerated and certainly misrepresent the "breakthrough" nature of their development (they are not alone in this behavior, but I am suspicious of it. Specifically in stating the "revolutionary" aspect of it, in light of the fact that there are other ways to accomplish the same feat. And in comparing Cell Network data speeds to Wi-Fi speeds as a way to educate the consumer/investor/industry as to how "revolutionary" their discovery is.
2. That they announced the 500 Million Dollar agreement like it was an order.
3. That they announced handset shipments for 1Q-04 and have slid this off to year end.
4. That they repeated identical announcements a few days apart like it was "new" news.
5. That at the two recent industry trade shows (CTIA Wireless and CeBIT 2004) there was no mention or discussion of CLYW's "breakthrough", "industry changing" technology.
Regarding the Metrix report, I am still going to try to get you to admit it was negative. After reading the report again, I have to say it is a gross misrepresentation to get any positive out of it. Keep in mind that the report is on the "Patent" and not the "technology". So the writer sets out to answer the question of how the industry should react to the Patent, not the technology. And the writer concludes that what has been submitted is not enough for the industry to take seriously, but that CLYW could be submitting more substantive patents in the future. The report concludes with "Until Calypso succeeds in doing so, smart wireless companies will be evaluating deals with Calypso based on its technology, not its patent position."
So, this report which evaluates the "patent" says if you are a "smart" company, do not rely on the merits of the patent when considering agreements with CLYW - instead evaluate the "technology" (which is not even touched in this report).
They in no way recommend that "smart" companies "should" evaluate CLYW's technology (implying an endorsement of the technology by the author).
bbaa...
You at least agree that Wi-Fi by itself does not provide Internet access? Wi-Fi is very much like a cordless phone. Clearly without a phone service feeding a cordless phone, the phone would be useless. Same goes for Wi-Fi. So what is the fastest technology out there to feed the Wi-Fi networks with? As you know, it depends on where you are. A very small percentage of households and businesses in the US have access to speeds over 1 Mbps. This is what led me to make the statement that the fastest way to access the Internet through Wi-Fi may be 1XEVDO (given the recent 3 Mbps enhancement).
Here is an example of 3G (1XRTT EVDO specifically) feeding a Wi-Fi network:
http://www.calit2.net/news/2002/4-2-bbus.html
This article is almost 2 years old, and since then, the service is now available throughout all of San Diego, and when Verizon launches nationwide it can be available everywhere 1XEVDO covers. I would gladly replace the DSL modems ($70/month each for under 50 Kbps) which feed two of my Wi-Fi networks w/ 1XRTT-EVDO ($85/month up to 3 Mbps!)
In reference to your cost of spectrum, each technology enhancement on these CDMA networks (CDMA Version A to version B to !XRTT to EVDO) has come with a 1 to 4 fold enhancement to capacity! Verizon does not have (save for New York City) capacity constraints on their networks. If they are acquiring additional spectrum, it is most likely to expand their footprint and replace roaming areas with that of their own.
Even the small (300 ft radius) Wi-Fi hotspots are subject to the same (well, actually worse) capacity constraints as cell sites. With 2 simultaneous users, speed is cut in half. Four users, 1/4 the speed (which is why 11 Mbps is important - until you get 7 or 8 simultaneous users you have not exceeded the bottleneck of your feed - well 4 users with 1XRTT EVDO!)
Have you figured out yet how many of these 300 Ft radius hotspots it would take to match the coverage of a 6 mile radius cell site? Or the cost of putting all these Wi-Fi access points on the Internet?
Why is the spectrum that Wi-Fi operates on free? Well, actually the question should be why was Wi-Fi designed to run on an open (free) frequency? What do you think the effect will be of these "free" frequencies to the quality of service when voice gets involved (I think we all agree that data is not subject to the same quality of service standard as a voice communication). What the heck does all this have to do with CLYW? - (just kidding it IS relevant).
