Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Your Rights Online

LightSquared Hires Lawyers To Prep For GPS Battle 195

Posted by samzenpus
from the court-time dept.
itwbennett writes "Following Tuesday's FCC ruling saying that the company's LTE network interferes with GPS, LightSquared's primary investor Philip Falcone is looking to sue the FCC and the GPS industry. Alternately, Falcone is considering ways to appeal the FCC's decision or even swap spectrum with the Department of Defense."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LightSquared Hires Lawyers To Prep For GPS Battle

Comments Filter:
  • Oh come on. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:23AM (#39098671)

    This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.

    • Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)

      by rhombic (140326) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:31AM (#39098705)

      They bought a license to transmit a candle's worth of power on a sattelite based band, and are sad that the FCC won't let them send an arclight's worth of signal out from ground based stations. Ars [arstechnica.com] link.

      • Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice.gmail@com> on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:40AM (#39098757)

        While that is true, my opinion as someone who has been following the story is that the FCC does have a degree of culpability here because they were involved in LightSquared's plans from the very beginning, and only issued the death penalty after significant amounts of money had been spent even when the evidence they based that decision on had been available for a significant amount of time - to a degree, it can be argued that the FCC led LightSquared, and that is what they should answer for.

        LightSquared should have been told at the very beginning, when the FCC first got involved, that their approach was not acceptable and that they needed a different license and spectrum.

        • Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)

          by SOOPRcow (1279010) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:44AM (#39098781)
          When the FCC first got involved they gave them a provisional approval which required LightSquared to prove that it would not affect GPS devices. LightSquared was unable to prove it. Ars Technica explains it pretty well here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/why-lightsquared-failed.ars [arstechnica.com]
          • That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.

            Yes, LightSquared were idiots for doing this at all, but the FCC were wrong in doing what they did.

            • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:19AM (#39099027) Journal

              You don't get what a provisional approval means. The FCC said, we don't know if what you want to do is possible but we are not going to say no right away, if you want, you can proof your claim.

              Had the FCC not done this, they would have been a dinosaur, an unmovable object on the road to progress. Instead they allowed a test, a test to prove that what the FCC believed (that the proposal would not work) was wrong.

              It is like a provisional driving license or are you going to claim that if you get a provisional driving license, the state is obliged to give you a full license regardless of whether you pass the test?

              Provisional licenses are pretty common, often you need a license to do something for real but you first need to do it in a test to do but to test it you need a license. To get around this, you issue a provisional license. It allows test and allows people to challenge assumptions but if you fail the test, so be it. Unless you want to sue your examiner for failing you.

            • That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.

              Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.

              • That's my point - they were given provisional approval to proceed, and when they failed the tests the FCC allowed them for months to submit proposed solutions. The provisional approval should never have been given, as it's a totally different use for the band than allocated for in the license - the FCC should have closed the door right then and there.

                Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.

                1. Spoiled rich brats usually aren't doing anything technical enough and affecting the EM spectrum enough to require FCC approval.
                2. If they are, they usually have Daddy (or themselves if they are old enough) to buy off a few politicians to get the law changed, after a prolonged media campaign about "modernizing" the laws.

              • by tunapez (1161697)

                Then we'd be reading a story about how some spoiled rich brat was suing because the mean ol' FCC wouldn't approve his nifty idea.

                Errrm.... Falcone's investors seem to think that is exactly what we are reading about.

                Harbinger investors sue Falcone, Harbinger fund [totaltele.com]

            • Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by stevew (4845) on Monday February 20, 2012 @11:12AM (#39099475) Journal

              Let's highlight this last "LightSquared were Idiots!" because they were trying to do something that any amateur radio operator that has been on a Field Day with more than one station would understand - wasn't going to work without even TRYING the experiment.

        • Re:Oh come on. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by msobkow (48369) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:47AM (#39098791) Homepage Journal

          Fine, but how has the GPS industry been culpable for the actions of the FCC? They submit their recommendations and concerns to the FCC the same as any other interested party, but it's the FCC who makes the call, not the GPS industry.

          How is the GPS industry to blame for being legitimately concerned that Lightsquared technology will interfere with their EXISTING, LICENSED USE OF SPECTRUM?!?!?!!

        • Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by msauve (701917) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:53AM (#39098831)
          You haven't been following the story very closely, since you obviously don't know that Lightsquared got their original approval on a fast track basis [orbitrax.com], with very little review time, and across a holiday weekend. They knew full-well that their intended use couldn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. If you think that just happened, without their pushing very hard through back channels, you really don't know how the FCC works. Lightsquared have only themselves to blame for trying to short-cut the process, and expecting political pressure to win out over technical facts (although that last one is often a good bet to make).
          • Now, some gaggle of attorneys has their vacuum cleaner nozzle in the back pockets of the investors, who sadly are likely to lose an enormous wad of money. Instead, the investors will now start to pour more money onto the pile of ashes, blow on them, and watch even more money ignite and burn.

            Silly investors.

          • I've been following the story fairly closely, but all your comment does is highlight yet another failure on the part of the FCC.

            • And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.

              Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.

              • And I think it's worth me stating this outright, lest someone claim I am a shill for LS - I think their plan was stupid, their product flawed and their approach totally wrong, and I think that all of those things were obvious from day one.

                Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.

                So, you are saying that the FCC should be a stonewalling, Catch-22ing, dinosaur? Personally, I find it refreshingly modern that they actually let LS try. If LS fucked it up, they have only themselves to blame.

              • Shill? No. Idiot who doesn't understand what "provisional" means? Yes.

                For future reference it means not a definite no, but it will only become a definite yes if condition yadda yadda is fulfilled. Yadda yadda was not fulfilled, so they don't have permission to proceed. Not rocket science, is it?

              • by Dishevel (1105119)

                Which is also why I think the FCC shares some responsibility here.

                Sorry. Need to speak up here. This is one of the reasons the US is so seriously fucked up.
                We do not need to go looking for people to share the blame here. LS is the problem.
                The lady who buys hot coffee and spills it is the problem.
                The guy who jumps off a building is the problem.
                We do not need to spend billions of dollars a year protecting ourselves from asshole lawyers sicked on us by stupid irresponsible dipshits.
                This is a major drain on the economy.
                Fuck litigious bastards and their lawyers.
                Fuck the ADA, F

                • If your first example is referring to the McDonads hot coffee case, it was proven in court that McDs kept the coffee at UNSAFE temperatures to maintain flavor. McDonalds was ultimately found 80% culpable, and the lady 20%. I really love the McDs case, it shows people's ignorance and willingness to believe hyperbole.
                  • Yeah, everyone who cites this case as frivolous seems to have the idea that the lady in question simply suffered some minor discomfort and a wet pair of pants instead of 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts on her genitals [wikipedia.org].

                    Coffee should be pleasantly hot, not scalding hot. If you spill it on yourself, you should be a bit uncomfortable and maybe look silly, not have to spend a week in the hospital having your crotch skin replaced.

                • Fuck OSHA? Really? The only people I've known in life that think that way, are asshole managers/owners who don't give a shit about their workers. Despite what all the cool kids say, there are useful government regulation agencies, and OSHA is one of them.
        • I don't see the FCC as having any culpability here unless I missed something. God, I hate having to use that phrase so often.

          From what I understand (groans at self), the FCC knew there were problems with this spectrum. They could have outright said no. They could have bowed to pressure and outright said yes. Instead they took a middle path to find out what would the impact be. It didn't look good, but might work. It might work, but better to find out now.

          The FCC gave Lightsquared a chance to prove to

      • All RF transmitters spit out harmonics. My guess is that Lightsquared's hardware spits out huge amounts of harmonics that stomp all over GPS frequencies and they're freaking out for a bunch of possible reasons. 1) They probably went ahead and built a sh*tload of devices before they got FCC approval and now all of that will have to be scrapped, 2) It's going to cost a bunch of money to redesign the hardware correctly, 3) the redesigned hardware is going to cost a hell of a lot more to mass produce so their

    • by vlm (69642) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:51AM (#39098825)

      This is the 4th or 5th story I have read about LightSquared and so far the only thing I know about them is that their shit messes up GPS.

