Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Firms Take on Australia's CSIRO Over Patents
dingram17 writes "ABC News is reporting that six U.S. computer companies (Apple, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Microsoft and Netgear) are taking legal action to try to break a U.S. patent that the CSIRO holds on wireless networking.
The CSIRO has patents on OFDM technology, as used in 802.11a and 802.11g. It has been alleged that the CSIRO demands $4 per chipset for the use of this technology. It appears that the patent in question is U.S. Patent 5,487,069 'Wireless LAN.' From a quick look, this appears to be a wide ranging patent."
Simply stunning. So a company actually holds a legal patent to a technology they invented and since the big boys (Dell, Apple, etc) don't want to pay the royalties they try to legally "break" the patent. Does anyone else see something wrong with this? I hardly see these companies as the victim.
It seems that they can't handle what they dish out.
I hope the CSIRO wins considereing the way we get stuffed over by US companies out here.
Remember, people: Patents are only good when they put money in YOUR pocket.
After all the patents U.S. companies have been taking out for this exact purpose, I say, let the Aussies bash 'em once!
At any rate, I've given up hope that the patent system will actually be fixed...
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Why won't these companies make up their minds? Do they like protecting IP with patents or not? It looks as though the only important IP is their IP.
Microsoft has been using patents for years to squash oposition, now they are sick and tired of $4 per chip? That must be breaking their bank!
I hope the CSIRO gets to keep the patent and the others keep paying the $4 fee. the patent system is Pathetic and stupid and Im sure this is a pain for the big guys, but while they use their patents in the same way.. then who cares...
From a previous slashdot article, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/14/07 2201&tid=109&tid=141&tid=155&tid=1
How hypocritical are Microsoft appearing?
On one hand they're trying to teach kids flawed views on intellectual property to ensure that future generations won't pirate as much, and on the other hand they're doing exactly what they're trying to prevent, the theft of intellectual property.
Such sad, sad, little people.
If the US would then similarly like to not honour Australian patents, they're welcome -- given that's what they appear to want anyway.
He who lives by the patent.....
If the companies in question want to reap the benefits of the patent system, they have to pay the price of the patent system. But since most three-year-old children show greater maturity than most of these corporations, it's no surprise that these corporations want to reap the benefits without paying the price.
They're just lucky that the organization in question (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a research arm of the Australian government) isn't a competitor. Although I suppose in this case it could use this patent to give Australian companies an advantage over their American competition.
It's about damned time the U.S. corporations got a black eye from the bullshit patent situation over here. After all, they're the ones who have been abusing it. I just wish it happened far more often.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I love the way these companies continue to file for thousands of patents themselves but when a competitor's patent gets in the way, they want to squash it. I'm all for them squashing patents. The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. I haven't seen a software/algorithm patents that helped foster competition or reduce prices for the consumer. Part of me hopes that patent issues for the big companies will help them realize that the patent system is in need of massive reform. Right after that my realist side recognizes that the big companies will just play the system like they always do. Sigh.
Any government funded organization that is built in to a mountain protected by a gaping chasm is not going to worry to much about anything.
Our scientists thought it up we should keep the $4 per chip not like they can't charge an extra $4 for a notebook computer
Let me first say that I strongly dislike what's going on with patents now, software and otherwise.
I like that inventors get a chance to make a buck off their inventions, that's the productive and creative part that congress orig. talked about when they granted patents.
I'm strongly displeased at the use/mis-use of patents today. They're used as stragic weapons against competetors. They're used to block new technology. They're used to destroy governments and individual rights (think Africa and South America with AIDS drugs). The current patent crap (for instance, patenting of genetic material found in natural foods and herbs) is simply a means to give multinational corps. final fascist control over the world economy. All work will have to be for them, because you'll need their protection and cross-licensing to do anything. You will not be able to wipe your ass with leaves grown in your own back yard if Bayer finds some "cooling gell" in that species that they want to patent. Software patents are making it illegal to work or create for yourself, as without the protection of MS/HP/DELL, your thoughts will have been patented by someone else and you will be breaking the law by using a wheel of your own creation (even if you didn't copy anything).
But in this case, I'll settle for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." MS/HP/DELL/Netgear/etc. want it their way when it helps them and call for invalidation/threats/whatever/manuvering/spin when they have to pay.... Time for you suckers to pay....I hope they ream you raw too, as I'll happily know that you are eating part of that $4 just to keep the sales numbers up. Better yet, I'd love to see you buy 10M of those chips, only to have them sitting in your fab plants because nobody wants to buy your product at the inflated price.
If they want real reform, they should help to change patent law away from the mess it's in now, otherwise these industry blow-hards should just shut up and keep paying! You know, you can't win all the time..
They don't really want reform though, they simply want control and they're mad at the fact that they DON'T have the patent. They'd do just the same thing roles reversed.
So true. Just what did people expect? You can't run around saying "oooh! big companies are evil and abuse the patent system!" every damn day then act all shocked when big companies do exactly what you've been screaming about.
CSIRO is a not-for-profit Australian Government organisation. Do all these companies really want to screw around with what is likely to be their biggest customer in Australia ?
Invalidate the patent by all means if it shouldn't have been granted. However, if it is legitimate, then just pay the licensing fees.
