Lesson #1 on deciphering patents: Ignore the title and abstract- read the claims. Claims are far more specific, and are the only enforceable part of the patent.
60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.
64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.
65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.
70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.
That being said, it does support 4G once it becomes available as a service for iPhone-capable networks.
I don't know where this rumor started, but the iPhone 4 (in its current implementation) does NOT support 4G. It supports HSDPA 7.2, which is 3G. When AT&T rolls out LTE (rumored to be mid-2011 at the earliest), only then will handsets supporting it be available.
Well since we are being pedantic, the iPhone 4 (and 3Gs for that matter) has full support for a variety of 4G networks being deployed, basically LTE.
AT&T is supposedly doing some trials next year and rolling out 4G in 2011.
That is not correct. The current iPhone implementations, including iPhone 4, only support existing GSM networks (GPRS, EDGE, HSPA). LTE would require new hardware.
Verizon will be the first to adopt LTE in the US (by the end of this year), and hopes to have the first LTE handsets available by mid-2011. AT&T's LTE network will come later.
Nothing, if your aim is to see 50 blind people in leisure suits clumsily tripping over each other on the disco floor. Sounds like fun. Remember to videotape the experience for your remaining friends.
The 2D/3D acceleration fiasco died off with the 7200 series of Qualcomm chips. I had an HTC Kaiser (AT&T Tilt) that had no acceleration, and then an HTC Raphael (Fuze/Touch Pro) that had iffy 3D acceleration and poor video decoding performance, so the driver issue bit me firsthand.
Luckily, the Snapdragon line (QSD8xxx) have all had working graphics drivers for the platforms it's been released with (WM 6.5 and Android, AFAIK).
My current Nexus One has full OpenGL ES 2.0 capability and hardware MPEG4 and h264 decoding. I'm a happy camper.:)
N900 is a GSM phone, so no go for CDMA-based carriers (VZW, Sprint/Nextel). It'll run fine on AT&T and T-Mobile's network, but it will only do 3G on the latter.
The modern graphic hardware that can't do better than 720p on most games?
Fixed that for you. There are maybe a handful of true 1080p games for the PS3. Hell, the PS3 can't even render full 720p for some games (see: Modern Warfare, GTA IV, etc).
The fact is, that RSX core is equivalent to the Geforce 7000 series GPUs, and the PS3 came out during the same time when the 8800GTX was available. Thus, the PS3 already had obsolete graphics (compared to PCs anyway) even when it was released.
This is just speculation- just like the same "analysts" discussing whether intel should buy nvidia- it's an investor's wet dream, but couldn't be done legally. No sane regulator would sit by while Apple ceases licensing existing ARM IP to competitors. I'm doubtful they would even allow this acquisition to take place.
There's nothing wrong with sourcing a cheap ~$50 motherboard. It's not like most of us overclock our PCs. Most brands (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc) come with decent warranties anyway.
Spending $250+ on an enthusiast motherboard with all solid caps for a $500 HTPC project is absurd.
Not necessarily. Gamers, while a diverse stereotype across age, race and sex, mainly seem to have quite a few interests in common. In particular, in-game advertisements for other games, computer/gaming hardware, audio equipment, TVs, soft drinks and fast-food restaurants seem to be a popular favorite. EA didn't require spyware when they put in real-ad billboards in Burnout Paradise and Battlefield 2142. And certain games that cater to specific interests may even have more advertising opportunities: I'm sure Gran Turismo 5 (if it ever comes out) wouldn't need to poll gamers before putting in in-game signs for Honda and BF Goodrich.
In some cases, real product placement is not only okay, but preferred. In GTA, I'd rather see Pepsi/Coke and Taco Bell ads than some fictional "Sprunk" or "Cluckin Bell" ads- it pulls me out of the game when developers need to make up brands like that.
I would have expected Apple to sue Palm first, given that they've already threatened them in the past, and they're smaller than HTC. Seems surprising that they'd go after HTC, a company that has been producing touchscreen smartphones and PDAs for about as long as Apple has been making ipods and has likely accumulated some patents along the way.
