Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.
Actually no, at least not literally.
Up until now it just meant the licensor was supposed to have a valid reason if one licensee's terms were differently than anothers. A valid reason *might* simply be the volume of products shipped, or perhaps the value the licensee gets from a license to your technology. All things being equal then different companies should be treated the same and pay the same amounts. All things are not always equal.
What would clearly be discriminatory is if companies were treated differently only because one is a direct competitor while another is not.
The term 5G is just another one of those marketing things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.
Fixed. Unless, of course, you're legitimately trying to tell us that we no longer need to improve wifi for the rest of forever because there are no possible applications of practical use for anyone ever. If that were the case, there's no quick fix for your point of view.
I'm still completely satisfied with 3G (HSPA ) speeds, is there something fucking wrong with me? I guess it's because I don't torrent HD movies on my phone?
I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.
I hate Samsung, for what they have been doing with regards to Apple. But this I will have to admit that Samsung is in the driver seat and Apple is now the follower.... oh boy that is so sad!
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Bill Gates denies the common rumor that in 1981 he stated that 640kB was enough for everybody. In 1979 I upgraded my first computer from 4kB to 8kB, memory cost me $10/kB.
I'm still completely satisfied with 3G (HSPA ) speeds, is there something fucking wrong with me? I guess it's because I don't torrent HD movies on my phone?
I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.
There is also the matter of uplink speed which is really slow on HSPA. If 4G is fast enough for everyone why do you think that home WiFi speeds are so much faster than LTE? I think it is because people know the difference and prefer the faster data speeds. Latency is also a big issue which has more to do with server requests, routers and switches than actual network speed... but faster is always better.
. . . With this 3D thing going on, I'd like to see people stream 3D movies on the fly...see how that works out. I bet it will be a major flop!
Correct use case, wrong conclusion, unless you're joking.
Live 3D video communication is obviously the future. Not necessarily person-to-person so much, but place-to-place. Think live streams to your iGlasses from around the world. What's been missing from webcams is enough bandwidth for clarity, decent frame rate, and stereo picture. Beneficial mass hypnosis awaits. ADD problem solved
It's not about the speed of individual files (although faster servers would be nice). It's about sending lots of data to multiple locations simultaneously. The internet we live in is very one-sided%u2014there's a lot more consumption of data than generation, at least from the user's perspective.
Imagine fitness monitors being able to send gigabytes of information about you up to servers that can perform instant, 99.99% accurate diagnoses based on all the data it has. Or hosting a town-hall style meeting, or teaching a classroom, over direct video interaction at a smooth 30%u201360fps.
It's about breaking down the world we live in into more bits and more fidelity and sending that data between many endpoints.
So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.
There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy. The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges. Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.
So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.
There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy. The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges. Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.
What else would a resident troll say?
Oh the irony of "burning bridges". There are many companies working on 5G so we don't even know which patents will become part of the standard when it's finally settled. It's more like Samsung has burned bridges by continuing to abuse SEP's in court (and getting the smackdown for it). What standards body is going to want to trust a corrupt licensee like Samsung when there are other choices out there from companies who don't abuse patents?
Samsung is the one who needs to tread carefully, not Apple.
Edited: Forgot to add. Standards bodies currently do not get involved in these battles over SEP's nor do they have any firm guidelines. You can bet that in the future these standards bodies are going to make companies like Samsung follow stricter rules to prevent abuse. So these types of court cases will probably cease to exist as the agreements made with SSO's will be far more specific in terms of what you can and cannot do.
I see the medical field benefiting. They already have the camera pills that you swallow and get realtime imaging. It would cool for them to mail the pill to take at home and a team of doctors across the country could monitor the results instantly.
How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?
Uh, I'm not quite sure how AI entered the debate over building high-speed data networks...
Anyways, my thinking was that higher speed and capacity data networks would be built/funded by people buying hardware (phones, tablets, etc) which makes use of it (which they'd be buying anyways). Hinting that companies like Apple and Samsung would get into the "data pipe" industry (the point of this article). Which would allow for the elimination of bandwidth caps and the like.
You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."
What Gates actually said, was they thought that going from 64K to 640K should be good enough to last the needs of computer users for another ten years.
Many years later at a college speech, he poked fun at himself about this prediction, noting that they had been wrong by about five years.
He brought it up as a warning to anyone else who might fall into the same trap, of thinking they could so easily predict future needs.
(I remember when I got my first 5MB hard drive for $800. I was sure that much storage would last me for years.)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
Actually I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND means.
Actually no, at least not literally.
Up until now it just meant the licensor was supposed to have a valid reason if one licensee's terms were differently than anothers. A valid reason *might* simply be the volume of products shipped, or perhaps the value the licensee gets from a license to your technology. All things being equal then different companies should be treated the same and pay the same amounts. All things are not always equal.
