Replies to post #60492 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[sirhaggus]

I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion - even those who were not present and can provide no evidence of their positions.

I was there in person and have provided a transcript (word for word in many cases) of exactly what I observed. I welcome you to cite the actual transcript of the court proceedings if my account isn't accurate enough for you.

Myself and many of those who read through the court documents did not foresee the Judge ruling with T-mobile on "pre-established vicinity range" which is the most important term that was discussed at the marksman. If you go back and review the posting history from that time, many of us longs were optimistic.

[woops]

if you don't get the patent or only get part of it, it is hard to make sense of it all. in my feeble opinion, the judge completely missed the mark in his markman ruling. maybe i could do the same thing he did and say it was a manmark ruling because i decide that mark should equal man and man should equal mark - no matter what the patent says. others have noted: there is no word distance. also the patent clearly says in black and white that pre-established (in the field range) is where hand offs occur, to wit, where the connection is made. i mean really, "how could it be otherwise?" its like if you are out of range of a motion detector, you could dance the boogaloo all night and it would not set off the detector. you have to be within a range that the detector will actually trigger. that range is within the theoretical maximum but that range may be much, much less than the theoretical maximum. also, no matter how much YOU(or you and your phone) calculate the distance (by the way, WHAT distance?), if the detector doesn't detect you, it won't work! maybe your motion detector or router is not turned on :)

also, don't let the judge 'fool' you in thinking it was unimportant and 'to expensive' to get a computer to do a search for a few 'john doe tmobiles' and get all their old emails. that is an important issue and there is all the black on white written evidence in the world to suggest calypso issues were discussed with and by tm employees. calypso is entitled to those documents! i mean tm may not be google, but how long do you think their computer archivers would have to sweat to find the search results? 2 HOURS? 5 HOURS? To expensive? Overburdening? B.S.!

it seems to me the Matthews firm has evolved in their understanding. i think it was their markman document where they did have an error/misunderstanding in a definition. however, their second to last document could have been titled a "calypso patent for dummies" book.