Remember, a patent is a government granted monopoly for a time period to allow the patent holder to both recoup their costs and to make a profit out of inventing the idea that has been patented. If these companies don't like that, then they should have all their patents revoked immediately, or they should sue the US government for incopetence because the US government granted the patent in the first place.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Right. And both are not mutually exclusive.
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
Is that to some extent CSIRO seem to be using the patent system for what it was designed for. They have 'invented' something and are now trying to licence it to make money directly from that invention.
To me this seems purer than a company patenting something and then using that patent as a means to create an artificial monopoly and lock out competitors.
$4 does sound like quite a lot per unit but I wonder if they can do that because they are only on one end of the patent equation.
I'm sure MS, IBM etc would like to charge obscene amounts for a patent they own too but as they are on both the selling and buying end of such deals they maybe cautious about inflating the accepted price of patent licencing?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
If patents have some uses it should be used to prevent wholesale copying of complete designs, which is as impossible to accidentally reinvent as it is to write a novel only to find that someone has already written essentially the same thing. The broad patents are better struck down, and I oppose anyone who wants to use them offensively, whether it is big-company-to-small-company, small-company-to-big-company, or government-entity-to-big-company.
There is a big defference between IP and patenting fragments of DNA. For one thing, IP is just that intellectual property - hence by definition has been INVENTED by someone. the gene fragment patent on the other hand does not cover invention or creation - it covers the patenting of something that already existed and was uncovered in gene research, so called "junk DNA". There is no good reason why CSIRO should not hold patents - the people there created the IP, CSIRO is owned by me (in part at least as an aussie) and the CSIRO - and hence I as a "shareholder" get some benefit, not least of which is that the royalties reduce my tax burden in supporting CSIRO. The company which patented the junk DNA should never have been able to do so, and nor, imho, should any company be able too patent something that is already there. the use of that junk DNA in a treatment of some sort? .... well thats a totally different issue and is an invention, so should be covered by IP patent
Sorry, we didn't grow up in a culture that says everyone has the right to bear heavy calibre machine guns.
On the snide remark regarding australias armed forces, lets just remember that in the latest american adventure, it was australian special forces doing a lot of the ground work before the invasion even started. You guys couldn't even stop the looters from robbing the local banks
And of course before letting a competing research facility through, they all signed an Non disclosure agreement and were told that all technologies that they would see were all under patent application.
I learnt quickly at Uni you don't open your door unless you letting in your own people.
If they did copy your technology then your development logs et al would clearly show your prior work.
The only thing that will come of this is that at some point Mark Vale will stomp all over the CSIRO to protect the sanctity of the FTA and protect the US companies as he was voted in to do.
No technology is Australian, it is all just unowned until US/Global corporate interests want it. Then it was never AU tech to begin with.
Ciao
I think the reason why people became "pro-patent in this case" is that the CSIRO actually use patents the way they were intended to be used. They invent something, then re-invest the money back into current research. They have been quietly doing this under various names since 1916 and have a very impressive record of practical innovation and basic research.
"...the ideas there such as OFDM and FEC, etc. are actually not all that ingenious." - CSIRO developed and patented the idea a decade ago, hindsight is always 20/20. As you say, anyone with a "deep understanding" could have thought of the idea but the fact remains that nobody did.
"I oppose anyone who wants to use them offensively" - The corporations that are now whinning about paying $4 per chip are the same ones that pushed hard for US IP laws to be adopted under the recently signed free trade agreement. To me, (an Aussie), it is poetic justice when a "non-profit" can screw a cartel of the largest "for-profits" with thier own rules. Before the 1980's corporations used to buy CSIRO patents for a pitance and the Australian public would watch as Agri-corps and Drug-pushing-corps turned govt funded research into a private cash cow. The use of licenses to make "for-profits" pay for basic research is one of CSIRO's greatest innovations.
Some examples of IP idiocy in Australia, patent for the wheel, Ugg boots.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Those companies don't pay the 4.00 per chipset, that gets passed down to...us, the consumer. Those army of lawyers it will take to bust this patent...paid for by...us. If they lose and have to pay the 4.00 and for the army of lawyers, well, just raise the prices a bit. And if they win, does anyone think they will lower the price?
What these companies should do to get around the patent is to pool their money and develop a *better* Open Source alternative to the patent in question.
If they did that, that 4.00 in savings still probably wouldn't make it down to the consumer level, but maybe some developing country could use the OS tech to make some free chipsets where it would benefit someone in those countries through lower prices to the consumer.
Yeah, I ain't going to hold my breath, but that's what these compaines should be doing.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Did anyone read the second article? "One former executive of a top-ranked computer maker alleges the organization is asking a $4 licensing fee for each chipset using OFDM technology, amounting to up to 70 percent of a chipset's price" Personally, I think CSIRO's patents should be observed. But I found very little except this tidbit to explain the actions of the companies brining the action. Big groups of competing companies don't band together to bring an expensive legal action unless they have a very clear incentive. (speculating here) It may very well be that this step is being taken because while $4 doesn't sound like very much it is inhibiting putting wireless technology in very simple low priced devices or devices with a very low margin? Does anyone know if CSIRO was approached about altering the price structure and refused? A $4 skim off the top of a $1500 centrino-equipped laptop isn't much. But a $4 skim off a $12 USB Wireless fob is pretty harsh.