Hal, It is worse than that ! John P Lowe, Broadcast Manager for NIST, stated to me that "HE" was the person who invented the new modulation scheme. If that is the case then it belongs to all of us. AND that is, precisely, why they are publishing this modulation scheme.
What I find interesting is this private company started up while JP Lowe was "inventing" this modulation scheme and requesting patents at the same time. Does the word COLLUSION come to mind ? Yet JP lowe claims he has no stake or interest in this new company. WELL, I am having a hard time with that very point. Equally interesting is that no public input was sought prior to considering this modulation scheme. Why is that you ask ? Most likely because everyone that actually uses 60 KHz for what it was intended for would be raising hell about it. What about the public ? This new scheme is suppose to allow for additional services. What could you possibly add that would be of advantage that is not available in a number of easier methods like AM/FM radio and TV for disseminating information. This, of course, completely ignores the Internet. As it is now, the public buys WWVB clocks because they really believe the damn thing is accurate, which it is truly not. So, to cut down on the controversy, they wait till they are ready to do it and then just spring on us like it is a done deal. As most people are rather passive in nature, they knew no major negative fallout would occur. Fallout being like a large group of people petitioning their representatives against it and so forth. Making it worse is the fact that all the major time and frequency companies abandoned their 60 KHz equipment line in favor of GPS. Sure GPS is better than 60 KHz, but one of these days something is going to f**kup the GPS system enough to cause problems. They already got rid of LORAN and they will probably find a way to get rid VOR, so flying will become an "F" ticket ride. This modulation scheme is just another blunder, not unlike Lightsquared, manipulating the public TEAT to pay for it. Oh, just my two cents, Bill....WB6BNQ Hal Murray wrote: > [email protected] said: > > Actually, I think the developing company does have patents on some of the > > receiver implementations. You can probably design around them. > > What's the fine print in this area? Does NIST have any PR blurbs covering > patents? > > Common sense, politics, and patents makes for a horrible mess. > > I think I'd be happy if the developing company got a head start. That could > be a reasonable trade for a lot of engineering/support during testing. > > I think I'd be unhappy if they got a patent on a receiving technique that was > obvious to one skilled in the art (or whatever the magic patent phrase is) > after you looked at the description of the modulation/encoding technique. > That's assuming that NIST didn't get a broad free-to-use license for that > patent for listening to WWVB. > > Another way to view this mess is the general topic of patents in standards. > WWVB isn't in the same class of "standards" as IETF/IEEE/ANSI/ISO type > documents, but given that it's a government monopoly, it's as good (or > better) than any other standard. > > -- > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
