Date   

Re: A question about dmr function.

"del_swt@..." <del_swt@...>
 

Motorola may claim that they hold essential patents, it does not mean that they actually do. Certainly, the dPMR Association have examined the Motorola claims and deemed them irrelevant.

Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone



---- 'Tyrell Jentink, KD7KUJ' tyrell@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] wrote ----

 

Gentlemen

1.Google brought Motorola Cellular (Mobile Phones) Not the Land Mobile group (Radio)
So Motorola still owns the IP in Dpmr and DMR
The correct names are "Motorola Mobility" (For phones) and "Motorola Solutions" (For radios). Yes, Google bought Motorola Mobility, "Stripped away the patents" (Which is a misnomer in the first place... The reason Google wanted the patents was to PROTECT their Android partners, rather than get rich off of them... I would argue this was a net "Good" for Android consumers) and sold the rights to use the Motorola Mobility name to Lenovo (Which is hardly summarized by the derogatory use of "The Chinese;" I would argue that Lenovo has been a good custodian of the IBM Thinkpad line, and I hope for similarly good custodianship over the Razr and Moto X lines).

2.Standards are written by committees and Motorola is a member of the ETSI DMR committee
that's the way it goes !
You can read more about it here http://www.etsi.org/index.php/about/iprs-in-etsi
I wasn't attacking Motorola for having been in a position to be unopposed in patenting stuff they didn't invent; That's just good business... I criticize the patent system for being open to this kind of abuse.  

Furthermore, I don't argue that there is anything we can do about it... I DID argue that it sucks, and we, as hobbyists and consumers, are going to be beat over the head with the Motorola Legal War Club that this abuse of the patent system affords them.  Once again, they get rich, and we get dumb.  Works out well for our evil corporate overlords.  


Re: A question about dmr function.

kc5zrq@...
 

I don't think licensing is an issue as long as UDRX isn't being shipped with full DMR capability.  I am not an attorney, but I glanced over the patents and figured most of them are integral to the AMBE codec, and therefore any licensing would covered by DVSI.  If you purchase the DV3000, then you have purchased the rights to use most of the patents related to DMR.  Other patents are not relevant if you don't intend to make use of them, such as being able to automatically switch between FM voice and Digital modes.  Other patents involve the TDMA modulation and if the radio is inherently capable of the modulation, and then someone writes software that makes use of the modulation...  I don't know, but I would think if THAT required licensing, then the open and public requirement for use in the amateur service wouldn't apply.


Re: A question about dmr function.

"Tyrell Jentink, KD7KUJ" <tyrell@...>
 

Gentlemen

1.Google brought Motorola Cellular (Mobile Phones) Not the Land Mobile group (Radio)
So Motorola still owns the IP in Dpmr and DMR
The correct names are "Motorola Mobility" (For phones) and "Motorola Solutions" (For radios). Yes, Google bought Motorola Mobility, "Stripped away the patents" (Which is a misnomer in the first place... The reason Google wanted the patents was to PROTECT their Android partners, rather than get rich off of them... I would argue this was a net "Good" for Android consumers) and sold the rights to use the Motorola Mobility name to Lenovo (Which is hardly summarized by the derogatory use of "The Chinese;" I would argue that Lenovo has been a good custodian of the IBM Thinkpad line, and I hope for similarly good custodianship over the Razr and Moto X lines).

2.Standards are written by committees and Motorola is a member of the ETSI DMR committee
that's the way it goes !
You can read more about it here http://www.etsi.org/index.php/about/iprs-in-etsi
I wasn't attacking Motorola for having been in a position to be unopposed in patenting stuff they didn't invent; That's just good business... I criticize the patent system for being open to this kind of abuse.  

Furthermore, I don't argue that there is anything we can do about it... I DID argue that it sucks, and we, as hobbyists and consumers, are going to be beat over the head with the Motorola Legal War Club that this abuse of the patent system affords them.  Once again, they get rich, and we get dumb.  Works out well for our evil corporate overlords.  


Re: A question about dmr function.

