Slashdot Mirror
802.11n May Never Happen Due to Patent Concerns
afabbro writes "The Register is reporting that the 802.11n standard is imperiled because the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization has refused to submit a Letter of Assurance, promising not to sue those who implement the standard. '...the realization that CSIRO holds essential patents, and has failed to provide a Letter of Assurance as required by the IEEE, could prevent the standard ever being finalized ... 802.11n promises to deliver a fivefold increase in speed, and double the range of 802.11g. Indeed in many cases it's already delivering something approximating that, as pre-standard kit has been available for almost a year. In May the Wi-Fi Alliance got so bored waiting for the IEEE to complete the standard that they started certifying kit as conforming to the draft, even though the final version isn't expected until 2008."
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi! Oh wait...
Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
Wait, you mean they've been lying to me all along? So much for patents promoting progress!
Grabrabagelgra. What the hell are they thinking? Yes, extra income for the CSIRO is handy, but they do not put that ahead of the common good - otherwise, what the hells is the point of a publicly funded research organisation?
Grah. While I'm all in favour of having Liberal (Australian right-leaning major party) stints to keep the economy chugging, this country really has been governed by the right too long - all of our public services are becoming too money-obsessed.
The CSIRO I dare say want to make sure they don't lose the rights to the technology they developed and I dont blame them. Many large companies have already made it clear they will do anything to (even if its illegal) strip the CSIRO of its patent right to technologies that are part of WiFi because they want a "free ride". The real issue here is not the CSIRO but the companies trying to leverage the technology out of their hands. Im not surprised in the least that this loggerhead has been created by the "we dont want to pay for patents even though we force everyone else to do the same" multinationals.
Time and time again we hear that patents are an economic necessity. People and organizations won't invest in new technologies if they can't exploit them for a profit later on, and all that. But we rarely hear economists and businesspeople talk about the economic loss that patents bring.
This is just one example. Now the public may very well be deprived of this new technology just because of these patent concerns. So in a very resource-wasteful move, we may very well need to derive another technology that duplicates 802.11n, not for any technical reason, but just to satisfy the legal conditions of a mere document. That's clearly harmful for the economy as a whole. Those resources could have been put towards developing new technologies, rather than reimplementing what already existed.
"In May the Wi-Fi Alliance got so bored waiting for the IEEE to complete the standard"
I know it's harder to figure out anthromorphism doesn't apply to organisations, since they're made out of people, but can you honestly imagine the following in the documents: "Today we voted to start delivering draft-based wifi kits, because we were bored".
If you'll look for reasons, look for logistics, money, deadlines and contracts.
So, why are companies even allowed to submit a standard without such a letter? Seems like a recipe for wasting work that you allow a standardization process to even start without assurances from all stakeholders that they'll not interfere with it becoming a standard (i.e. that anyone can implement).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
.. lets choose a different standard then and let them live in their own island :)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
This is probably just a way for CSIRO to saying they don't hear enough ching in the bling.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
CSIRO owns patents on pretty much all common wireless technology deployed today. It owns these patents because it developed the technologies. Currently CSIRO is actively trying to get other companies to actually honor its legitimate patents not just for "n" but the existing 802.11x standards as well.
These are real patents that lay the mathematical/technological foundation for how pretty much all wireless networking works currently. Saying that CSIRO has no right to defend these patents would be like saying CISCO is morally obliged to give away all their routers because we all depend on the internet and we need routers for the internet to work.
Too bad I don't have mod points right now. :-(
So is this yet another example of using patents to retard the "progress of science and the useful arts"?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This is a story about the very weak possibility that 802.11n may never be 'standardized' NOT that it will never "happen". It's already happened. I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.
This time, everybody on the committee should be required to wave all patent rights to anything that makes it into such an important standard, lest we wind up with another Rambus debacle. If there are a few unavoidable patent issues, then we will just have to wait a few years until they expire.
My rights don't need management.
Just ignore the patents. It's not like Australia is going to invade the rest of the world to assert their IP. In fact, that would be true for just about everybody.
