EoW September 2010

view of the initiative, and not only for its potentially chilling effect on sales. John Walls, a spokesman for CTIA - The Wireless Association, said that highlighting SAR information could mis- lead customers into concluding that some phones are safer than others. “We believe there is an overwhelming consensus of scientific belief that there is no adverse health effect by using wireless devices,” Mr Walls said. “This kind of labeling gets away from what the FCC’s standard actually represents.” Elsewhere in telecom . . . Motorola (Schaumburg, Illinois) and the Canadian handset ❈ ❈ maker Research In Motion said 11 th June that they had settled the patent complaint over mobile technology filed by Motorola with the International Trade Commission in January. Research In Motion (Waterloo, Ontario), maker of the BlackBerry, is to give Motorola an initial payment plus continuing royalties for the use of mobile technology. While financial terms were not disclosed, the two handset makers said the deal included an agreement to cross-license various patents related to industry wireless standards and wireless e-mail messaging. The disputed patents cover several cellphone functions, includingWi-Fi access, the management of applications, user interface and power management. Dorothy Fabian – USA Editor

to post the amount of radiation emitted by each model. In 11-point type or larger, the specific absorption rate (SAR) of the instrument must be prominently displayed at the point of sale. The SAR is a value that corresponds to the relative amount of radiofrequency (RF) energy absorbed into the head of a user of a wireless handset. Believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the law shows San Francisco outdoing the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC, which oversees the $190 billion wireless industry, limits public exposure from cellular telephones to a SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg), but imposes no public notification requirement. A curious aspect of both sets of rules is the absence of proof that cellphone use is hazardous to health. Neither the National Cancer Institute nor the FCC has found scientific evidence that wireless phones are dangerous – a fact probably known to San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom. Because Mr Newsom is technically oriented and a heavy user of the Apple iPhone, his promotion of the new law would seem to have grown out of a dedication to the right to know. “It’s information that’s out there if you’re willing to look hard enough,”Tony Winnicker, a spokesman for Mr Newsom, said of the SAR. “And we think that for the consumer for whom this is an area of concern, it ought to be easier to find.” Officials in San Francisco emphasised that the labelling ordinance is intended only to inform – not to disparage cellphones or discourage their use. But the wireless industry takes a jaundiced

27

EuroWire – September 2010