Replies to post #58536 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[downsideup]

While I agree that CLYW should win the technical arguments, I'll also agree that there's a big element in value, here... that depends less on the facts in the technical definitions than it does on how the fact of them requires that they're able to be applied in marketing... or not.

CLYW defines what "seamless" is... if the patent survives, at all.

And, whatever the court decides in terms of the technicalities, there is still a PRACTICAL reality that you'll see in performance differences... that won't matter a whit when they DO work, but will matter a lot when they don't...

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW ?????

The QOS approach... which I think doesn't avoid 923 in any case... would still be left with that as THE problem, even if they wrongly prevailed in claiming QOS doesn't depend on distance calculations.

CLYW licensees will be able to claim "seamless" function...

And, QOS focused competitors... will win the right to explain why what they're doing drops calls based on random variations... and doesn't provide users with control that enables optimizing the function according to the users whim, local variation, etc.

I think the QOS stuff has some derivative and subsidiary value, recognizing, still, that it has to be considered under the distance rubric, only, with that value still MORE subject than '923 is to the claims of obviousness that made re 923...

I see two arguments... one of which is the technical argument re the distance metrics and how you determine if they're being used, when the math is clearly distance dependent... the other is only "how do you define seamless"... which requires defining what a "seam" is... why it matters... and what is necessary to accomplish in eliminating it... in order to not have seams... ?

You addressed that above as: "In the end its the coupling with the business aspect to the viscinity that super womps the erickson quality of service issue."

I agree.

But, then you go on to mention that "quality of service simply does not contemplate the value of clustering backhaul into a process meaningfull to both the user and the carrier alike"...

!!!!!!!!!

And, that introduces a number of big $$$ issues... that won't begin to be properly addressed until AFTER we get the ruling, in this first test of the basic validity...

That's the reason for the effort in suppression... as when the patent came out... enabling the use of alternative back haul... obviated the value and utility of the primary infrastructure.

Much left to discuss there... including obvious issues that are being addressed now in re-writing rules in anticipation... to which I think CLYW's owners should pay close attention.