      Its the tech version of a soap opera. You know how my wife loves those TV dramas where diane was flirting with jake while he was dating cindy but actually cody had a crush on diane and it doesn't matter because jake is gay and cindy is lesbo and they're just pretending to be together to stop cindys boss john from flirting with her? Yeah its like that but with RF microwave technology and stuff.

      So lets try this again in female TV drama mode using the standard crypto protocol names. So Bob asked drunken crack addict Alice for a date using a GPG signed irrefutable email and Alice said, eh Bob's kinda cute if you're drunk and high enough, yeah, maybe I'll think about it, so Bob went shopping at (product placement) and maxed out his (product placement) credit card on a (product placement) tux and a (product placement) marriage ring and (product placement) body spray and showed up on her doorstep the morning of his scheduled marriage to her (which she doesn't even know about), ready to get some premarital (sweep week ratings boosting) action. So Alice's brother Charlie finally figures out whats going on, shows up at Alice's door, thinks Bob is completely Fing out of his mind to even imagine Bob will hook up with his sister Alice, and beats the S out of him and throws him to the curb, staples an ASBO to his forehead, and leaves him bleeding in the gutter, and posts it all to /.. Then Alice stops her drug and booze binge long enough to realize she totally F'ed up and posts to facebook that she only lead Bob on because she was on a crack cocaine binge and now she's waaaay too sober to F him and Bob can just go back under his rock now please. Which pisses off Bob who plans to take her anyway no matter if she's willing or not, and pisses off Bob's credit card company because they know Bob will never pay them back a penny unless he gets some. Meanwhile everyone gets pissed off both at Alice for being a trashy crack whore on a binge unable to control herself from leading Bob on, and everyone's also pissed off at Bob for being such a profound jerk for not understanding "no means no" or whatever the trendy phrase is, and everyone's pissed off at Bob's (product placement) credit card provider for giving Bob, who is apparently an idiot, a limitless credit balancing knowing he has no way to pay it off (although when Bob goes bankrupt, "we will all" pay off his loans in higher fees, govt bailouts, etc, so at least they are the "winners" in this scenario)

    • Re:Oh come on. (Score:5, Informative)

      by petermgreen (876956) <plugwash@p10l[ ].net ['ink' in gap]> on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:10AM (#39098951) Homepage

      As I understand it

      Lightsquared were/are a sattelite communications provider and owned a peice of spectrum intended for sattelite downlink (where signal power at earths surface would be very low) close (spectrally) to GPS. According to wikipedia they got permission to make ancillary use of this spectrum terrestrially and are now trying to get permission to use it for pure terrestrial cellular devices. However terrestrial transmitters mean much stronger signals at the earths surface. Signals that are close in spectrum and widely different in power are problematic due to imperfect filters and nonlinearities in both tranmitters and receivers.

      If they succeed they will make a mint, if they fail then it will likely be a massive hit to thier buisness. Especially if in the process of failing they were to lose the ability to run any terrestrial services in the band.

      It's kind of like buying land/buildings with the intent ot trying to get "planning permission"* to build something and/or to change the use of the property. If you get the permission you can make a shitload of money but if the council decides your planned use is inappropriate for the area you can be stuck with property you can't do much with.

      * This is a UK term, I dunno what the american equivilent is

      • We call it "zoning" but it's essentially the same thing. If you buy residential zoned property with the intent to get it rezoned as industrial you are pretty likely to have:

        a) Very ticked off neighbors and
        b) A very unfriendly local government.

        You can make it work: if the locality is desperate enough, you make enough promises to the neighbors, you buy up enough adjacent property, etc... but it's a risky operation.

  • by Viol8 (599362) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:35AM (#39098727)

    Their for-profit system screws up GPS which has been around a LOT longer than they have , the FCC finds this and blocks their system and THEY want to sue the FCC and GPS makers???

    I'm sorry, is this Falcone guy just gold plated arrogant ass who thinks the world should revolve around him, or is he just a plain, good old grade A fsckwit?

