On 26 Sep, 2012, at 10:03 , J. Forster wrote: > You go after everything. Soup to nuts, including the contract agreements. > > IMO, this is potentially very, very big money, because Xtendwave may also > have patent protection, and henceforth control all the precise digital > clock market. This is tens of millions of units, at least.
They claim to have applied for patents on something but I would be surprised if they could patent anything that would prevent anyone from designing their own receiver. What would annoy me is less-than-full disclosure of the transmitted signal and its properties. For example, there's a claim in the paper that the (31 26) Hamming code used can detect double-bit errors in the encoded time. I think detecting double-bit errors would require an additional parity bit, and that the assertion in the paper is just a boo-boo, but I also keep wondering if the claim might in fact be true, that there might be a really clever way to use that with something else in the signal to detect double-bit errors, and the paper just isn't pointing that out. That would be annoying. Dennis Ferguson _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
