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.
Frazier sued the receiver after the tmobile case and he was given the patent
Google Project Fi Automatically Switches to the Best Network
Networks change in quality as you move around. To help you get the highest-quality connection at your location, Project Fi uses new technology to intelligently connect you to the fastest network whether it's Wi-Fi or one of our partner LTE networks.
The judge needs to see how the phone works and not just take tmobiles word for it.. My TMobile hotspot at home phone does not switch and n3ver switched networks based on signal strength at all. Rather it switches to wifi when entering its pre established vicinity range. not if the wifi signal is stronger than gsm. That was the district courts error #1.
To infringe a claim that recites capability and not actual operation, an accused device ‘need only be capable of operating’ in the described mode.
An accused device may be found to infringe a product claim “if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitations, even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation.”
Good Read
Patent claims to functional constructs (including software) are often written to require,
not actual steps or operational features, but that a system or device be capable of performing
those steps or providing those features. Are capability claims valid? What do they cover? Are
they a good idea?
https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/event/266396/media/slspublic/Panel%201%20-%20Mark%20Lemley,%20et%20al%20-%20Capability%20Claiming.pdf
Robert Leon created a solution to a problem and in 2004 was granted US Patent 6,680,923. This patent encompasses the technology of automatic switching of network access points(ASPNAP tm) and Seamless Handover of voice calls while roaming. It is a solution to a big problem that the wireless providers are about to hit. For the purpose of relieving carrier network congestion and saving them on many costs such as infrastructure this revolutionary technology was invented.
Using our technology they saved many costs, by offloading congestion to wifi, but you see, they also made money because they continue to charge the normal rates even over Wi-Fi. It also gave something of value to the consumer because a lot of people have bad reception in areas of their homes. Being able to to conduct your calls over WiFi is new age pioneer invention
This corporation is getting away with murder and it is a great injustice to all us investors who have kept this company alive. Till this day, the company has not seen a dime in revenue. We have seen the value in this patent, and understood what the patent means.
At the time of the invention, Wi-Fi was rare, wlan was new. Present new technology such as Wi-fi to Wifi switch is only an extension to what the inventor already patented several years before "HotSpots" emerged and Wifi routers were common.
Very Important!
So it is 2008 and I am a subscriber to HotSpot@Home. I am outside walking my dog and talking on the phone over the regular over the air network. While I am still on the phone I walk in range of my home wifi and the call seamlessly handed over to my WiFi. Signal Strength and BitRate Error was NOT a factor in determining that switch, walking in to the vicinity of the already established range of my router, and having the right unique identifier enabled the auto-switch.
The point I am trying to make is that my phone will never auto-switch based on signal strength or bit rate error because I have no access to those access points. These UMA enabled phones are on Wi-Fi preferred, meaning that my calls will go through over the air networks until I walk into range of a Wi-Fi network that will accept my unique identifier. The Quality, Signal Strength, and Bit Rate Error, what ever they are does not have anything to do with the fact that my phone auto-switched to the network.
The only thing or things that have to do with the switch is the unique identifier and entering in the pre-established vicinity range relative to the computerized network.
So look how T-Mobile has us all fooled
They are hiding the GSM aspect of the switch and are deceiving us into believing that there is a computerized network everywhere and the phone switches from Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi all the time. Last time I check our patent covered GSM to Wifi technology. Wifi to Wifi would just be an extension to our base technology and still comes within the scope of the claims.
Once you leave your wifi network 99.99 percent of the chances are that you either do not have the unique identifier for the next wifi network or there is no wifi network, so you would auto-switch back again based on the phones code and exiting the pre-established vicinity range!!!
The Court made a big mistake in it's claim construction. They construed Pre-Established Vicinity Range to mean :“a predetermined, maximum distance existing between the wireless communication
device and the computer facility.”
In our patent it is stated: The pre-established vicinity range therefore allows data communication, over the computerized network, such as the Internet , with the wireless communication device , by means of the computer , provided that the first transceiver associated with the computer and the second transceiver associated with the wireless communication device are compatible or configured to recognize one another. In order to accomplish this identification parameter, the maximum distance between the wireless communication device and the computer must be within the pre-established vicinity range, which of course may vary, as described above.