    • by sharkey (16670)
      Can't he be both?
    • by glop (181086)

      Well, I am not sure it's really that clear cut.
      The Ars Technica article explains that 25% of the GPS receivers were unharmed by Lightsquared's towers. That means 75% of the receivers tested are not filtering out properly the bandwidths that were not intended for GPS.
      Normally, when gadgets and electronic devices go through the FCC (like they all do before they can be sold), that's to prove they don't cause harmful interferences and that they are not susceptible to interference from lawful emissions in other

      • by bws111 (1216812) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:39AM (#39099165)

        The FCC only certifies TRANSMITTERS (both intentional and unintentional transmitters). GPS receivers are not transmitters.

        The "must not interfere" and "must accept all interference" rules which people on here are so fond of quoting have nothing to do with technical requirements. If they were technical requirements the consumer would have no reason to know about them. They are USAGE requirements. "Must not interfere" means that, even if your type accepted device is operating 100% properly, if it is causing interference with licensed operations you must stop using it. "Must accept all interference" means that if something (licensed or unlicensed) is interfering with your transmissions, that is just too bad.

      • by Artraze (600366) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:47AM (#39099237)

        > not susceptible to interference from lawful emissions in other parts of the spectrum.

        _Lawful emissions_. GPS uses spectrum within a portion of the L-Band allocated for use in space -> ground communications. This means that future allocations on adjacent bands should be very low power. Indeed, I'd say that's rather the entire point of having a blocked out bit of spectrum for satellite communications: They must be a much lower power, so receivers can't easily filter out much more powerful ground based interference. By blocking ground signals a good distance from satellite ones you make filtration much easier.

        GPS receivers were built with the expectation (if not guarantee) that interfering signals would be roughly at the same power as GPS. However, the transmitters Lightsquared was planning to build would be, literally, one million times stronger than GPS on a good day (-70dBm vs -130dBm). So, I'd hardly call such interference 'lawful' just because the FCC thought they could change the law after the devices were built.

      • by rnturn (11092)

        Uh... when the ham radio operator down the road interferes with his neighbors' radios and television reception, it is the ham operator who has to modify his operation. The FCC would not be letting him off the hook because the neighbors did not purchase radios and televisions that were completely immune to external transmissions that adversely affected their operation. Any lawsuit filed by the ham operator against his neighbors would be laughed out of court.

        Of course, the US legal system is so screwed up n

        • by bws111 (1216812)

          If the ham radio operator is operating legally, he is indeed off the hook. And that is the key - legally. The TV manufacturers know what the maximum legal power levels are that they have to reject at different frequencies. If they reject those things, and the ham is operating legally, there is no problem. If the ham is operating legally and there is still interference, then the neighbor has a crappy TV and that is his problem, not the ham's. However, if the ham is operating illegally (too much power

    • by RichiH (749257)

      No.

      * LightSquared gets an assignment of free spectrum
      * LightSquared invests tons of money
      * The GPS industry has been violating FCC rules by not filtering out non-GPS spectrum _as they are required to_ on all devices. Independent tests say 75% are not FCC-compliant
      * The FCC performs tests with models chosen from said 75%
      * The FCC states that the risk is too large and destroys LightSquared's business model, assets and tells them they are not allowed to use their spectrum.

      Now, I do get the safety aspect. This

      • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Monday February 20, 2012 @01:29PM (#39100851)

        * LightSquared gets an assignment of free spectrum

        One they had for a while and with terms explicitly preventing them from using the spectrum for terrestrial broadcast.

        * LightSquared invests tons of money

        Irrelevent.

        * The GPS industry has been violating FCC rules by not filtering out non-GPS spectrum _as they are required to_ on all devices. Independent tests say 75% are not FCC-compliant

        LOL what rules? You don't need to meet any GPS specific requirements or approval specific to building a GPS receiver. FCC only has say over units that transmit a signal.

        * The FCC performs tests with models chosen from said 75%

        There is no such thing!

        * The FCC states that the risk is too large and destroys LightSquared's business model, assets and tells them they are not allowed to use their spectrum.

        They can use their spectrum as long as they do it within the limits stipulated when they purchased it including the ATC integrated services rule.

        In my opinion, the willful neglect by the GPS manufacturers requires them to fix it at own cost.