Not only is your failsafe inadequate, but it's a bad idea. Here's why:
First, turning off the engine cuts power steering. Since the vehicles in question are mostly front-wheel drive (or AWD with FWD bias) and subsequently difficult to steer without power assist. Most drivers lack the arm muscles to turn newer FWD vehicles without power steering, even at high speeds. Turning off the engine also cuts power braking (oops!).
Second, many of these newer models have push-button ignitions. Turning off the engine for these new cars requires pressing the ignition button again- no mechanical device involved, just a simple push-button event. This may be problematic if the software module controlling the fuel input- you know, the one that's already affected by the very same defect that caused us to wildly accelerate- is the very same module controlling the ignition.
Finally, while ultimately effective at stopping the car even if the gas pedal is floored, brake performance while accelerating is very poor, as the brake vacuum power is more limited while the engine is under load. Also, brakes tend to fade very quickly due to the added friction of wheels that are still being powered. While testing this on the Lexus RX-400h SUV (one of the recalled vehicles), stopping distances increased five-fold.
The win here is that the case remains public so that it can be used as a precedent in the future. A sealed case would be all for naught for the OSS community.
There is a big difference between Flash support on Windows Mobile 7 and on the iPad/iPhone. One is announcing that it won't be ready in time for the platform release (but will be released later, according to both MS and Adobe); the other is simply telling its users that they really don't want Flash, and won't assist any effort by Adobe to port it onto their platform- despite the pleas from millions of iphone users that actually want it.
Neither camp is actually "getting away with" not having Flash support. But at least MS isn't being arrogant enough (in this case) to make excuses by telling us what we should want on our devices.
I've posted AC on occasion- usually on issues where my employer may vehemently disagree with my statements. When I do, I make a conscious effort to find my post a day later and see if it's been modded to oblivion or received replies. After that, I forget about it.
I imagine many trolls probably bookmark their best work and favorite "lulz".
China advertising != US advertising. In fact, 100% market share in China would still earn less than 29% market share in the US. Sure, 90 (and growing) million is a big audience, but not as lucrative once one realizes how little the average Chinese person is financially worth.
Only ~2-3% of Google's total revenues came from China.
It's not surprising that GOOG's stock didn't take much of a hit after they announced that they're pulling out of China.
My HTPC has an Athlon II X4 620 running pretty well in a small antec HTPC case on a 785G mATX motherboard on a 350W PSU- probably wouldn't handle a discrete graphics card (integrated ATI GPUs handle 1080p h264 playback fine), but it wouldn't fit anyway. Also, my work PC is an intel core i7 920 housed inside a shuttle. Quad-cores are now being squeezed into laptops too. Needless to say, there's hardly any need for a large tower with loud cooling, unless you need the space and/or want to overclock.
Multiple display support, for one. You can use DisplayPort to daisy chain multiple screens. While there is a dual-link spec for HDMI, it only supports 2 display devices and isn't supported by anyone.
Also, DisplayPort was designed from the ground up for bidirectional communication (ie- touch input, camera, mic input, etc). These features have only recently been shoehorned into the HDMI 1.4 spec, and may be some time before one can actually use it.
But this card won't be available until march (spring, for those of us in the northern hemisphere). Nvidia missed its opportunity to make my feet all warm and toasty.;-)
Given the sizes reported by those who saw the actual card at CES, they're stating it's ~10.5 inches, similar to the 5870.
I would wait for a GF100 or 5870 refresh first. AMD is rumored to be working on the 28nm refresh that should be available by mid-year. GlobalFoundries has been showing off wafers that have been fabbed on a 28 nm process, and rumors indicate that we'll be seeing 28nm GPUs by the mid-year. I would imagine that nvidia is planning a 28nm refresh of GF100 not long after. Smaller GPU = less power = smaller PCB, so the cards will be shorter.
Grayson is a joke. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.
I've tried to ignore him, yet it's difficult when you actually live in central FL and you hear about him in the news on a weekly basis. I'm not even a republican, yet I cringe every time I hear him being interviewed- he's got an enormous ego and an even bigger mouth. He's the most annoying kind of politician- one who believes he's a populist yet no one actually likes him. Out of all of the reasonable people that democrats had running in the 2008 election for my district, we somehow ended up with a guy who can't debate without personally insulting people, refers to those who disagree with the current healthcare legislation "murderers", called a woman a "whore" on national television, etc... there's nothing professional about him. No surprise that he's trying to get some blog critical of him shut down.
