Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[downsideup]

"and (if) the industry is so badly in need of our patent"...

They started out recognizing that this tech would clearly gut their existing revenue models... leaving them massively vulnerable at a time they'd just committed to massive spending and debt tied to building out the cellular infrastructure. Of course, that's exactly what free markets INTEND to enable... in creative destruction that rewards innovation.

Had CLYW been enabled in succeeding, initially, then even AT&T might well have gone under... leaving CLYW the dominant player in a new era of competition in the telecom market... with the competition based on the CLYW IP providing access to and links between the legacy systems and the new internet based telecom capacity.

In a free market... the tech would be adopted in spite of the impact the innovation in the new tech would have on legacy providers or the impact on others investments that hadn't been made properly anticipating the development of the new form of competition. But, we don't have a free market... rather than the "pay to play" system we choose to pretend is a free market.

(A free market, by definition, is one in which two conditions are met: all market participants have free and equal ACCESS to the markets, and, in a free market, the role of the government is to ensure access and to ensure that there is an absence of fraud. Our markets, instead, are dominated by a purposeful imposition of "gate keeping" functions intended to enable "control" by some... and a regulatory frame work intended to enable the practice of fraud, by some. Although true, I think that might have been a controversial assertion... prior to the various bits of evidence and proofs emerging in 2008/2009.)

Then, over time, given the natural limitations and costs of the systems they chose, instead of those the free market would choose, it became clear that the investments they'd made would require that they would be rapidly running into bandwidth constraints... but, still, solving that problem in the way that makes the most sense, would also still require a larger supply (that they didn't control) would be able to meet growing demand at a lower price point... and they opted to sustain their pricing models as long as they could, rather than resolve capacity concerns...

The assumption being applied clearly is that the costs of addressing penalties for gross wrongdoing, in the future, will always be less than the impacts of recognizing those costs in competition, earlier...

The tech has been suppressed... and it is STILL being suppressed... even in spite of "the DOJ" having reached a "settlement" with AT&T re proofs of "technology suppression" that, in theory, resulted in ending the effort in suppression...

However... it appears both that the "settlement" reached is wholly corrupt... and that the performance required has not occurred...

And, in the result, you see the tech being incorporated into chips, now, and you see that it exists in the devices as a capability, now... even with the carriers still continuing to refuse to support it... or, supporting it while refusing to address their ongoing THEFT of IP...

T-Mobile WAS enabling it with Hotspot@Home... until they stopped... only when CLYW sued them...

How T-Mobile's choices integrate with INDUSTRY strategy in addressing the CLYW owned IP... is perhaps a question well worth asking. The industry is so large... they let pretty much anyone into their meetings... which means that's perhaps not as much an issue in terms of unanswered questions as some may assume.

For the telecoms, recognizing the CLYW patents' existence... wouldn't, doesn't, will not and cannot end with "adoption"... as EVEN a settlement that results in adoption still leaves an open ended liability and risk (or, more than one) that extends all the way back to the DECISIONS the industry made to suppress the technology... rather than enable and adopt it. Rights have been violated... that cannot be "un-violated"... or otherwise made to disappear. They will have to be addressed... PROPERLY...

The difficulties that creates... include that the government has it's own issues with unclean hands... in terms of how they have been addressing some of these issues... which itself may become an issue...

My opinion is that that WILL happen... because the effort that is occurring now does not come even remotely close to what is required in legitimacy...

I don't for a second doubt that the major telecom carrier companies and the government (or, proxies for each of them) each have "larger interests" that they may find are compelling enough to enable them in making errors in judgment...

My opinion is that larger concerns with fundamental legitimacy trumps their other subsidiary concerns... making their errors open ended risks that cannot and will not be resolved... without change that imposes REAL corrections of past errors.

However, I don't find either that their willful errors in the past, or current efforts in addressing them, are in the least bit compelling... no matter the excuses they might have chosen to rely upon... ?

Of course, that's just my opinion...