Subject: xG
From: "Marc Dannenberg" 
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 16:49:59 +0200
To: karn@ka9q.net

Phil,

I read your ridiculous assessment on xG and all I have to say is, Qualcomm is in big trouble if you are any indication of the level of workmanship at that firm.

Mentioning their marketcap as part of your analysis allows those readers to see directly through your bullshit. What difference does it make if the company is valued at 1.5 dollars or 1.5 billion dollars if the technology doesn�t work. Are you kidding me with the Claude Shannon bullshit...the guy was a HUMAN being and as sure as I�m sitting here any Law that is named after a human is absolute nonsense. People also thought the earth was flat and thought the sun revolved around the earth.

In this ridiculous statement,

xG's statement implies you can also reduce the number of RF cycles needed to transmit a bit by increasing the transmitted energy in each RF cycle. This is true, but it completely defeats the claimed benefit of reducing the energy consumed per data bit. So xG's claims simply don't make any sense.

you have lost any credibility that you might have had in the past. In this revolutionary technology it is highly doubtful that it would go across the same path as "LAWS" with human names attached to them. That is the beauty of a revolutionary technology. Seems like Qualcomm is a bit nervous to ask you to write such bullshit. Almost every "LAW" with a Human name attached to it has been proven wrong. These bullshit laws are much the same.

Joe Bobier is one of the most respected names in Communications, having trained in the Navy for many years. He set up a Wifi network in WV while you were asking for operator assistance to make a long distance call. ago. You shit on something I belive in, I will shit on something you hold dear.

Your conclusions are laughable.

The bottom line is very simple: the techniques described in this patent are not novel, having been around for decades. They cannot provide the advantages claimed by the inventor. He seems unaware that it will work very poorly (or more likely, not at all) without proper selection of the frequency shift. If the frequency shift is set to the minimum workable value -- exactly one half the data rate -- then it becomes MSK with Manchester encoding, with identical performance. And the inventor's naive remarks reveal a surprisingly poor understanding of the basic mathematical principles of modern digital communications.

Telefonica knows it works as advertised, xG knows it works and 100 million dollars of Far Reach�s says it works. 40 million in investments know it works and the company is valued at 1.6 Billion so by saying it doesn�t work without knowing anything at all about the technology other than trying to decipher patents that are obviously beyond your capabilities while others are putting their money where their mouth is is totally irresponsible.

you also wrote this piece of nonsense...

From my initial, tentative analysis, it would seem that xG's xMax technology is nothing special. No spectacular results have been demonstrated, certainly nothing that would call into question the fundamental principles of communication theory that have been firmly established for six decades. And a reading of xG's published claims and patents belie a surprising lack of awareness of these principles. Prospective investors should be very wary.

Who the fuck is going to listen to some geek from a competitor doing "tentative initial analysis on a technology that is completely new? Are you fucking kidding me? The company is not telling anyone how it works in detail, let alone a jagoff like you, yet you come to conclusions that there is nothing special after "tentative inital analysis"? Phil, my man, better start looking in the want-ads. Anyone who knows anything about xG knows you are a sham trying to denigrate a technology that will put you and your company at 0.

It has been very hard to tell just what it is because xG has been so tight-lipped and vague about its technology. But some recently granted patents and their website can provide some insights. And while I'm still analyzing them, my initial impression is that it doesn't look good at all. Considering that xG Technology's current market capitalization is in the range of US $1.5 billion, this is more than a little distressing

You are saying that we are all wasting time and money...I say you are shitting in your pants right now.

Best,
Marc