RE: Big B, little b
Howard,
So if we are afraid of the standards police, we should use little b.
As far as the question of code names, I don't think anything in patent law
gives the inventor control of names and I don't recall seeing 8B/10B with a
trade mark symbol.
Geoff,
That does bring up the question of the patent in general. Is the existing
patent letter that IEEE has on file from IBM specific to the 1 Gbit/s usage
of the code or is it general so that it covers us using it at 10 Gig? If it
is specific, it seems time to get a new letter.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:03 PM
To: Jonathan Thatcher
Cc: 'rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; HSSG_reflector (E-mail); Geoffrey O.
Thompson (E-mail); Robert M. Grow (E-mail); David Law (E-mail); Brad
Booth (E-mail); Stephen Haddock (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Big B, little b
Jonathan,
Frankly, you should be. Like the rest of the law enforcement officers you
might encounter, they lack a sense of humor.
You might also have to factor in the opinion of the Florida state supreme
court.
Um, who says that the 10 gig version of 8B/10B is different from the
1 gig version? It's the same code set. Just because we are using different
rules for the sequence of valid transitions from one code group to another
doesn't mean we have invented a different code. The PCS (or XGXS,
or whatever cryptic acronym we are using this week) is different, but
the underlying code is identical. Save confusion. Use the same name.
Howard
Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> I understand that we are bound by the IEEE style guide. I also understand
> that we are bound by "de law." I don't think the US Supreme Court would
> concur that the IEEE style guide has precidence over the legal system.
Also,
> frankly, I'm not especially frightened by the IEEE style police. :-)
>
> jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Taborek [mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:02 AM
> To: HSSG
> Subject: Re: Big B, little b
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Let's not mix legal issues with style issues. What we have here is a
> style issue. I can add a direct patent reference into Clause 48 for good
> measure, However, it's already in Clause 36 so it's not required. We can
> call the trasnmission code Fred or %$#@ instead of 8b/10b if we choose.
> However, neither Fred nor %$#@ comply with the IEEE Style guide.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rich
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
> >
> > Bizarre this discussion....
> >
> > Okay, so what legal rights does IBM have here and will they choose to
> > exercise them?
> >
> > jonathan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Brown [mailto:bbrown@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:21 AM
> > To: Booth Bradley
> > Cc: Shimon Muller; pat_thaler@xxxxxxxxxxx; bill_lane@xxxxxxxx;
> > pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; david_cunningham@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > david_law@xxxxxxxxxxxx; edward_turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Grow Bob;
> > jonathan.thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > dkabal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dkesling@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > larry.rubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx; shaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > tom_alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; wthirion@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Big B, little b
> >
> > Brad,
> >
> > This is indeed the exact same 8B/10B using the exact same
> > encoding/decoding, disparity and data/control characters.
> > Just because we're putting a different protocol over the
> > top of this coding doesn't mean the coding isn't the same.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > "Booth, Bradley" wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay, it's my turn... I think that it should be 8b/10b. Not only
> because
> > > "b" stands for bit, but because the 8b/10b used by used in 10G is
> > different
> > > than the 8B/10B used in 1G. Although our 8b/10b references the 8B/10B
> > > encoding in clause 36, we do have some different codes, and we've done
> > > things to alleviate some EMI issues.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Brad
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Benjamin Brown
> > AMCC
> > 2 Commerce Park West
> > Suite 104
> > Bedford NH 03110
> > 603-641-9837 - Work
> > 603-491-0296 - Cell
> > 603-626-7455 - Fax
> > 603-798-4115 - Home Office
> > bbrown@xxxxxxxx
> > -----------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
> Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
> nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
> 2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com