Alan Grayson like a liberal Jack Thompson, only he still has power. He's a disgrace to my district, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that my neighbors in central FL were either stupid or ill-informed enough to elect him.
This is analogous to video game consoles refusing to use generic memory sticks or hard drives. Of course, intel will try to claim it's more like trying to attach a sata drive to an IDE port, but we all know the instruction sets for X86 are standard across both chips.
Generally yes, but the intel compiler really shines by optimizing for the newer instructions that competitors may or may not have yet. SSSE3 (not to be confused with SSE3), SSE4, SSE5, etc are only found on newer intel chips. Not to mention the ones that AMD adds too (3DNow, CVT16, etc) or the differences between comparable instructions and registers (AMD-V/VT-X, AMD64/EM64T, etc). The x86 ISA as a "standard" is quite a mess.
Should we expect intel to track competitors' features for each target platform?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the patent you're referring to.
Here are the claims:
Claims:
1-59. (canceled)
60. In a mobile communication system, a method comprising:adopting a robust header compression (ROHC) scheme;configuring uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information based on the ROHC scheme, wherein the downlink parameter information and the uplink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
61. The method of claim 60, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
62. The method of claim 60, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
63. The method of claim 60 further comprising:receiving mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme from a mobile terminal.
64. The method of claim 60 further comprising:transmitting mobile terminal capacity information associated with the ROHC scheme to a network.
65. In a mobile communication system, and apparatus comprising:an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer adapted to perform header compression and/or decompression; andan entity in an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer adapted to configure uplink parameter information and downlink parameter information for the entity in the PDCP layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the asymmetric parameter information comprises at least one of MAX_CID parameter information and Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
66. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
67. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
68. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
69. The apparatus of claim 65, wherein the entity in the RRC layer is further adapted to transfer the asymmetric parameter information to the PDCP layer.
70. In a mobile communication system, an entity in a PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer comprising:a compressor performing header compression based on uplink parameter information transferred from an RRC (Radio Resource Control) layer;a decompressor performing header decompression based on downlink parameter information transferred from the RRC layer, wherein the uplink parameter information and the downlink parameter information are asymmetric with respect to each other, and wherein the downlink parameter information includes Reverse_Decompression_Depth parameter information.
71. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the uplink parameter information includes at least one of uplink MAX_CID parameter information and Packet Sized Allowed parameter information.
72. The entity in the PDCP layer of claim 70, wherein the downlink parameter information further includes downlink MAX_CID parameter information.
73. The method of claim 70, wherein the header compression involves a robust header compression scheme.
In summary: this is a little less obvious than your analysis of the abstract. Unless there is prior art, this patent has teeth.
That being said, it does support 4G once it becomes available as a service for iPhone-capable networks.
I don't know where this rumor started, but the iPhone 4 (in its current implementation) does NOT support 4G. It supports HSDPA 7.2, which is 3G. When AT&T rolls out LTE (rumored to be mid-2011 at the earliest), only then will handsets supporting it be available.
But there'll likely be a 5th-gen iPhone by then.
Well since we are being pedantic, the iPhone 4 (and 3Gs for that matter) has full support for a variety of 4G networks being deployed, basically LTE.
AT&T is supposedly doing some trials next year and rolling out 4G in 2011.
That is not correct. The current iPhone implementations, including iPhone 4, only support existing GSM networks (GPRS, EDGE, HSPA). LTE would require new hardware.
Verizon will be the first to adopt LTE in the US (by the end of this year), and hopes to have the first LTE handsets available by mid-2011. AT&T's LTE network will come later.
Nothing, if your aim is to see 50 blind people in leisure suits clumsily tripping over each other on the disco floor. Sounds like fun. Remember to videotape the experience for your remaining friends.
The 2D/3D acceleration fiasco died off with the 7200 series of Qualcomm chips. I had an HTC Kaiser (AT&T Tilt) that had no acceleration, and then an HTC Raphael (Fuze/Touch Pro) that had iffy 3D acceleration and poor video decoding performance, so the driver issue bit me firsthand.