In the interest of full disclosure, I sold me remaining (free) shares today. I now have to refer to "you" shareholders as opposed to "we" shareholders, and I hope "you" all make a bundle. But I may get back in if it goes back to the $3 range.
bbaa...
You got that backwords. The cellular network is feeding the Wi-Fi. Specifically, 1XRTT feeding the Wi-Fi access point. Is this where we got off track?
My original statement was:
"The easiest way to get 3 Mbps through Wi-Fi may be to feed the Wi-Fi access point w/ a 1XEVDO signal!"
qed:
I am skeptical. Sorry if I have ever implied otherwise.
Why am I skeptical? Beacuase I am an investor - and I am performing research and DD on CLYW. Why? Because I want to make money trading their stock.
I did post the the one positive line in the report. Even you have to admit, QED, if you read the report, it was not positive.
I'm really hoping you guys are right and this company is a sleeper. I am trying to become convinced of this. I bought the report because $295 is small potatoes compared to what we could make if this was legitimate. When I make a post like the one about why the industry has not responded, I really hope someone will show me that they have!
If the companies were in talks with CLYW, and waiting for test phones, etc. etc. it would not be kept a secret. Everyone knows what technologies all the 3G providers and cable companies are testing. They tout (and exaggerate) their developments constantly.
"Why would I feed the Wi-Fi access point to the Cellular Network if my Access Points have 10/100BaseT ethernet port? "
What are you plugging your access points into?
The access points I regularly connect to:
My Home Office runs off a cable modem (1.2 Mbps)
My wifes studios run off a DSL modem (under 40 Kbps)
My Corporate Office run off a T1 line (1 Mbps)
My company in Penn. runs off a DSL Modem (under 500 Kbps)
Various airports (i have yet to see a connection over 1 Mbps, but I am told they do exist).
If 1XEVDO can deliver 3 Mbps, then I stick by my statement that the easiest wat to get 3 Mbps through Wi0Fi may be to feed the Wi-Fi access point w/ a 1XEVDO signal.
And you are dead wrong that it is not even possible. It is being done as we speak on live 1XEVDO networks.
bbaa....
The back bone is not the problem and you should know that! The last maile is the issue, and athough you do present some possible solutions to this (Ethernet over Power Line, fiber to the premise) they are not on commercial use yet. When the do get out there and modems deliver in excess of 11 Mbps (so there are no bottlenecks), I believe the best way to reach devices within 300 ft of the access point is:
Hard Wire
Wi-Fi
Bluetooth
in that order.
Beyond 300 Ft from the access point I believe the following will be the best:
EVDV
1XEVDO
WCDMA
1XRTT
EDGE
GPRS
in that order.
Some of your other questions:
Also why would these carriers is slowly moving to VOIP??? Why is softswitches are becoming more popular???Which will end up cheaper when expansion comes into play Wi-Fi/Bluetooth or Cellular Network???
I believe the cell network will be cheaper.
Which one of these networks is easy to maintain???
I believe the cell network is easier to maintain.
It all boils down to cost...Mike...the lower the cost the higher the revenue...
I agree. Have you seen a cost comparison of the cell stations 5 mile radius to the cost of covering the same radius w/ Wi-Fi access points? Have you included CLYW's patent fees in your cost analysis?
C'mon Mike..it's pretty obvoius where the trend heading...
Agreed (we mean 3G right?)
I disagree with the comparison of 1XEVDO speed to Wi-Fi speeds. (I always have argued this comparison as invalid).
It it is kind of like saying that while the cable can deliver 1.5 Mbps to your household, the Cat5 cable running from the modem to your computer can deliver 700Mbps! So what! You don't get 700 Mbps on your desktop now do you?
The difference is that 1XEVDO can deliver 3 Mbps to the device. Wi-Fi only gets you 11 - 56 Mbps between a device and a modem (cable, DSL, T1, T3), and the question then is what speed does the modem offer?