This is like one of those silly games you play in igh school psych. If everybody simply ignored international IP, there would be more reason to scrap the current system.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The actual IEEE Letter of Assurance form can be viewed at http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf
According to the constitution, patents are only alowed in order to encourage "science and the useful arts". How granting corporations the right to fuck over other coproprations who came up with rather ordinary improvements on the "art" at nearly the same time helps improve the "uesful arts" is someting for head-up-their-ass lawyers to ponder. Because in the end of the day it doesn't matter in the USA anymore if you're right. IT doesn't matter if you have actually come up with womething new. If'you've bought youreself the best lawyer end/or congressman then you can pretty much do what you want.
As an American whose tax dollars fund (D)ARPA, I demand payback from all other nations using the Internet. Also, I think the good citizens of California whose tax dollars helped fund BSD would like some too.
Ask the sheep, man! Ask them who it is!
And you're one of them!! I know it!! Look at that email address!!!
- Sheep
Patents exist to pay the fixed cost of invention by granting a temporary monopoly. The other option to cover the fixed cost is subsidy. Publicly funded research organizations like the CSIRO work based on the subsidy method. The cost is paid by the public, so the public should have use of the invention. The only question here is whether Australia is going to act like other nations where public means WORLD (considering the actions of ARPA, UC Berkeley, and INRIA), or whether they're going to be dicks.
CSIRO have a good way to fund new research, collect royalties from those who are implementing/selling the stuff. Sue if they don't pay. To those who think's it is stalling scientific progress, well the extra cash from the royalties/lawsuits sure will help progression don't ya think?
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
I'm not convinced that 802.11n's popularity is seriously jeopardized by patents, but even if it is, I have little doubt that its speeds will be greatly surpassed by another wireless technology that we just have to wait a little bit longer for that will not have these restrictions on it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I've always wondered how long "never" was, but now I know: 20 years, which is the maximum duration of a patent. Thanks Slashdot!
Bert
So let's pay an extra dollar on our 802.11n routers for royalties and that will solve this problem.
I'll agree that standards must be open (and "free" [i.e., libre, not gratis], but not all non-free specifications are formats. It's just that they also aren't standards (no matter WHAT some people may name them).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
Agreed, but... It doesn't matter whether the eventual final standard differs from the currently implemented specification. My current 802.11n-like wireless networking gear works fine *now* and will continue to do so until it breaks or gets thrown away. At some point the standard may be ratified, and chances are that new gear produced using the final standard will be 99% backward compatible with my current gear. To sum up: if it walks like 802.11n, and quacks like 802.11n, then it's 802.11n to me.
Why does the IEEE not ask for these letters before they permit an organization to participate in the standards process? Does it make sense to have standards held for ransom by essentially any participant at the 11th hour?
I mean, honestly, this standard has been in draft for years and has been delayed repeatedly and now this? You would imagine the bureaucrats could at least manage the bureaucracy but I guess not.
]{
The IEEE letter of assurance has nothing to do with promising not to sue for infringement. The letter merely states that the submitter holds a patent that is relevant to the proposed standard and indicates whether the submitter is willing or unwilling to license their patent in a non discriminatory manner.
The issue is further muddied by the summary claiming that CSIRO refused to submit the letter.
A request for such a letter was sent to CSIRO, but according to an internal IEEE memo seen by El Reg, no response has been received. no response isIntel already stated that wimax was definitely a go for next year. Isn't wimax better? Would some uber nerd explain the different road maps and the likelihood of which one we'll be following? kthnxbye
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
To boil this down, CSIRO invented the schemes to make 802.11n work.
No. CSIRO invented the schemes. IEEE members developed 802.11N using the schemes, believing CSIRO would cooperate. If that had ever been in doubt, the standard would have been developed along different lines, avoiding CSIRO's patents.