        All of the points are factually incorrect. Please take some time reevaluate.

  • by Ice Wewe (936718) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:35AM (#39098731)

    Alternately, Falcone is considering ways to appeal the FCC's decision or even swap spectrum with the Department of Defense.

    Seriously? I know they're understandably upset that the satellite bands they purchased can't be used for terrestrial, but come on guys, this is just a waste of time.

    You know what wouldn't be a waste of time? Creating the satellite based network their original proposal had.

    • by glop (181086)

      Or use tethered blimps at 600 feet, that would be cool...

    • by Solandri (704621)

      You know what wouldn't be a waste of time? Creating the satellite based network their original proposal had.

      They did build a satellite phone network [mjsales.net] using the spectrum. That business didn't go so well so they agreed to buy out the spectrum from their partner (Inmarsat), and applied with the FCC to have the satellite spectrum converted into terrestrial spectrum.

      All this used to be in wiki entry for LightSquared [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately the wiki looks like it's been hijacked by a bunch of LightSquared's PR folks.

  • by alanshot (541117) <rurick&techondemand,net> on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:38AM (#39098739)

    FTA: "...Through a lawsuit, the company might seek to force GPS vendors to make their receivers filter out LightSquared's frequencies, the Journal said..."

    Seriously? I would love to hear from this idiot how he proposes to do this for existing units. Horses, barn doors, yadda yadda... I'm no EE/RF guy, but I'm sure its a bit more than simple software patches to the units. And I'll be DAMNED if I have to go buy another unit just because "his" part of the spectrum isnt quite up to par with what he wants to do with it.

    Somebody needs a good cockpunch to remind him that while its often disappointing that you cant achieve your goal due to outside forces, sometimes those forces are just plain beyond your control and you need to move on instead of lawyering up and being a dickhead about it.

    • by glop (181086)

      You probably can't get old gear to be retrofitted and some old gear might be very important (think your Fire Department's truck's GPS or something like that).
      But if the GPS manufactures stop selling the GPSes that are not filtering the frequencies and the FCC stops allowing the sale of those GPSes, then, after a while, the spectrum will be useable in the way that Lightsquared is planning (may it will take 5 years).
      That means the value of the spectrum will raise and LightSquared stands a better chance of swa

      • by rabbit994 (686936)

        5 Years, try more 15. I know many GPS installations that are 10-15 years old. When I was school in 2002, a friend studying Geology went out into Rockies to install GPS units in mountains to measure drift of tectonic plates. They were replacing GPS Units that had been in place since 1993 and units they were installing had planned service lifetime of 10 years. Many Aircraft GPS Recievers are 10 years old as well and many might remain in place for another couple of years if they are working. In more expensive

      • by Minupla (62455)

        I'm not sure you appreciate how pervasive GPS use is. Yes, there's the obvious usage, but consider systems which use GPS signals for TIME synchronization and the issues get much larger. This includes banking machines, stock exchanges, data centers, etc.

        There's a whole hidden world of GPS dependance that comes from cheap "GPS on a chip" solutions which can replace RTCs that need to be manually reset in the event of a battery going flat. (Not nice to have to do when your ATMs are spread all over North Amer

  • / Grabs popcorn before the show starts.

    // Hopes Darl makes a cameo in this one
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday February 20, 2012 @09:47AM (#39098795)

    My idea proved to be technically infeasible, so I'm going to sue the FCC for calling a spade a spade, and rest of the world for not getting out of my way.

    And maybe God while I'm at it, for creating a reality that won't bend to my will. (Although it sort-of does, in my head.)

  • by scharkalvin (72228) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:00AM (#39098869) Homepage

    The FCC has made many flawed decisions in the past. Their approval of Broadband over Power lines is a classic example. All the testing showed that the system would interfere with EVERY radio service in the HF spectrum, yet they allowed the service to be rolled out. The backlash from this has hopefully killed off any attempt to actually deploy such systems, but the FCC is still insisting that it's technically a good idea.
    So in this case they have done the same thing, given approval to a system that would cause interference with another radio service, already in use. Only now, they've done the right thing by pulling the rug out before the damage could be done. However, by not making the right decision before letting investment proceed they probably DO owe the investors a good chunk of damages, as they should also owe those in the BPL business.