The easiest way to get 3 Mbps through Wi-Fi may be to feed the Wi-Fi access point w/ a 1XEVDO signal!
Comparing 3G to Wi-Fi speeds is not an apples to apples comparison.
It would be fairer to compare Wi-Fi to bluetooth, and Cat5 Cable, or other technologies that deliver a signal 0 to 300 feet.
Compare 1XRTT EVDO to EVDV to W-CDMA to EDGE, to Cable Modem's to DSL, to dial up, to T1's and T3's, Wi-Max and Satellite feeds - all technologies that could feed the above category (though some bypass the need to re-feed the device by delivering directly to it).
nlightn:
The one thing I find strange (and suspicious) is the lack of industry response to CLYW's claims.
IF the patent is as revolutionary and industry disruptive as CLYW claims, then how come no one has commented on it? Shouldn't the cable companies, wireless carriers and phone manufacturers be thanking CLYW for the discovery and confirming the market need? Why is every one else so quite? This is not normal activity for an industry faced with a revolutionary discovery.
I read the non response as one of two scenarios:
The Bull S**t scenario:
There is no legitimacy to the patent and/or there are plentiful work arounds, and therefore the cable and telecommunications companies just don't care or need ASNAP.
The Holy S**t scenario:
They are completely blind sided by the patent, and it will be so costly for them to pay the royalties that they are frantically finding a way to fight the patent in court.
Although it is possible, I have a hard time believing that the industry(s) has been blind sided by the patent. If they have been, then we have a winner here.
- Skepitical Mike
Agreed and understood. But you do not take capacity from the cell site (voice or data) unless you "connect" and make a call and/or use the data channel. A device can be using the local Wi-Fi connection, and be "seen" by the cell site w/out taking away capacity from the cell site. The point being, there is no need to "turn off" access to the cellular network.
Also of some concern to CLYW should be the announcement this week by QCOM of the enhancement to 1X EV-DO getting speeds up to 3Mbps. It is important because most Wi-Fi networks are bottlenecked at the modem (DSL, Cable, T1, T3 Modem). So in reality, most Wi-Fi users get well below 1 Mbps, depending of course on the feed, and how many users are on the hot spot.
So, 1X EVDO which is being nationally deployed by Verizon this year (2004), will be able to offer up to 3 Mbps to the devices.
I would still want a Wi-Fi/ Cellular device, but this does take away some of the need.
Qed:
"But this is the whole point: Telecoms want you to get of their cell phone network to ease traffic and you want that too -- to save expensive air time."
But you only take up capacity on the network if a call is placed. So you can keep the cell network on, and use Wi-Fi w/out harming the cell network. There is no need for the device to turn the cell side "off".
Looking forward to your review of the Ericcson patent. Also, the report uses the Ericcson patent of an example of the important patents not cited, not the only or primary one. The gist is if the Patent Office didn't consider one as similar as Ericcsons, than a thorough review could not have been done.
The author is not cited on the report I received, only the issuer - Metrix Services, Inc., 14252 Culver Dr., 914, Irvine, CA 92604 714.368.9753
The only positive comments are that they feel it is likely that Calypso has continuation applications within which they can engage the Patent Office, cite more material references, and obtain the issuance of additional, stronger patents.
Until this is done, they feel it premature for any wireless industry player to enter into licensing arrangements with Calypso if they are doing so solely on the strength of the Patent.
I suspect they make money selling the report to the industry, not to investors.
They clearly did a thorough review of the patent - they just don't conclude that what has been done is enough to warrant concern - but they do keep the door open for future review if add on Patents get issued.
What is you analysis of the Ericcson Patent?
final4:
(and I paraphrase...)
The report specifically states that Calypso did not introduce, and the Patent Office did not consider, critical references in the prosecution process. It implys that therefore Calypso’s patent is vulnerable to arguments that the Patent Office erroneously issued the patent without first considering the full scope of public knowledge.