Bruce Given <bruce.given@...>
 

Gentlemen

1.Google brought Motorola Cellular (Mobile Phones) Not the Land Mobile group (Radio)
So Motorola still owns the IP in Dpmr and DMR

2.Standards are written by committees and Motorola is a member of the ETSI DMR committee
that's the way it goes !
You can read more about it here http://www.etsi.org/index.php/about/iprs-in-etsi

regards
Bruce
VE2GZI

--
I’d rather live in a world full of eccentric thinkers than one full of unthinking consumers.


Re: A question about dmr function.

myyahoo@...
 

We get past it by refusing to use their patented devices and 'standards'. We can use and help develop open alternatives like Codec2 rather than furthering the deployment of AMBE.



[Moderator's note:  The patents in question have nothing to do with AMBE, it is other technology, see http://www.motorolasolutions.com/web/Business/Technology_Licensing/Documents/dmr_essential_properties.pdf ]


Re: A question about dmr function.

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Google bought a chunk of Motorola, stripped it of patents, then
dumped the carcass to the Chinese.

One would have to check to see if the tech-Borg (errr, Google) now
owns the dPMR patents, or Motorola.

BTW: If they truly did not develops the patents perhaps they could
be sued for fraud, or the patents revisited by the Patent Office
and vacated to the public domain?

In a just world with an honest government ... I can dream ...

I had the understanding that Motorola also had essential patents on
dPMR as well; See
http://www.motorolasolutions.com/US-EN/Technology_Licensing/Standards-Based+Licensing

It simply blows my mind that Motorola can hold essential patents for
standards not written by them. It seems like a blatant violation of
the intent of the US patent system, as it neither protects the
inventor nor encourages further innovation. It makes Motorola rich,
and keeps even hobbyists from learning about supporting technologies.
Yet, Motorola lays claim to these patents, and insists on charging
fees. I doubt we will see a solution to this that any of us will
like.
--

David Colburn, KD4E - Nevils, Georgia USA

Safe & Secure Search Engine: duckduckgo.com

Android for Hams: groups.yahoo.com/group/hamdroid
Creative Tech: groups.yahoo.com/group/ham-macguyver
Raspi Alternative: groups.yahoo.com/group/beagleboneblack/

Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: A question about dmr function.

"Tyrell Jentink, KD7KUJ" <tyrell@...>
 

I had the understanding that Motorola also had essential patents on dPMR as well; See http://www.motorolasolutions.com/US-EN/Technology_Licensing/Standards-Based+Licensing

It simply blows my mind that Motorola can hold essential patents for standards not written by them. It seems like a blatant violation of the intent of the US patent system, as it neither protects the inventor nor encourages further innovation. It makes Motorola rich, and keeps even hobbyists from learning about supporting technologies. Yet, Motorola lays claim to these patents, and insists on charging fees. I doubt we will see a solution to this that any of us will like.

On Jun 2, 2014 9:51 AM, "kc5zrq@... [UniversalDigitalRadio]" <UniversalDigitalRadio@...> wrote:
 

I don't know why it says that.  You don't need to pay a license fee for DMR.

[ Moderator -> see http://www.motorolasolutions.com/US-EN/Technology_Licensing/Standards-Based+Licensing/DMR+Essentials+Licensing+Program ]


Re: A question about dmr function.

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Andrea,

That's an issue at the moment.  We are going to see if we can find a way to make that convenient (e.g. pay a nominal fee and get a license), but it doesn't exist right now.

See:

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:29 AM, iw1gap.andrea@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] <UniversalDigitalRadio@...> wrote:
 

HI,
from the site http://vk5rex.squarespace.com/ read:

DMR (DMR operation may require licensing from Motorola)

Who do I pay the license DMR?

I did not find any documents.

 

Many thanks, best regards

 

Andrea



Re: A question about dmr function.

kc5zrq@...
 

I don't know why it says that.  You don't need to pay a license fee for DMR.

[ Moderator -> see http://www.motorolasolutions.com/US-EN/Technology_Licensing/Standards-Based+Licensing/DMR+Essentials+Licensing+Program ]


A question about dmr function.

iw1gap.andrea@...
 

HI,
from the site http://vk5rex.squarespace.com/ read:

DMR (DMR operation may require licensing from Motorola)

Who do I pay the license DMR?

I did not find any documents.