:)
Luckily, the Snapdragon line (QSD8xxx) have all had working graphics drivers for the platforms it's been released with (WM 6.5 and Android, AFAIK).
My current Nexus One has full OpenGL ES 2.0 capability and hardware MPEG4 and h264 decoding. I'm a happy camper.
N900 is a GSM phone, so no go for CDMA-based carriers (VZW, Sprint/Nextel). It'll run fine on AT&T and T-Mobile's network, but it will only do 3G on the latter.
The modern graphic hardware that can't do better than 720p on most games? Fixed that for you. There are maybe a handful of true 1080p games for the PS3. Hell, the PS3 can't even render full 720p for some games (see: Modern Warfare, GTA IV, etc).
The fact is, that RSX core is equivalent to the Geforce 7000 series GPUs, and the PS3 came out during the same time when the 8800GTX was available. Thus, the PS3 already had obsolete graphics (compared to PCs anyway) even when it was released.
This is just speculation- just like the same "analysts" discussing whether intel should buy nvidia- it's an investor's wet dream, but couldn't be done legally. No sane regulator would sit by while Apple ceases licensing existing ARM IP to competitors. I'm doubtful they would even allow this acquisition to take place.
There's nothing wrong with sourcing a cheap ~$50 motherboard. It's not like most of us overclock our PCs. Most brands (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc) come with decent warranties anyway.
Spending $250+ on an enthusiast motherboard with all solid caps for a $500 HTPC project is absurd.
Not necessarily. Gamers, while a diverse stereotype across age, race and sex, mainly seem to have quite a few interests in common. In particular, in-game advertisements for other games, computer/gaming hardware, audio equipment, TVs, soft drinks and fast-food restaurants seem to be a popular favorite. EA didn't require spyware when they put in real-ad billboards in Burnout Paradise and Battlefield 2142. And certain games that cater to specific interests may even have more advertising opportunities: I'm sure Gran Turismo 5 (if it ever comes out) wouldn't need to poll gamers before putting in in-game signs for Honda and BF Goodrich.
In some cases, real product placement is not only okay, but preferred. In GTA, I'd rather see Pepsi/Coke and Taco Bell ads than some fictional "Sprunk" or "Cluckin Bell" ads- it pulls me out of the game when developers need to make up brands like that.
I would have expected Apple to sue Palm first, given that they've already threatened them in the past, and they're smaller than HTC. Seems surprising that they'd go after HTC, a company that has been producing touchscreen smartphones and PDAs for about as long as Apple has been making ipods and has likely accumulated some patents along the way.
And why now?
Not only is your failsafe inadequate, but it's a bad idea. Here's why:
First, turning off the engine cuts power steering. Since the vehicles in question are mostly front-wheel drive (or AWD with FWD bias) and subsequently difficult to steer without power assist. Most drivers lack the arm muscles to turn newer FWD vehicles without power steering, even at high speeds. Turning off the engine also cuts power braking (oops!).
Second, many of these newer models have push-button ignitions. Turning off the engine for these new cars requires pressing the ignition button again- no mechanical device involved, just a simple push-button event. This may be problematic if the software module controlling the fuel input- you know, the one that's already affected by the very same defect that caused us to wildly accelerate- is the very same module controlling the ignition.
Finally, while ultimately effective at stopping the car even if the gas pedal is floored, brake performance while accelerating is very poor, as the brake vacuum power is more limited while the engine is under load. Also, brakes tend to fade very quickly due to the added friction of wheels that are still being powered. While testing this on the Lexus RX-400h SUV (one of the recalled vehicles), stopping distances increased five-fold.
The win here is that the case remains public so that it can be used as a precedent in the future. A sealed case would be all for naught for the OSS community.
There is a big difference between Flash support on Windows Mobile 7 and on the iPad/iPhone. One is announcing that it won't be ready in time for the platform release (but will be released later, according to both MS and Adobe); the other is simply telling its users that they really don't want Flash, and won't assist any effort by Adobe to port it onto their platform- despite the pleas from millions of iphone users that actually want it.
Neither camp is actually "getting away with" not having Flash support. But at least MS isn't being arrogant enough (in this case) to make excuses by telling us what we should want on our devices.