So you see how can a predetermined maximum distance allow data communication..it cant, but being within a pre-established vicnity range of an internet facility can allow data communication... they made a mistake..they made a mistake!
So you see, when you turn your router on it Establishes (pre-established) a range, if you are outside this pre-established range the 2 devices cannot communicate. But if you come near the vicinity of the pre-established range, then it allows recognition and data communication between the 2 devices.
Whats the point of a jury trial if the judge decides what the jury will think, I can choose 20 people at random and they will all say tmobile is guilty of willful infringement. And i also believe a jury will also find tghem guilty
Seems there's still hope this sounds similar to us: Disagreeing with the district court?s construction?of?a?word appearing in the court?s construction?of?a?claim term, but not present in the patent?s claims, the U.S. Court?of?Appeals for the Federal Circuit?reversed?and remanded the district court?s grant?of?summary?judgment?of?non-infringement
I'm speechless
What was the reconsideration order the Judge Gilstrap denied?
No that can not happen, if they were to say that they would be pleading guilty to that case. The only difference in the technology is that it doesn't seamlessly handover your calls. It still does ASNAP, so they are still infringing to this date.
I am thinking T-Mobile is trying to say our first case is limited to HotSpot@Home services while the 2012 case covers everything after that. I would love to see both cases tried together.
Here is why there is a second case:
Much clearer, I understand.
Pre-Established = Already Existing
VIcinity = Proximity = Being Near
Range = Maximum Distance Limiting Operation
So you see, the maximum distance between a wireless device and a router is the minimum signal strength or threshold for a wifi connection.
So it is agreeable that if a lowest signal strength is set to -75dbm then -75 dbm is the maximum distance. Because at -76dbm the to devices cannot recognize nor connect to each other.
When you left your house with your hotspot@home phone and you reached -75dbm(the maximum distance) it would then switch back to gsm.
Then as your strolling along on gsm and you get a -75dbm rss it will connect to the wifi network.
Am I making any sense?
The independent claim covers switching from GSM to WiFi and vice versa not WiFi to Wifi, so the measurement of WiFi signal strength has nothing to do with what our independent claim encompasses.
The switching of Wifi to Wifi is another dependant claim.
In order to calculate a Received Signal Strength don't you need to use this formula: dBuV/m
Which requires the input of a distance in meters?
Which literally infringes our Patent
"UMA was developed by a group of operator and vendor companies.[1] The initial specifications were published on 2 September 2004."
Since when do vendors and operators develop a revolutionary technology?
They are a bunch of crooks!
Oh and look at that, only 8 months after our patent was granted.
http://www.umatechnology.org/overview/
Clearly an attempt to supress our patent by the following companies:
Alcatel
British Telecom
Cingular
Ericsson
Kineto Wireless
Motorola
Nokia
Nortel Networks
O2
Research in Motion
Rogers Wireless
Siemens
Sony Ericsson
T-Mobile US
And as you can see T-Mobile themselves state that switch will occur when moving outside or inside this "Range"
How can they deny it now.
Where is our Summary Judgement for Willful Infringement? There is enough evidence!
Great news!
Our motion to compel was granted!
I always understood preestablished vicinity range to mean coverage. When you come within the coverage area which is the maximum distance between the router and the device, it will attempt to connect to the wifi network based on parameters such as a unique identifier. And when you step outide a wifi coverage area it would switch back to gsm...
So simply put, a pre established vicinity range, means the presence of a wifi signal.
You cant switch to a wifi signal if your not within a preestablished vicinity range from one.
You can see t-mobile trying to confuse the judge during markman by saying predetermined vicinity range, instead of preestablished.
We are headed for a big win against these cheaters and manipulators. Can't wait for tmobile to face the judge and the jury.
I have been following this case as well very nice for VirnetX.
T-Mobile has documents that prove they are infringing on our patent, they seem to be trying hard to keep them secret and not produce them for the judge and jury to see.
These guys need to have the law come down on them hard. Tired of seeing these major corporation trample on the small guys, and us shareholders.
March is not so far away, I think any kind of settlement offer by tmobile at this point would be a no go.
I also never knew a summary judgement can be made in a jury case. Seems like a last resort tactic before they know the aforementioned documents will be produced.
Here's something interesting I found in one of his 2001 publications.
