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."
Wait, you mean they've been lying to me all along? So much for patents promoting progress!
As far as the CSIRO is concerned it has never been any different under Labour.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
.. lets choose a different standard then and let them live in their own island :)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
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.
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.
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.
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.