I've posted AC on occasion- usually on issues where my employer may vehemently disagree with my statements. When I do, I make a conscious effort to find my post a day later and see if it's been modded to oblivion or received replies. After that, I forget about it.
I imagine many trolls probably bookmark their best work and favorite "lulz".
You may want to read up on Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Generally, a having both an audience and anonymity brings out the worst in people.
Don't try to reason or argue with trolls, especially AC ones. They thrive on the attention.
China advertising != US advertising. In fact, 100% market share in China would still earn less than 29% market share in the US. Sure, 90 (and growing) million is a big audience, but not as lucrative once one realizes how little the average Chinese person is financially worth.
Only ~2-3% of Google's total revenues came from China.
It's not surprising that GOOG's stock didn't take much of a hit after they announced that they're pulling out of China.
My HTPC has an Athlon II X4 620 running pretty well in a small antec HTPC case on a 785G mATX motherboard on a 350W PSU- probably wouldn't handle a discrete graphics card (integrated ATI GPUs handle 1080p h264 playback fine), but it wouldn't fit anyway. Also, my work PC is an intel core i7 920 housed inside a shuttle. Quad-cores are now being squeezed into laptops too. Needless to say, there's hardly any need for a large tower with loud cooling, unless you need the space and/or want to overclock.
Multiple display support, for one. You can use DisplayPort to daisy chain multiple screens. While there is a dual-link spec for HDMI, it only supports 2 display devices and isn't supported by anyone.
Also, DisplayPort was designed from the ground up for bidirectional communication (ie- touch input, camera, mic input, etc). These features have only recently been shoehorned into the HDMI 1.4 spec, and may be some time before one can actually use it.
But this card won't be available until march (spring, for those of us in the northern hemisphere). Nvidia missed its opportunity to make my feet all warm and toasty. ;-)
Given the sizes reported by those who saw the actual card at CES, they're stating it's ~10.5 inches, similar to the 5870.
I would wait for a GF100 or 5870 refresh first. AMD is rumored to be working on the 28nm refresh that should be available by mid-year. GlobalFoundries has been showing off wafers that have been fabbed on a 28 nm process, and rumors indicate that we'll be seeing 28nm GPUs by the mid-year. I would imagine that nvidia is planning a 28nm refresh of GF100 not long after. Smaller GPU = less power = smaller PCB, so the cards will be shorter.
The addition of multiplayer in Uncharted 2 didn't seem to hinder single player quality.
Grayson is a joke. Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.
I've tried to ignore him, yet it's difficult when you actually live in central FL and you hear about him in the news on a weekly basis. I'm not even a republican, yet I cringe every time I hear him being interviewed- he's got an enormous ego and an even bigger mouth. He's the most annoying kind of politician- one who believes he's a populist yet no one actually likes him. Out of all of the reasonable people that democrats had running in the 2008 election for my district, we somehow ended up with a guy who can't debate without personally insulting people, refers to those who disagree with the current healthcare legislation "murderers", called a woman a "whore" on national television, etc... there's nothing professional about him. No surprise that he's trying to get some blog critical of him shut down.
Alan Grayson like a liberal Jack Thompson, only he still has power. He's a disgrace to my district, and frankly, I'm embarrassed that my neighbors in central FL were either stupid or ill-informed enough to elect him.
Yes, I said MY district.
Come get me, Mr. Grayson.
This is analogous to video game consoles refusing to use generic memory sticks or hard drives. Of course, intel will try to claim it's more like trying to attach a sata drive to an IDE port, but we all know the instruction sets for X86 are standard across both chips.
Generally yes, but the intel compiler really shines by optimizing for the newer instructions that competitors may or may not have yet. SSSE3 (not to be confused with SSE3), SSE4, SSE5, etc are only found on newer intel chips. Not to mention the ones that AMD adds too (3DNow, CVT16, etc) or the differences between comparable instructions and registers (AMD-V/VT-X, AMD64/EM64T, etc). The x86 ISA as a "standard" is quite a mess.
Should we expect intel to track competitors' features for each target platform?
Verizon will be dropping CDMA2000 and going the UMTS route for next gen, and will be using LTE (along with AT&T) for its 4G next year.