It references that the novelty of Calypso’s claimed invention was evaluated against twelve issued patents. It says this is a relatively small number, and that the twelve patents did not include a highly material reference, Ericsson Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,598,459, entitled “Authentication and handover methods and systems for radio personal communications”, which issued on January 28, 1997, over three years before the ‘923 Patent was filed. They report that this Patent describes the automated handover of a cell phone from a macro network (such as conventional cellular or satellite systems) to a local network (such as a base station for a handset or base stations connected to ISDN fiber links or cable television) based on whether the phone has entered into the local network’s coverage area. The report awknowledges that there are differences between the two Patents, butthat some of the disclosures in the ‘459 Patent are sufficiently similar to warrant questioning the validity of Calypso’s broadest claims.
Yes I purchased the report. Not too technical. Not very positive on the enforceablitiy of the patent.
IF you were to use this analysis as the sole basis of wether to buy/sell CLYW, you would certainly want to sell.
I'm not familiar w/ the copyright laws, so this is my version of the reports conclusion:
The report concludes something to the effect of although the patent was adequately drafted and the claims are broad enough to arguably capture a major form of automatic switching from IP networks to cellular, the patent application was not subjected to a sufficiently rigorous review by the Patent Office and, therefore, should not be assigned the kind of enforcement weight required to build a patent licensing-based business. The report goes on to say "If Calypso is depending on the ‘923 patent to generate revenue or force the adoption of its technology, it may find it difficult to convince established industry players that, in its broadest form, the patent is worth respecting."
Data_Rox -
Been in and out of Calypso a couple of times already but I want in again. (bought at 3.2, sold at 4.4 the next day, in again at 2.85 and out the same day at 3.2) I think it will fluctuate a lot, and I intend on playing it up and down.
I dabbled into to IDCC this week as well. I think this one may a pop a bit as well.
KrisCo -
Thanks for the analysis. Sounds like you know your stuff.
You wrote "To the extent that Itronix offers product that incorporate other Network Media Types (like cellular) they are operating outside their patent and are infringing on Calypso’s US Patent 6680923..."
The article states "Both notebook and Tablet PC users can simultaneously operate up to three integrated wireless radios, including Bluetooth, 802.11 wireless LAN technology, and cellular technologies such as GPRS and CDMA "
So...does this infringe? It implies cellular as one of the three radios?
"I have been trying to envision a system and method that does not do the above"
Kris:
What about the HP device I refered to? It says the unit can simultaniously be connected to up to 3 media types.
So you are connected to say, the 3G network. When you get w/in range of Wi-Fi, the unit connects to this as well. (so you now are conected to 3G and Wi-Fi). You then get to your office, and pick up the Bluetooth signal as well (so you now have 3G, Wi-Fi and Blutooth online). As you leave the office, the divice drops blutooth, then drops Wi-Fi as you leave the area, maintaing the 3G connection as you drive away.
Did you seamlessly roam or not?
nlighn:
Of course, if this thing hits, the payoff would be tremendous, which is why there is so much risk involved.
But securing and enforcing the patent, which may or may not happen, and will clearly be drawn out over the next 2 - 5 years, is what CLYW needs to do to make a bundle.
We, as shareholders, do not need to wait this long, nor take this risk. We simply need to follow the story, try to get the heads up through DD on new press releases (good and back), and trade on the ups and downs. By the time the patent issue is cleared up (positive or negative) we could be up many times more than the stock appreciatation.
One thing for sure - this will continue to be a roller coaster ride.
OK - not seamless roaming. But tell me this - if you are simultaniously connected to Wi-Fi, Cellular, and Bluetooth on one device, why do you need to roam from one to the other?
Both sides should do whatever they agreed to do. that is the fair way.
You seem to think IDCC has developed a lot of these patents - in fact they purchased them (the ones related to CDMA). If they collect more royalties than the original plan, do you believe they should pass those profits on to the actual developer of the technology?
To steal one of your annoying responses....
Read it again S L O W L Y!