What would clearly be discriminatory is if companies were treated differently only because one is a direct competitor while another is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
But again, it's all about the video. Video is and will alway be the number one bandwidth hog.
"Beam me up Scotty."
"Sorry Captain, I'm working as fast as I can but we only have 5G speed right now"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
The term 5G is just another one of those marketing things playing towards the idiots who think they need faster and bigger everything.
Fixed. Unless, of course, you're legitimately trying to tell us that we no longer need to improve wifi for the rest of forever because there are no possible applications of practical use for anyone ever. If that were the case, there's no quick fix for your point of view.
I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmvsm
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Bill Gates denies the common rumor that in 1981 he stated that 640kB was enough for everybody. In 1979 I upgraded my first computer from 4kB to 8kB, memory cost me $10/kB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
I'm still completely satisfied with 3G (HSPA ) speeds, is there something fucking wrong with me? I guess it's because I don't torrent HD movies on my phone?
I'm just flabbergasted how 4G (ie. LTE) would not be more than sufficient for 100% of the consumer market.
There is also the matter of uplink speed which is really slow on HSPA. If 4G is fast enough for everyone why do you think that home WiFi speeds are so much faster than LTE? I think it is because people know the difference and prefer the faster data speeds. Latency is also a big issue which has more to do with server requests, routers and switches than actual network speed... but faster is always better.
Correct use case, wrong conclusion, unless you're joking.
Live 3D video communication is obviously the future. Not necessarily person-to-person so much, but place-to-place. Think live streams to your iGlasses from around the world. What's been missing from webcams is enough bandwidth for clarity, decent frame rate, and stereo picture. Beneficial mass hypnosis awaits. ADD problem solved
Imagine fitness monitors being able to send gigabytes of information about you up to servers that can perform instant, 99.99% accurate diagnoses based on all the data it has. Or hosting a town-hall style meeting, or teaching a classroom, over direct video interaction at a smooth 30%u201360fps.
It's about breaking down the world we live in into more bits and more fidelity and sending that data between many endpoints.
That's fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So about the time Apple purges the last Samsung component from their assembly lines, Samsung will have a SEP Apple needs so it'll resume payments to the company.
There's no inherent problem with participating in such a global economy. The only risk is what do the fees look like after burning so many bridges. Remember, "standards-essential" doesn't mean "free", and while there's an obligation on the patent-holder to ask for pricing within reasonable bounds, there is no obligation to charge all licensees the same amount.
What else would a resident troll say?
Oh the irony of "burning bridges". There are many companies working on 5G so we don't even know which patents will become part of the standard when it's finally settled. It's more like Samsung has burned bridges by continuing to abuse SEP's in court (and getting the smackdown for it). What standards body is going to want to trust a corrupt licensee like Samsung when there are other choices out there from companies who don't abuse patents?
Samsung is the one who needs to tread carefully, not Apple.
Edited: Forgot to add. Standards bodies currently do not get involved in these battles over SEP's nor do they have any firm guidelines. You can bet that in the future these standards bodies are going to make companies like Samsung follow stricter rules to prevent abuse. So these types of court cases will probably cease to exist as the agreements made with SSO's will be far more specific in terms of what you can and cannot do.
It's just a logical progression. I hope that Samsung doesn't try to gouge everyone on the costs involved, but knowing Samsung, they will.
I am testing 12G on a smartphone for use exclusively on Mars
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
How would you suggest that might work? Would the owners of AI receive some of Apple's hardware revenue for instance, or did you have something else in mind?
Uh, I'm not quite sure how AI entered the debate over building high-speed data networks...
Anyways, my thinking was that higher speed and capacity data networks would be built/funded by people buying hardware (phones, tablets, etc) which makes use of it (which they'd be buying anyways). Hinting that companies like Apple and Samsung would get into the "data pipe" industry (the point of this article). Which would allow for the elimination of bandwidth caps and the like.
deleted
Quote:
You ever hear that (rumored) Bill Gates quote? "640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone."
What Gates actually said, was they thought that going from 64K to 640K should be good enough to last the needs of computer users for another ten years.
Many years later at a college speech, he poked fun at himself about this prediction, noting that they had been wrong by about five years.
He brought it up as a warning to anyone else who might fall into the same trap, of thinking they could so easily predict future needs.
(I remember when I got my first 5MB hard drive for $800. I was sure that much storage would last me for years.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, according to some, this is the best way of going forward.
Limiting people's use of something is better than building more of something.
… M~hmm.
By that logic, we should still be doing time sharing on computers which are limited to use in laboratories. Or using pay phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Is it possible for you to go even just one week without name-calling?
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are in a very, very small group of people who get "called names" by me on AI.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, am I not allowed to call it a duck?