Tag Archive for D-Link

Switch Sales Stalled

Switch Sales StalledThe stats for sales of network switches are in for Q4 2017. Only one of the top 5 networking vendors was able to squeeze out a small gain in switch sales. The data comes from New York-based NPD. NPD tracks monthly network switch sales data from the sales channel, distributors, and resellers in North America.

The article on CRN notes that the total number of switches sold through the channel in the quarter was 514,095. The number is up slightly from 510,822 in the fourth quarter of 2016, according to NPD. Here are the five vendors that sold the most switches through the channel in the fourth quarter, according to NPD.

D-Link Systems

D-Link logoTaiwan-based D-Link Systems (2332:TT) sold 25,259 switches during the fourth quarter, according to NPD statistics. That total kept the company steady with the same period in 2016 when it sold 25,277. D-Link did not have a switch model among the top 10-selling units during the quarter. Its market share was unchanged at 4.9%, CRN said.

TP-Link switch sales

According to NPD’s data, of all the five best-selling switch brands, TP-Link saw the steepest decline during this period. The company based in Shenzhen, China sold 26,023 switches in Q4 ’17 compared with 29,798 in Q4 ’16. That’s a 12.7 percent year-over-year decrease. There is one bright spot for the firm, the article reports that the company’s TLSF1005D Ethernet switch was the third-best-selling unit during the quarter. But that was not enough to prevent a market share decline from 5.8 percent in 2016 to 5.1 percent in 2017.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise switch sales

HPE LogoThe news from NDP is not good for former networking giant Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) either. The Palo Alto, CA-based firm saw a 1.8 percent decline in switches sold from 55,923 in Q4 ’16 to 54,941 switches in Q4 ’17. The quarter’s total was enough for a 10.7 percent market share, down slightly from the year-ago period. No HPE switch models were among the top 10 for the quarter, according to NPD.

Netgear sales

CRN reports that sales also slipped for Netgear. The number 2 switch company saw its market share dip from 18.3% to 17.9% year over year. The California-based firm sold 92,274 switches through the channel in the fourth quarter, down slightly from the 93,531 it sold in the same period a year ago, NPD said. Netgear had four switches in the top 10-best-selling switches during the quarter, including the top two models, the FS105 and GS105NA five-port models.

Cisco switch sales

Cisco (CSCO) was able to hold on to the #1 switch vendor position according to NDP. It sold 225,051 units during the period, a 5.7 percent increase that boosted the company’s market share to 43.8 percent from 41.7 a year earlier. Six of the top 10 best-selling switches in the quarter were Cisco Catalyst‘s led by the WS-C2960X 24– and 48-port models.

rb-

What happened to the network switch market? It’s still reeling from the 2007/08 recession and the Wi-Fi takeoff. Other than the Cisco switches, most of the top switch models sold were unmanaged, desktop switches limited to 100 Mbps uplinks. These types of switches make it OK to randomly add an unauthorized switch at the desktop and POOF there does your data. These desktop switches with their limited feature set don’t include Spanning Tree, so users can create a network loop and take down the whole network segment.

Not much to shout about.

Where are the vendors? Brocade? Extreme? Juniper? Dell? I am old enough to remember when switch manufacturers had a #2 strategy. 3Com, Lucent, Bay/Nortel all came into my office and said they wanted to #2 – now they are gone.

Related article

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

More Wi-Fi Patent Legal Wrangling

TMore Wi-Fi Patent Legal Wranglinghe wireless patent wars wage on. Ericsson, (ERIC) the Swedish telecommunications giant has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against a number of companies for alleged patent infringement of its IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi products reports CENS.com. CENS.com says the businesses named in Ericsson’s lawsuit include:

The CENS.com article says the lawsuit involves all WLAN (wireless local area network) devices either incorporating chipsets supplied by:

or OEM products made by:

Foxconn logoTech Connect reports that Ericsson claims, the companies named are offering products that violate one or more of the following WLAN patents (number/title):

  • 6,466,568 – ‘Multi-rate radiocommunication systems and terminals’
  • 5,771,468 – ‘Multi-purpose base station’
  • 6,519,223 – ‘System and method for implementing a semi-reliable retransmission protocol’
  • 6,330,435 – ‘Data packet discard notification’
  • 6,772,215 – ‘Method for minimizing feedback responses in ARQ protocols
  • 6,424,625 – ‘Method and apparatus for discarding packets in a data network having automatic repeat request’
  • 6,173,352 – ‘Mobile computer mounted apparatus for controlling enablement and indicating the operational status of a wireless communication’
  • 5,987,019 – ‘Multi-rate radiocommunication systems and terminals’
  • 5,790,516 – ‘Pulse shaping for data transmission in an orthogonal frequency division multiplexed system’

D-Link logoEricsson requested the infringing companies to compensate its losses and asked the court to ban the sales of the infringing products. D-Link told CENS.com they cannot give any comment because the company had not received any file from the court. But it will not affect the sales of its products. Acer told CENS.com that its legal department had received the related notice and has started judicial procedures.

rb-

I have covered other WLAN patent suits here and here. While I’m no patent lawyer, what this says to me is that the WLAN market is starting to level off and firms are looking for “other” ways to make some money without producing products. A business tactic fresh from the 1980s.