The press release (By HP, for HP, w/ HP, all HP) mentions the devices ability to seamlessly roam between Wi-Fi and cellular networks - ring any bells? Are they paying us a royalty yet? Don't you think we should stop them from selling these products if they infringe on our patent? Or does our patent not cover "all" ways of seamlessly roaming between Wi-Fi, Cellular, and bluetooth networks, but rather "A" way?
If Wi-Max is everything they imply it will be, no one will need ASNAP or CLYW's technology. But...rest easy....like all other new technologies, its (WiMax) capabilities are being significantly exagerated in these press releases. It is part of the "war with words" that needs to take place absent real world applications. We (CLYW shareholders) have benifited from this tactic as well.
"Seamless roaming" and no mention of CLYW?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/pcworld/20040318/tc_pcworld/115267
This will turn around again when there is news. Anyone out there hearing anything? They key will be to buy just before an announcement (any announcement!)
This stock wil go up when there is attention drawn to it.
IDCC is a much better parellel to this company than QCOM. IDCC story still not completed, but during the process they have made themselves and investors a lot of money. Investors will buy on good news (or percieved good) and sell on bad news (or perceived bad) and there will be plenty of both w/ CLYW.
I had to light'n up this AM in the face of the DD I performed over the weekend supported by comments from this board.
I took your approach, nlightn, and left the profit only on the table. Fortunately the stock opened w/ strength, allowing me to do so.
Hype can certainly keep this stock moving, and I hope it does. But sooner or later, reality will creep in (the later the better).
IF any big player says they do not need or will not use the patent, there will be no buyers, and this stock will plummet to $1.00.
Wireless industry intellectually challenged
By Wireless Watch
Posted: 08/03/2004 at 12:40 GMT
(rn- from John H on SI, then from Qualcomm on IH)
The Register Mobile: Find out what the fuss is about. Take the two week trial today.
Analysis The wireless industry has reached that stage where intellectual property issues threaten to overshadow real technology debates. Too many bright start-ups, many facing shake-out and failing to gain significant market presence through effective sales, are turning instead to their patent portfolios and the 'Qualcomm model' of deriving revenue from other companies' licensing fees.
Actions range from the ludicrous - T-Mobile seeking to patent the word 'hotspot' - to the sweeping: Nomadix patenting the splash page mechanism that WISPs employ to redirect users to a log-in page. Last week, Calypso joined the crowd, seeking to enforce a newly-granted patent surrounding Wi-Fi/cellular roaming.
Via attempts to unify Wi-Fi patents
Now Via Licensing is aiming to bring together patent holders in a unified system that will streamline the process of licensing Wi-Fi technology and collecting royalties, but there are fears that such a move could increase prices in the extremely cost-sensitive WLan market.
Via, a subsidiary of Dolby Laboratories, formed similar groups for the MPEG 2, MPEG 4 and H.264 consumer electronics standards. It says an 802.11 program would bring together organisations with patents considered essential to the Wi-Fi standards, and these as-yet unnamed companies will meet for the first time on 14 April in Tokyo.
The objective is to cut down on destructive lawsuits between competing holders of 802.11-related patents, such as those between Proxim and Symbol, Agere and Intersil, and Standard Microsystems and Wayport.
Of course, the success of such a initiative would depend on most of the key patent holders agreeing to join. The main carrot is lower litigation costs, since the group will provide a one-stop shop for patent licenses, saving the holder having to get protection from each vendor individually.
For vendors, such a system reduces the fear of being sued when they launch products. This fear is very real and can be a make-or-break factor for a smaller supplier in the increasingly low margin wireless market - especially as more and more companies seek to build a Qualcomm-style revenue stream.
Calypso's claims
The latest to enter the fray is Calypso, with its new patent on a technology for roaming between cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth networks. There are no details yet of how Calypso's patented technology, which is included in its own ASNAP platform, differs from the host of other seamless roaming solutions being developed by large and small suppliers.
