Talk:Alcatel-Lucent/Archives/2014

Alsacian Origin?

"CGE was formed in 1898 by French engineer Pierre Azaria in the Alsace region of France [...]"

I wonder how this happened, as the Alsace region was part of Germany in 1898. The French Wikipedia entry gives a rather different image: Apparently, CGE was founded in Creil (Oise department), moved to Paris in 1914 and acquired Alcatel, an Alsace-based producer of defense equipment whose founding date is not mentioned (I reckon it to be post-1918), in 1968. Maybe somebody with better information could straighten this out.

Btw, I am aware of the fact that this erroneous statement was taken from the official company website. I don't expect engineers to be history scholars, but this is quite embarassing indeed. 85.181.230.96 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable Wording

The following sounds rather like an advertisement:

"Alcatel was also the world leader in point-to-point microwave radios and wireless transmission; with over 50 years expertise and over 17% of the global market share in 2005. It has a field-proven experience in deploying and managing wireless transmission networks and 2G, 2.5G, and 3G mobile backhauling."

Phrases like "world leader", "expertise", and "field-proven experience" are the opinions of the author, and are quite debatable. I would not be surprised if that paragraph were written by an employee of the company or a hired public relations specialist. Should this article be edited to be more neutral in its language, focussing on facts rather than marketing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.152.130 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alcatel and Lucent Technologies old article titles.

Should the old Alcatel and Lucent pages really become redirects? Or should they remain a historical profile of the old companies? I'm not a fan of unconventional article titles like the "(old company)" title currently being used.

I think the redirects are neccessary, in the same way 'Andersen Consulting' redirects to 'Accenture', 'Beechams', 'Glaxo' or 'Glaxo Wellcome' redirects to GlaxoSmithKline, etc. as they constitutes an evolution of the companies. Maybe 'old company' is not the best choice, but those original pages should be kept. -- JaviC

I agree with redirects. Just rewrite the history of Alcatel-Lucent to have links to the old pages like AT&T's history page. After that just include current information related to the new company. Loompyloompy313 00:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I favor keeping the old pages where they are (for hysterical purposes). I believe the way the Agere Systems page was handled (in regard to the company infobox) is the best I've seen. JimScott 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Christchurch Way, Greenwich

Why is this not mentioned anywhere? or anything about Alcatel in the UK?

Be our guest. Feel free to add this address and any other Alcatel UK information you have. JimScott 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Patent lawsuit

Can anyone explain exactly what this lawsuit is about? I thought Fraunhofer owned the rights to MP3 and I can't imagine that Microsoft did not correctly license it from Fraunhofer. So where does Alcatel come in? Shinobu 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for the same. There is so much bullshit around (e.g. at BBC) about a "Fraunhofer firm." I think this article is better. --Ben ^T/_C 20:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A visit to the Wiki MP3 article will likely yield as much current information as exists. However, according to Fraunhofer's web site, Fraunhofer developed the technology and holds the patents to MP3 and MP3-Surround. They do NOT handle licensing; they have engaged Thomson to handle MP3 licensing. JimScott 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, Alcatel doesn't have a case, but the judge made a mistake? Shinobu (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lucent Enso Symbol

Given the mention of the Alcatel symbol interpretation in the article, there should be some mention of the old Lucent corporate symbol being a copy of a Zen Enso, traditionally a sacred symbol of Zen Buddhism. There was some minor controversy about this commercial co-opting of a sacred symbol at the time it was introduced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, "Enso" is a Japanese word meaning 'circle' with connotations of enlightenment, strength, and elegance; which has been co-opted both religously (ie, Zen Buddhism) and commercially (ie, Lucent). No harm. No foul. JimScott 22:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Inferno"

From back page of IEEE Internet Computing, Volume 1, Number 2, March-April 1997 I think this technology is amazing and should be mentioned (I'm not a good writer though)

The text:

Introducing (drumroll) Inferno networking software... a new Bell Labs innovation. First operating system that lets all kinds of devices chat or share info with each other over any network (Internet, telecommunications, LANS, et al). Now the video game can talk to the computer; cell phone can access e-mail; voice mail via TV, etc. (Really) Download Inferno from Lucent home page today - develop apps a.s.a.p. Could change the way you work - all together.

see Talk:Inferno (operating system)

Their mobile phones are made by (Chinese) TCL Corporation

http://www.alcatel-mobilephones.com/www/content/view/full/181 --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit on Verizon and general question on updating the article

In the latest edit to the article, someone added "On April 17th 2013 the French company Alcatel-Lucent agreed o be acquired by the American company Verizon." As there's no reference about this, I'd like to undo this revision. As a disclaimer, I'm working for Alcatel-Lucent, this is why I want to bring this up on the talk page first. From a more general point of view, there were recent changes in the management of the company and the company has filed its 2012 financial statements. As an employee of the company and to be transparent, should I edit management and financial figures with the proper references, or should I simply mention the references here so an independent contributor can update the article? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SL wiki (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For financials, I see no problem with an employee replacing out-of-date facts with newer and verifiable facts. But I find little value in tracking the changes in the company's structure and directors. The current structure is explained well on the company website and the names of the directors are not important.  Wire723 (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines says "Lists in an article of current and former directors and executives of a company are desirable." Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)