I also noticed that this suit between a European firm (Ericsson) and Asian firms (Acer, Netgear, and D-Link) was brought in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This seems to be a favorite place for firms to sue each other, I wonder if anyone has ever investigated why this court is so popular for alleged patent troll cases.

One of the things that we instituted a while ago, in our RFP’s and contract’s is a clause that requires the VAR and the manufacturer to hold the end-user harmless in regards to patent suits the VAR or manufacturer may get entangled in.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

D-Link Raises Net Security Bar

D-Link Raises Net Security Bar Help Net Security reports that D-Link (TSEC dlink) has upgraded its products to rival some of the “enterprise-level” devices I see at client sites. The vendor has enhanced its router security to a higher level of protection to guard against hacking, worms, viruses, and other malicious Web attacks. by incorporating DNSSEC, IPv6, and CAPTCHA.

DNSSEC is a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications (Core DNSSEC RFCs are RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035) that adds security to the DNS to offer assurance that the information received from a Domain Name Server is authentic according to the article. The security extensions are designed to protect the DNS from man-in-the-middle and cache poisoning attacks, which can occur when hackers corrupt DNS data stored on recursive name servers to redirect queries to malicious sites.

DNSSEC applies digital signatures to DNS data to authenticate the data’s origin and verify its integrity as it moves across the Internet and can give users an effective means of verification that their applications, such as Web or email, are using the correct addresses for servers they want to reach.

D-Link is also providing additional security and future-proofing its routers, by migrating to IPv6 certification according to Help Net Security. With the growing number of Internet-capable devices on the market, the pool of IPv4 addresses has dropped to six percent and is expected to run out sometime in 2011. While this is a major motivation for IPv6, other improvements are also realized.

The IPv6 specification now specifies certain security measures that were not defined in IPv4, such as IPSec. IPSec is a method of authenticating and encrypting data transferred between pairs of hosts. Although it was possible to implement IPSec with IPv4, it was not part of the specification. IPSec is now a requirement, not an option, in the IPv6 specification.

CAPTCHAD-Link has previously implemented a Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA) to improve security. CAPTCHA is a challenge-response test that ensures that a response during a user login is not computer-generated but instead is truly entered by a human hand, by requiring a user to manually enter a small amount of text displayed in an image to help prevent automated registration and fraud.

rb-

I looked at a production switch today that was still running only CatOS 9.0 (EOL 2009), they might be better protected with a new D-Link.

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Wi-Fi Settlement to Cost Billions

Wi-Fi Settlement to Cost BillionsAustralia’s national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has won its Wi-Fi patent troll case. They confirmed (4-22-09) that the patent cases heard in the Eastern District Court of Texas as concluded “successfully.” CSIRO sued most of the tech world over its claim of inventing the technology behind Wi-Fi Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs).

Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganizationCSIRO claims to have patented core elements of the technology used in 802.11a and 802.11g wireless devices. “CSIRO has negotiated settlement with each of the 14 companies involved in four concurrent litigation cases,” the agency said in a statement. “The commercial terms of the settlements with these companies will remain confidential.

Wi-Fi patent claim

The CSIRO first applied for the US patent in 1993. It was awarded US patent number 5,487,069, entitled “Wireless LAN” on 23 January 1996. The patent describes a “peer-to-peer wireless LAN” that can operate in the kind of multi-path environment created by radio echoes in typical office buildings. It includes three ways to get high-speed transmission despite the hostile conditions in an office environment. First, they describe transmitting over a relatively large number of parallel sub-channels within the available bandwidth so that each channel has a low bit rate. Second, the patent describes transmitting data in small packets with forward error correction (FEC) and using interleaving. These concepts are all featured in descriptions of the 802.11 physical layer CISRO claims to have patented core elements of the technology used in 802.11a, 802.11g, and 802.11n wireless devices.

negotiated settlementCSIRO has previously said that its patent allowed speed increases up to a factor of five over previous WLANs. They claimed to have, “offered licenses on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to major suppliers as soon as they started selling devices which used the CSIRO technology.