Whether this is a misunderstanding or a ploy by CSIRO will eventually be clear, but to suggest that the companies supporting the standard are trying to cheat CSIRO out of royalties it deserves is either naive or disingenuous.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Either CSIRO's patents are valid, or they aren't. If they aren't, just ignore them. On the other hand, if they are valid (and I haven't seen anybody dispute this yet) -- just pay them! Pay them their money as the law requires and let's get on with it. I don't see what any of this has to do with standardising anything. I don't agree with much of patent law, but the fact is the law is there. I don't see how the IEEE can require anyone to give up collecting on their patents in order to make a technology part of a standard, and I don't believe that this is normal operating procedure for them, either, despite TFA, because given the crazy state of patent law in which every trivial little idea is owned by somebody, it doesn't make sense that there would *be* any standards in computation. As I understand it, plenty of other IEEE-approved standards have involved both patents and royalties. (MPEG, anyone?) So why should CSIRO not qualify for the same status? Because it's a government org? What does that have to do with anything? This is a braindead concern and IMO probably will have no bearing on the approval of 802.11n. Sounds to me like somebody just need an excuse for bureaucracy.
duh.
Don't tell me my Draft-N router might be garbage if its not passed! (Not that I care, this router is a POS!)
Has it crossed your mind that the CSIRO developed this technology and deserves to be rewarded for its efforts? As I understand the situation, the CSIRO is simply refusing to "open source" its work. It is asking for a reasonable license fee in exchange for allowing others to benefit from its work.
Patents are artificial. But they are a device designed to foster innovation, and in this case I cannot see any valid argument as to why they aren't working. The CSIRO are not sitting on the patents and refusing to license them for use. They ARE sharing the technology. They are merely exercising their right to be rewarded for a positive innovation.
Which of course might fund more positive innovations, given that they are a government run organisation dedicated to science and technology. But don't worry about that, proceed with your idiotic ranting.
I don't like many things that companies do with patents. But in this instance you are wrong.
Read Pynchon.
Committees that draft standards should be an IP free zone for engineers from rival companies to intelligently plot out the best possible interoperability between products. The second businessmen walk into the room, figuratively, it becomes a battlefield. The alternative is unilateralism, which results in a lot of disappointed customers when their products go unsupported.
The article doesn't state which country (or countries) this was patented in. Keep in mind that the Berne Convention applies to copyrights, not patents -- a given patent applies only in the country in which the patent was granted (unless two or more countries have a reciprocity treaty in force).
Therefore, if CSIRO submitted the patent to Australia's patent office only, infringing equipment can be sold everywhere except Australia. More likely, the companies involved could negotiate a lower price for the license.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
So, basically they create the 802.11x standards for the public good, but are pissed off cause the world ends up using what the government (taxpayers) of their country paid to develop?
So, it would seem to me, that if say the American government were to contribute a sum of money to the organization, some portion of the total cost given to the project(s). Probably a percentage relative to america's population in comparison to the world, then america should probably be given rights to use the standard. This seems to me to accomplish the goals of everyone.
The organization and country that put the work into the standard gets some of its money/effort back to continue doing more research in the future without taxing the taxpayers of that country as much. America gets the benifits of the work they did. And the public good is served. I use america as this reference because I'm american, but if every other country chipped in a fair amount then the research cost is offset and everyone gets the benifits. This, to me, would be the best thing to do for the world as a whole.
Will it happen? Not likely.
Alternatively, we could just agree that since its likely that the protocol used over the standard will likely be the IP protocol in most cases, of which most of the technology was created by american tax payers, then we could both agree that without the other, both technologies would be less useful until someone invented alternatives, in which case we have both benifited from each others work and its a wash in the end.
<troll><sarcasm>
Shrug, either way thanks to america's greediness, I'm not likely to pay for the patent tax on wifi anyway, cheers.
</sarcasm></troll>
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Nothing gets me more fuming than when some pompous, pretentious entity assumes "rights" and "ownership" over a technology or a concept and uses it to strong-arm everyone else into padding their already-thick pocket books instead of letting it out for the common good.
And then they have the audacity to (continue to) call themselves the "Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization".
I say to the IEEE: implement and build it anyway. Watch people flock to it in droves and we'll see how much the CSIRO actually cares about the "commonwealth".
So, pray tell, how much of the Howard government's scientific budget cuts over the last decade will this 'extra' cash make up for?
"Since they are tax-payer funded, they really shouldn't."
But they aren't, so much, anymore. Funding for the CSIRO is being slashed and it's being told to find the money elsewhere if it wants to keep all of its current projects/facilities/staff going. And, surprise surprise, that's exactly what it's doing here.