 

Many thanks, best regards

 

Andrea


Updated DV3000 Installation Document

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

http://nwdigitalradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dv3000d-AMBEserver.pdf


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  


Re: Libraries for DV3000 builds of AMBEtools

Bob Nielsen <n7xy@...>
 

Thanks, John, With the libs and wiringPi installed, all compiled nicely.

Bob, N7XY

On May 23, 2014, at 11:04 AM, 'John D. Hays' john@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] <UniversalDigitalRadio@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


If you need wiringPi -- see: http://wiringpi.com/download-and-install/


John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223






On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:00 PM, John D. Hays <john@...> wrote:
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install libusb-1.0-0-dev libwxgtk2.8-dev portaudio19-dev



John D. Hays
K7VEPO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223




Re: Libraries for DV3000 builds of AMBEtools

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

If you need wiringPi -- see: http://wiringpi.com/download-and-install/



John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  





On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:00 PM, John D. Hays <john@...> wrote:
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install  libusb-1.0-0-dev libwxgtk2.8-dev portaudio19-dev




John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  


Libraries for DV3000 builds of AMBEtools

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install  libusb-1.0-0-dev libwxgtk2.8-dev portaudio19-dev




John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  


Re: Error compiling dv3000d for NWDigital DV3000 AMBE board

Bob Nielsen <n7xy@...>
 

No. there is no template for configuring but there is a Makefile. K7VE has been helping on the ircDDBGateway list and at his suggestion I copied settings_raspbian_armhf.mk to settings.mk and it for a half-hour or so but then complained about "cannot find -lusb-1.0” during the linking process. John thought I might be missing portaudio19-dev but I do have that installed.

I did a lot of Fortran IV programming some 45 years ago but never learned C++.

On May 22, 2014, at 6:19 PM, jim@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] <UniversalDigitalRadio@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Also, did the instructions mention doing a ./configure prior to make?


Re: Error compiling dv3000d for NWDigital DV3000 AMBE board

jim@...
 

Hi Bob,

I see John got you further along in the ircDDBGateway group....to anyone wanting to see John's answer, jump over to that thread....
 

Jim


Re: Error compiling dv3000d for NWDigital DV3000 AMBE board

jim@...
 

Also, did the instructions mention doing a ./configure prior to make?


Re: Error compiling dv3000d for NWDigital DV3000 AMBE board

jim@...
 

Haven't received mine yet, so haven't downloaded the code, but on first glance, I'd think the -march setting you'd want is...

-march=armv6



Error compiling dv3000d for NWDigital DV3000 AMBE board

Bob Nielsen <n7xy@...>
 

I received my DV3000 yesterday and have installed it in my Raspberry PI running Rasbian (Debian wheezy-based Linux). I installed libwxgtk2.8-dev and portaudio19-dev. Following the instructions in http://nwdigitalradio.com/preparing-the-raspberry-pi-for-dv3000-applications/dv3000d I copied AMBETools-20140519 to my home directory and unzipped it. However, when I try to compile, I get the following error:

n7xy@raspberrypi ~/AMBETools $ make
make -C Common
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/n7xy/AMBETools/Common'
g++ -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-strict-aliasing -march=x86-64 -DDATA_DIR='"/usr/local/etc"' -DBIN_DIR='"/usr/local/bin"' -I/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-release-2.8 -I/usr/include/wx-2.8 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -D__WXGTK__ -pthread -c AddressTextCtrl.cpp
cc1plus: error: bad value (x86-64) for -march switch
make[1]: *** [AddressTextCtrl.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/n7xy/AMBETools/Common'
make: *** [Common/Common.a] Error 2

Any thoughts?

73, Bob N7XY


DV3000 AMBE card

Bob Nielsen <n7xy@...>
 

On May 21, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Yahoo Groups <notify@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


My card arrived today (that was fast, but it helps to be in northwest WA). It’s going to take a bit of reading before I am able to use it but hopefully I’ll have it going in a few days. I wish the GPIO headers on both boards were a bit shorter so it would fit inside my RPi case, but that’s a minor nit, since I will be moving it to the UDRX-440 when that ships.


Bob, N7XY

1961 - 1980 of 2586