IMO the Ericsson Patent has only limited value and cannot do much damage to Calypso’s patent.
As mentioned in post #390, both technologies and patents can peacefully exist next to each other. Neither one can terminate the other as both teach completely different methods.
One of Calypso’s patent claims is that a phone can connect and disconnect to a local area network (LAN) such as Wi-Fi when the phone device gets within a certain, pre-determined distance of the LAN base station. Once the connection is established the cell phone network is disconnected.
The Ericsson patent establishes a connection to a LAN through authentication of the base station. The idea behind Ericsson’s patent is to create a combined cell/cordless phone (cellular terminal) that will work on the cellular network (wide area cellular network) as well as your cordless phone network at home (which is also a LAN just like Wi-Fi). So for example if your wife makes a phone call on her new Ericsson cell/cordless phone on her way home, the cell/cordless phone will detect the home network and send authentication messages to the base station as soon as she gets within the network range of the cordless phone base station. After a successful authentication the connection to the cordless phone network will be established.
The patent explains in great length and detail how the detection, authentication challenge, response transfer and network initiation process works. However, no claim mentions if or how the connection to the cellular network is disconnected after initiating a connection to the LAN, this is only mentioned in the Description section. Problem is that someone can only infringe on the claims of a patent, but not on what’s written anywhere else. But let’s give Ericsson the benefit of the doubt and consider that they didn’t mention disconnection as it might be such a standard feature in network switching that it is not patentable and not even worth mentioning.
Another concern is that the connection to the WAN is only established by the detection and authorization process – no other parameters such as getting within a certain distance to the base station will could have an impact. This means that the connection to the LAN will be established as soon as it is detected, no matter what the quality of the connection is. We all are familiar with what a cordless phone sounds like when you are too far away from the base station. Ericsson’s technology would initiate the switching process no matter how week the signal is.
Calypso’s patent and technology has the leg up when it comes to disconnection and determination of when you want your phone to switch. Anybody who wants use pre-determined parameters such as distance to the base station in their switching technology will have to go through Calypso.
However, the main problem of the Ericsson’s technology is that it does not offer any solution or hint of how an automated connection to the cellular network is established when you move outside base station’s range. You probably could accomplish this through the authentication process but you would be immediately connected to the cellular network as soon as it is detected and even when you’re still within the range of the LAN. But that’s exactly what you and the cellular network provider don’t want.
The only other event I could think of that could trigger the establishment of a connection to the WAN would be the disconnection to the LAN – that’s when MY wife would give it the boot.
Calypso’s big advantage is the ability to seamlessly switch back and forth between networks.
In that light the Metrix report is not that bad after all: On page 4 it says ‘At first glance, the ‘923 Patent [Calypso] is a formidable asset. The patent broadly covers a technology feature that could represent real market value. The broadest claims are not limited to a particular type of communication device, over-the-air network, communication protocol, or Internet-networked base station.
When considered in light of a thorough search of issued patents, however, the ‘923 patent has not been rigorously reviewed by the Patent Office. The twelve cited references, summarized on the following page, fail to include Ericsson Inc.’s US Patent No. 5,598,459,…” Now that we know that Ericsson’s technology cannot do any harm to Calypso’s patent all that’s left is a formidable asset of Calypso.
Also the author does not recommend wireless companies NOT to sign with Calypso. He only suggests to try to evaluate a deal based on its technology, not its patent position. Well, Calypso now is familiar with this report too.
Here is what I would recommend wireless companies to do: Unless you don’t have your own method for successful seamless network switching, sign up with Calypso, get your product to market as fast as you can and obtain a leading market position. In the meantime have your R&D guys work on a solution that will not infringe on Calypso’s technology.
q. e. d.