Remember how T-Mobile emphasizes that distance has nothing to do with auto-switching; well here's their expert Alex Hills talking exactly about switching occurring when entering a pre-established vicinity range (coverage area).
"Each AP has a radio range, for communication with NAs, from
approximately 20 to more
than 300 m, depending on the specific product,
antennas, and operating environment. The APs
can be interfaced to IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet)
wired LANs.
Most wireless LANs allow “roaming”; that is, mobile computers can
accept a handoff as they
move from the coverage area of one AP to the
coverage area of another, so service is continuous. In order for this
handoff to be successful, it
is necessary that the tables of the bridges contained in each AP be
updated as mobiles move
from one AP coverage area to another. In wireless LANs, direct
peer-to-peer (mobile-tomobile) communication can be provided in one
of two ways. In some wireless LANs it is possible
for a mobile to communicate directly with another mobile. In others
two mobiles, even though
they are both within range of each other, can
communicate only by having their transmissions
relayed by an AP"
Source: http://www.ceid.upatras.gr/faculty/alexiou/ahts/papers802.11/lswlan.pdf
Alex Hills et al created the first wlan in late 90s called wireless andrew. They are trying to prove invalidity on 35 usc 102 saying that because alex hills said that in the future people would like to be automatically connected to access points, our patent should be invalid.
T-mobile is trying hard to fight this but we created the revolutionary technology, we are the pioneers of the invention and alex hills does not own a patent.
Its like if I were to say there will be flying cars and when the technology exists whoever patented it shouldnt own the right cause I spoke about it 10 years ago.. BS!
The new case affirms that the scope of the claims given by the court "validates" the patent and that t-mobile indeed infringes on one or more of the claims
The judge thought we were insolvent meaning theres no way we can raise cash or get revenue to pay our debts. Therefor receivership to windup affairs and dissolve.
However if and when we get our damages from t-mobile that is no longer the case. Therefor corporate restructuring could be an alternative to dissolving.
Boingo Wireless will provide Wi-Fi offloading to Competitive Carriers Association members. The Wi-Fi service provider is offering a white-label solution to CCA members so that their customers can connect to Boingo's global footprint using one single account.
CCA President and CEO Steve Berry said, “With the ever increasing demand on wireless networks, it is absolutely critical for competitive carriers to have an offload solution." as much as 22 percent of mobile traffic is expected to be offloaded to Wi-Fi by 2016.
Wi-Fi offloading is just one topic of discussion among CCA members at their annual convention in Las Vegas this week. During yesterday's FierceWireless executive breakfast on "Spectrum Strategies for Today's Mobile Broadband World," held in conjunction with the conference, Terry Addington, chairman and CEO of SI Wireless, hinted that the CCA members were looking at different wholesale Wi-Fi opportunities as a way to offload mobile broadband traffic that was starting to strain their networks.
Fellow panelist Tom Sugrue, senior vice president of government affairs at T-Mobile USA, noted that T-Mobile is already using Wi-Fi offloading to help it better manage capacity on its network.
A recent Senza Fili Consulting survey, sponsored by Radisys, found that 60 percent of cellular operators in North America are already deploying Wi-Fi offloading and 40 percent have plans to deploy it in the next two years.
The whole unlicensed mobile spectrum and offloading saves carriers money by relieving network congestion, it also makes them money because they continue to charge the same rates even if a call is over Wi-Fi. This profitable technology can also lower infrastructure costs for carriers, by reducing load on networks in densely populated areas, and reducing the need for towers in sparsely-populated residential areas.
T-Mobile claims to have "Coined" the whole thing with their HotSpot@Home service. Today T-Mobile sells a variety of 25 UMA enabled phones. A UMA enabled phone will use the cell network and automatically switch to a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth network when within range. This sort of hybrid communication system allows for true Mobility, while providing better coverage to consumers and faster data.
But hold on,The Revolutionary Automatic Switching of Network Access Points (ASNAP) is a patented technology owned by a small development stage company called "Calypso Wireless Inc.". ASNAP is the ideal answer to capitalize on this opportunity. About 10 years ago Calypso Wireless introduced one of the worlds first dual-mode video phone that actually worked seamlessly on both Wi-Fi and 3G technologies! However, becoming a major player in the cellphone industry takes a lot of capital which is something this small company did not have. Calypso Wireless then took a decision to license their technology instead. Engaging in hundreds of field trials, many were interested and entered into some non-disclosure agreements for testing. One of those interested was T-Mobile or one of it's subsidiaries.