Calypso claims it enables users' mobile devices automatically to connect to the fastest or cheapest available network though it is targeting its products not at end users but at carriers that have cellular systems and hotspots, allowing them to offload capacity from one to the other.
Calypso is best known for its cellular/Wi-Fi videophone, the C1250i. It also plans a handset that uses television cable as backhaul for voice over Wi-Fi services, giving cable TV operators a new source of revenue. The C1250i, and its accompanying video-optimised access points, use its ASNAP technology, which supports real time video at 20Mbps.
The company believes it has achieved the holy grail of the patent holder - the ability to go after the biggest names, with a strong enough case to encourage them to dig into their deep pockets for licensing fees, not lawyers. It has named Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia as vendors infringing on its patent and aims to start chasing them soon.
However, other companies offer alternative roaming mechanisms - Birdstep is one that claims its technology does not use any Calypso IP - and so some suppliers may decide to get round Calypso by adopting a different platform. Birdstep says its approach is based on mobile IP, as standardised by the IETF eight years ago.
The risks of patent chasing
In other words, Calypso is taking a huge risk, one probably borne out of a need for quick revenue. Its videophone and other technologies, while attracting some interest - notably in China - have failed to secure significant operator support as yet and the market for roaming is fledgeling. But in the quest for cashflow the company risks alienating large vendors and driving them towards other technologies.
Few companies ever got rich on patents alone. UltraWideBand pioneer Pulse~Link, which has a wide collection of patents surrounding long distance UWB, expects to make revenue from this IP but is convinced that it could not make a strong business without launching products too.
Qualcomm itself would not have a successful business model were it to drop its actual chips and rely just on its CDMA portfolio, and it does not just license patents but adds significant value to its licensing program in the shape of know-how and methods, which only come through real experience of a market.
Patent law may exist to encourage innovation by protecting inventors' rights, but it can often have the opposite effect, embroiling companies in expensive and bitter - and often frivolous - legal battles to the detriment of their real business. We have seen Synchrologic, the strongest of the enterprise wireless middleware independents, being acquired by rival Pumatech as a direct result of losing a patent lawsuit.
Research in Motion has frittered piles of cash and shareholder value on a string of lawsuits, both suing competitors such as Good and being sued by the intellectual property company NTP, which has no products at all but subsists entirely on licensing fees associated with a collection of patents (but which could, conceivably, put RIM and its much-loved products out of business).
Of course, it is important to defend IP from theft. But too often, companies are fending off rivals in the courts because they have been unable effectively to do it on the open market, with the old-fashioned techniques of strong product development, robust channels to market and good marketing. Such battles raise prices and postpone, rather than avoid, shake-out and may even lead to the 'wrong' players - from the user's point of view - surviving.
© Copyright 2004 Wireless Watch
Regarding Monet -
This is really too bad. I read a report (on the closing) that mentioned how well the service operated, how low churn has been and how strong the growth has been. The kicker (I believe) is in the cost to run the network, devoted purely to data. It is just too expensive (projecting to BE in 2007 at current growth rate). They had financing lined up, but then the VZW nationwide 1X EV-DO announcement (the company does not attribute the shut down to VZW but rather the lack of capital - which coincidentally pulled out after the VZW announcement). Monet will never be able to compete w/ VZW on a cost per user basis, which means just as they begin to breakeven, their customer base will likely decline (as users switch to VZW) and cost will go up, and my guess is this scared off the potential investors.
They were a pioneer though, and they did us (QCOM) a great service on proving out the technology and market demand for 1X EV-DO.
Thank You Monet for the sacrafice.
They have a valuable asset, and I think the current investors (including QCOM) will likely get their money back - perhaps an asset sale to Verizon?
"Are you saying ALL CDMA,WCDMA makers are QCOM licensee's"
Yes, they are. The only exception being trial equipment and networks, which do not need a license until they go commercial.
Read it again.
Must have missed it again also. What do you want me to see?