    • by Lehk228 (705449) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:10AM (#39098953) Journal
      FCC doesn't owe LS investors jack shit. FCC auctions satellite spectrum, LS asked if they could try out magic equipment that could safely xmit from the ground without affecting existing users, It's not the FCC's job to explain physics to moron capitalists, that would actually be quite unfair for the FCC to decide in advance what is and is not possible and prohibit companies from trying "impossible" things
    • by vlm (69642)

      but the FCC is still insisting that it's technically a good idea.

      No even the stupidest poltical ops in the FCC know its technically useless. They are insisting for political reasons. If you have a "marketplace of competitors" then you don't need monopoly regulation of RICO act like megacorps.

      If it were not for those pesky laws of physics, BPL and LS would be great market competitors to the established operators, and there would be no and/or less reason to regulate the existing corrupt monopolies, because "look, its a free competitive market so regulation is unnecessary

  • also because GPS was in place far before LTE was even thought of.

  • by aglider (2435074) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:02AM (#39098887) Homepage

    Sue the magnetic field!

    • ...and his evil alter-ego the electric field!

      Mr. Falcone better wear a cape and tights for this battle. It won't help LightSquared, but it will be entertaining for spectators.

  • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:09AM (#39098933)
    Their intended product interferes with GPS, and they intend to sue the victim and the government. I hope these SOBs get crushed in court. GPS is critical these days for so many things in the infrastructure, as well as being needed by the military. Lightspeed's network would interfere with GPS used by commercial and military aerial navigation. If these clowns think they have priority over that, they deserve to lose all their investment.
  • by splutty (43475) on Monday February 20, 2012 @10:14AM (#39098977)

    There's a reason why this spectrum is much cheaper than others, in that it's assigned to satellite communication.

    The assumption being made is that if you license this spectrum, you need to make significant costs to actually put satellites into space, so the licensing is cheaper.

    So they want both now (cake meme), cheap spectrum, but not put satellites into orbit (which their original proposal by the way *did* have), but instead use it as ground based spectrum (which is much more expensive to license)

    Car analogy: I buy a classic old timer, so I don't have to pay road taxes (or much less anyway) and much less insurance. Now I put those license plates on a Hummer and still expect to not pay the road taxes and much less insurance...

  • The root problem here is the idea of auctioning off the radio spectrum. It is essentially a TAX on innovation and the eventual users, which is then used as an excuse to give large monopoly profits on those who are willing to bid up the tax, knowing that WE will pay it in the end. The bigger the tax, the more profit they make.

    We should instead manage it as a public commons, having bands set up for experimentation, and then wider spaces for more established modes as they become popular, and have more users.

  • by Shavano (2541114) on Monday February 20, 2012 @12:48PM (#39100397)

    At some point, doesn't it become unethical for a lawyer to hire on with a company to pursue a lawsuit that they have absolutely no chance in hell of winning?

    Any half-competent lawyer is going to tell LightSquared to cut its losses and go begging on bended knee to the FCC and ask them to please allow them to license some other spectrum instead.

    And if they persist in their stupidity, I'd think any ethical lawyer would quit. But maybe I have an overly-optimistic view of the state of corporate legal ethics.

  • by Luckyo (1726890)

    It's telling that the company keeps on hiring lawyers when a single educated engineer would be able to tell them that their case is impossible, because it is fighting against laws of physics.

  • Lightsquared bought a disused satellite spectrum that was used to having weak satellite signals on it. That same spectrum sits next to the GPS spectrum. Because of this, the GPS system never had to deal with a strong signal sitting right next to their spectrum. Should they have done that? Yes. But they didn't because it was never an issue. Now lightsquared is trying to build a system that will create a LOT of noise just outside of their spectrum and many GPS systems will simply stop working.

    Lightsquared sho

  • Falcone thinks he can sue TWO government entities at the same time? File this under the heading of "more money than brains". Especially since one of his targets is the DoD, which has the first, last and only word [af.mil] on GPS operation.
  • And it wouldn't bow to cash or politics ... 'nough said.

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...