Regardless of the ASNAP technology gaining popularity and demand, not even 1 of the corporations accepted a licensing agreement. To go more in depth, major corporations have decided to go ahead and use this patented technology without entering a licensing agreement with Calypso Wireless, thus committing wilful infringement. Just another example of how the big boys step over the little guys like ants.
Calypso has been struggling financially for years and at times. it seemed the company was going to go bankrupt. Honest investors and working class people have been fuelling the company with money for a share in the licensing revenue, recognizing the capitalization potential of the revolutionary technology. However for about 10 years this company has not seen a dime in revenue.
At the beginning of the year, Calypso Wireless was put into receivership by a Delaware Judge; claiming the company was insolvent and would not generate money therefore the companies assets would be sold at fire sale prices to pay creditors and any remaining would be distributed amongst investors. It would be a complete loss to all investors. Before that happens, the company is actually hanging on by 1 thread.
In 2008, Calypso Wireless found the means to bring T-Mobile to court for infringement, a relief it was to the many investors. By 2010, things were getting very heated and there was a motion for a 90 day leave to negotiate a settlement. Over a year later Calypso had not heard a word from T-Mobile until they filed to have the case dropped "with prejudice" That motion was denied and a new schedule was given with a Trial set in March 2013.
The years of being suppressed by the big boys seem to be coming to an end for Calypso Wireless. Hoping that the law will come down hard on those infringer's, most notably, T-Mobile; and hoping the thousands of investors will see some light at the end of that long dark tunnel.
18 cubes stacked can replace 1 cell tower, these are comparable to the femtocell hype we have been hearing about.
Light radio is a tool that can seamlessly switch to the best available network in the vicinity. Instead of the phone doing the switch this lilttle,macro cell will be doing it. It is a wireless device and believe it would also be infringing...
Alcatel will be pushing carriers to offer their own wifi through these cells.
Sprint is currently using these to give better coverage of their 4g/LTE.
With?lightRadio Wi-Fi, connecting is easy. We are applying lightRadioTM?innovation to extend high-speed mobile broadband services across both cellular and Wi-Fi networks. Subscribers can access Wi-Fi automatically and stay on their service provider's network. They can roam between a cellular network and residential, privately- and publicly-owned Wi-Fi networks and hotspots with the complete peace of mind that these connections are secure.
Anything before 2006 cannot be brought to court cause the statute of limitations has expired.
I do see something from early 2008 that distributes 75 million shares.
37.5 million sold for an undisclosed amount, I believe it was purchased by dewine, but not sure.
10 million transferred to the Consultant
And 27.5 million transfered to Daic.
on top of that Calypso had to pay 100k in transfer fees for all 3 parties.
If these shares are found to be illegitimate and the 2008 agreement in it's entirety is null and void. Then the number of outstanding shares would be something like 80 million.
Smokin!!! Very nice find!
Does anyone know if the recent settlement agreement giving Drago the RoW patent cancels his 11% or 22 million shares in clyw.
Drago is the one who's past actions should be revisited. He got a Default judgement of 100 million cause CEO davilla and bod mendoza did not show up for the case. Also Daic put his wife on the board and together had all and any deals rejected for their purpose of trying to steal the patent. Also before the case CEO's car was shot up full of bullets. Was that a message from Daic telling him not to show up?
The settlement agreement gives him enough and he should not have 22 million shares!! If he does then he gets 28 percent from tmobile 11.01% from the usa and 100% of internationals.
Can't wait to find out whos shares are illegal and hope Daics are one of them.
How do you assume Turrini has 40 million shares; that's impossible. If you would refer to the latest SEC filings of beneficial ownership; Turrini has 1,350,000 shares.
One of T-Mobile's recently issued patents contains our patent 6,680,923 referenced as prior art.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8189548
Also RPX, Sprint, Kineto, RIM, and Motorola, Alcatel Lucent, Sony, and many more have cited our patent. A Total of 359 patents references the 6,680,923 patent.