You wrote:
"You say 2 Mbps is a bottleneck ?
For Who ? Calypso offers up to 11 Mbps.
Way ahead of the game, for growth"
No they don't. But their press releases do imply so, which is one of my points.
What ASNAP offers is a way of roaming between cellular and Wi-Fi networks. So the user will get whatever speed is availabe on the cellular, or Wi-Fi network (offered to them by the carrier, not Calypso).
Wi-Fi offers 11 Mbps from the device (phone) to the access point (ASNAP technology is installed into these two devices). Whatever feeds the access point (so long as it is below 11 Mbps) will determine the actual speed of the network (if the feed is greater than 11 Mbps, then this would be the users speed).
I use Wi-Fi everywhere. At my home, my actual connection (through 11 Mbps Wi-Fi) is around 800 Kbps. At my wifes studio the same 11 Mbps Wi-Fi gets me 130 Kbps. At work my 11 Mbps Wi-Fi gets me 2 Mbps. At the airports, my 11 Mbps Wi-Fi connection gets me around 500 Kbps - same as most T-Mobile sites. That is beacause all these access points are fed by Cable Modems, T-1 Lines, DSL, Cellular, or even dial up in some scenerios!
You also wrote:
"The Hypothesis is 'Ease Of Use' and 'Set Up'
for now and into the future, without Retooling.
The Premise is the use of - A S N A P (TM)."
Again, not true. You need to replace all phones (PDA's, or other connected devices) and all access points for this to work. Granted, not every user and not every carrier and not every Wi-Fi location has to use ASNAP. But for this to be "revoultionary" and turning the industry upside down as is implied in the press relases, I think they do.
My research into CLYW and ASNAP has been from a "skeptical" angle - but every new tidbit I pull up on the company or its technology has worked to confirm my suspicions.
Kris:
The patent is important IF the technology is needed.
The main reason for using Wi-Fi to augment cellular bandwidth is data, not voice. CDMA networks do not have capacity, coverage or speed issues with regard to voice. I suspect they will run into capacity and speed issues for data transfer, however, which is why one would want to roam to a Wi-Fi network. (of course, the speed is greatly exaggerated by the industry, and relayed to us by Calypso. 11 Mbps is the speed at which a device can communicate with the Access Point. What is the access point connected to? DSL and Cable run around 130Kbps - 2 Mbps, which would be the bottleneck)
So I believe that ASNAP is valuable for data, and marginally so for voice (not that I wouldn't take the voice if it were offered to me!)
But this brings me to my next point, which is since I believe it is more important for data, then how important is the "seamlesss' aspect of transferring from cellular to Wi-Fi?
T-Mobile has been selling a card that runs on their cell network and Wi-Fi. Do they need to pay Calypso? I think the answer is only if they choose to use Calypso's technology, which they are not yet (at least not commercially). If they are not using it yet and users are currently using both the cellular and Wi-Fi networks for their data, then what is the "revolutionary" need?
Regarding phones, as I read the ASNAP description, it would appear that you need to own a Calypso phone for it to work on the Wi-Fi network (or manufacturers would have to license and install a Calypso Chip in their phones to make this work).
I would imaging if it needed to be implemented like this, (an additional chip or circuitry) then it will not be available on all models, and not required by all users, making it a niche application (far from "revolutionary).
This is in line with what I am refering to: (Lifted from the Register.com article a couple of posts back)
"No doubt a user-friendly (or at least friendlier solution could be reached without violating the patent. We imagine a small piece of software that checks for Wi-Fi first and then if that isn't available (or a preferred hotspot isn't available), switches to cellular data. It may not provide hands-free switching like Calypso's system, but once a preferred hotspot has been identified, it would be fairly seamless and out of the way, just like the Wi-Fi selector on desktop OSes."
There will likely be (or already are) solutions that do not need to use this patent. FWIW, Seamless roaming is only important for voice services. Data services are regularrly interupted and re-routed w/out the user ever knowing.