Date
1 - 10 of 10
A question about dmr function.
|
iw1gap.andrea@...
HI,
Many thanks, best regards
Andrea
|
|
|
|
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 ]
|
|
|
|
"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: http://www.motorolasolutions.com/US-EN/Technology_Licensing/Standards-Based+Licensing/DMR+Essentials+Licensing+Program John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223   
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:29 AM, iw1gap.andrea@... [UniversalDigitalRadio] <UniversalDigitalRadio@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
"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:
|
|
|
|
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
Google bought a chunk of Motorola, stripped it of patents, then
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 --
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
|
|
|
|
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 ]
|
|
|
|
Bruce Given <bruce.given@...>
Gentlemen You can read more about it here http://www.etsi.org/index.php/about/iprs-in-etsi Bruce VE2GZI -- I’d rather live in a world full of eccentric thinkers than one full of unthinking consumers.
|
|
|
|
"Tyrell Jentink, KD7KUJ" <tyrell@...>
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).
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
"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 ----
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).
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.
|
|
|