On 7/15/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I very carefully made a distinction between "technology described by > > the patents" and "patented technology" in the message you're responding > > to. > > > > One example of technology where this distinction should be clear is > > the use of time -> frequency domain mapping. > > Mr. James was obviously referring to the scope of the inventions > ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents in the > Fraunhofer (and possibly Sisvel) suites.
Are you suggesting that the use of time -> frequency domain mapping is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents? Or, perhaps that all other such techniques which have been in use for quite some time (such as favoring frequencies which the human ear is sensitive to) are all not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents? Thanks, -- Raul
