[–] messel 16y ago ↗ Do we infer the lack of needed standards? [–] eru 16y ago ↗ Good standards are discovered not imposed.
[–] mhansen 16y ago ↗ Seven years. What a colossal failure for the IEEE. Any insight on why it took so long? [–] [deleted] 16y ago ↗ (comment deleted) [–] cromulent 16y ago ↗ The Aussie government research lab CSIRO held patents on some of the technology and only agreed a resolution early this year. [–] dschobel 16y ago ↗ How can there be patentable technology in a specification?If it's a specification shouldn't it by definition omit implementation details? [–] wmf 16y ago ↗ Often there's only one natural way to implement something. For example, AFAIK everyone uses FFT to implement OFDM.
[–] cromulent 16y ago ↗ The Aussie government research lab CSIRO held patents on some of the technology and only agreed a resolution early this year. [–] dschobel 16y ago ↗ How can there be patentable technology in a specification?If it's a specification shouldn't it by definition omit implementation details? [–] wmf 16y ago ↗ Often there's only one natural way to implement something. For example, AFAIK everyone uses FFT to implement OFDM.
[–] dschobel 16y ago ↗ How can there be patentable technology in a specification?If it's a specification shouldn't it by definition omit implementation details? [–] wmf 16y ago ↗ Often there's only one natural way to implement something. For example, AFAIK everyone uses FFT to implement OFDM.
[–] wmf 16y ago ↗ Often there's only one natural way to implement something. For example, AFAIK everyone uses FFT to implement OFDM.
[–] tocomment 16y ago ↗ What does this mean for me? Will I get super fast wifi now? how fast? [–] jcl 16y ago ↗ All the devices out there that say "802.11n" on the box also have a disclaimer saying "draft standard". Now they can omit the disclaimer.
[–] jcl 16y ago ↗ All the devices out there that say "802.11n" on the box also have a disclaimer saying "draft standard". Now they can omit the disclaimer.
9 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 37.1 ms ] threadIf it's a specification shouldn't it by definition omit implementation details?