However, troubles began following the Cisco (CSCO) acquisition of Radiata from Macquarie University. The university had carried out for the purpose of commercializing CSIRO’s technology. Now CSIRO claims the work forms a key part of commonly used Wi-Fi products

The CSIRO filed Wi-Fi patent infringement suits against 3Com, Accton (2345), ASUS (2357), Belkin, D-Link (DLINK), Fujitsu (6702), Marvell (MRVL), (manufacturers of Apple’s (AAPL) iPod), Nintendo (7978), SMC and Toshiba (TOSBF). Several large technology vendors bit back – with  Apple, Dell (DELL), HP (HPQ), Intel (INTC), Microsoft (MSFT), and Netgear (NTGR) bringing cases against CSIRO in trying to have the patent invalidated.

In June 2007, the CSIRO won a case in the U.S. Federal Court against Japanese manufacturer Buffalo Technologies. This win is the basis the firm has used to demand royalties from a broader set of manufacturers that market Wi-Fi equipment.

As the case has played out in the last few weeks in and out of the Texas court, CSIRO struck individual deals with its adversary’s including; Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Intel, and Microsoft

HP was the first to settle on 04-02-09. CSIRO spokesperson Huw Morgan said, “CSIRO can confirm that a settlement has been reached with Hewlett-Packard Company in relation to the wireless patent case.” Mr. Morgan continued  in the Sydney Morning Herald, “There will be no further comment at this time due to confidentiality and ongoing litigation.

Fujitsu logoFujitsu Computer Systems Corp. was dismissed by the Court with prejudice in the first court-approved settlement to emerge in the case on April 8. The terms of the settlement remain confidential.

PC manufacturer Asus and Microsoft separately settled their lawsuits with the CSIRO on 04-14-09 terms of the settlement were not disclosed. CSIRO had accused Microsoft of wrongfully using its patent. Microsoft was seeking a ruling of non-infringement for the wireless technology included in the Xbox video-game system.

Microsoft logoIntel and Dell also settled on 04-19-09 for undisclosed and confidential terms.

Accton Technology Corp., SMC Networks, Belkin Corp. and Belkin International, Inc., D-Link Systems, Inc., Netgear, Inc., Nintendo of America, Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and 3Com Corp., announced on 4-20-09 that they had reached a settlement with CSIRO.

Cisco and its Linksys division aren’t on CSIRO’s list. Cisco agreed to patent terms when it acquired an Australian network authentication firm a few years ago. Apple dropped out in December 2006.

Dr. Alex Zelinsky, director of the CSIRO ICT Center confirmed that all CSIRO opponents had chosen to settle the wireless case. CSIRO deputy chief of operations Mike Whelan said that the terms of the settlement would remain strictly confidential. Dr. Zelinsky speculated to ITNews, however, that the payoff could be worth upwards from $100 million up to a billion dollars and keep royalty payment flowing into the agency for up to a decade.

Timeline

  • November 1993: CSIRO lodges a US patent for the invention of a wireless LAN.
  • January 1996: US patent 5,487,069 is issued to CSIRO.
  • 1997: CSIRO and Macquarie University form Radiata, a company established for the purposes of commercializing the patent.
  • 2001: Cisco Systems acquires Radiata for $295 million.
  • 2003: CSIRO engages in patent licensing discussions with several manufacturers, none of which agree to pay licensing fees.
  • February 2005: CSIRO lodges a suit against Buffalo Technology for alleged patent violation in the Eastern District of Texas Court as a test case for its patent.
  • May 2005: Two groups of industry heavyweights — including Dell and Intel, and Microsoft, HP, and Netgear, lodge lawsuits against CSIRO seeking to overturn its patent.
  • November 2006: CSIRO has its patent upheld by the Eastern District of Texas Court in its case against Buffalo Technology.
  • September 2006: CSIRO counter-sues the industry parties attempting to overturn its patent, claiming these companies infringe on its patents.
  • September 2007: CSIRO refuses to offer any amnesty to IEEE members that infringe on its patent.
  • April 02, 2009, HP settles suit.
  • April 13, 2009, Microsoft settles suit
  • All other firms settle the suit on April 20, 2009.

rb-

If your installation includes Aruba, Meru, or Trapeze, you can hope that CISRO goes back to developing Wearable Instrument Shirts or Airhockey Over a Distance, and not squeezing more revenue for the taxpayers of Australia out of this initial victory by going after all the other Wi-Fi vendors.  If upheld, CSIRO will collect what it has often described as a small royalty on all devices containing Wi-Fi.

The cases are:

  • Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 06cv551
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 06cv549, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Tyler)

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.