Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CSIRO Wins Wi-Fi Settlement From HP

Posted by timothy on from the not-some-low-life-patent-troll-at-least dept.

suolumark writes "The CSIRO has won what could be a landmark settlement from Hewlett Packard over the use of patented wireless technology. The settlement ended HP's involvement in a four-year lawsuit brought by the CSIRO on a group of technology companies, in which the organisation was seeking royalties for wi-fi technology that is used extensively on laptops and computers worldwide. CSIRO spokesman Luw Morgan earlier said legal action was continuing against 13 companies: Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Asus, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3-Com, Buffalo, Microsoft and Nintendo."

7 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. These guys aren't your normal patent trolls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember, folks: the CSIRO is fundamentally a research institution, first and foremost. They develop technologies, patent them, and then license the patents out to the manufacturing companies. Income from the patent royalties goes towards further research work.

    They've done some genuinely fantastic work in a wide range of areas. Polymer banknotes are one of their products. Agricultural research. Marine sciences. They cover a very broad base, and are very much respected in Australia for the work they do.

    Personally? I hope the CSIRO wins these battles. At least with this mob, I know the money will be going to further R&D, rather than flowing to the coffers of people who don't do anything productive for society (as happens with "real" patent trolls.)

    1. Re:These guys aren't your normal patent trolls. by jank1887 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "If patent law is like copyright law in the following regard..."

      http://www.google.com/patents?q=assignee%3A+united+states+of+america

      it's not. working at a government R&D lab, I can assure you we are encouraged to both publish and patent as much as we are able. Now, we have a nice filter in place to clamp down on patent applications that wouldn't even be worth the taxpayer dollars to maintain. But, we have a tech transfer office that actively pursues licensing patents, and will go after contractors that patent things that were invented under government contract. The gov't generally doesn't manufacture things, but right now the general notion is that if we've paid for technology once, we shouldn't have to pay to use it later if someone else patents it, and licensing fees can help recoup R&D expenditure. They also have a really nice dividend sharing structure with the inventors, which is rare in industry.

  2. HP is an interesting case by femto · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are in the position of having made a contribution to research program on which CSIRO was a collaborator, and are now being asked to pony up to use the patent. To quote from the research paper:

    Acknowledgments

    The CSIRO Systems and Devices Hardware Program and the Hewlett-Packard External Research Grants Program funded Macquarie University research on the WLAN project from 1991-1996 and 1995-1996 respectively.

    The patent (USPTO 5487069) was filed on November 23, 1993 and issued on January 23, 1996. HP contributed funding from 1995-1996, so I guess it can be claimed that they didn't contribute to the patent, but it's still got to leave a bad taste in the mouth. The point is that HP might be a special case and not indicative of the treatment other defendants might get. I'd be intrigued to know what Macquarie University's contribution was from 1991 to November 23, 1993 (which was before my time on the project).

    (Yes, I'm one of the authors on the paper.)

  3. Re:If the Shoe fits ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    During the Wi-Fi standardisation, CSIRO's patented IP was knowingly included in the standard. CSIRO stated that they would be happy for this to happen, provided they could collect a small royalty on Wi-Fi hardware. Everyone seemed happy with this, and the standardisation occured.

    Then manufacturers started producing hardware without paying CSIRO. Over the next few years, CSIRO repeatedly sent letters requesting royalties. They didn't have much luck.

    In the end, after years of negotiation, they decided court action was required. This was a big step, since it required them to set aside a significant proportion of their budget to pay for legal costs.

    They have a valid claim, and they've been more than reasonable.

  4. Re:How the fuck is this legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As said by others, CSIRO was in there from the beginning asking for royalties. It only went to court after a decade of negotiation failed.

  5. Re:How the fuck is this legal? by walshy007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No mention of patents

    That you know of, the csiro has been contacting the companies producing these chipsets for quite some time, wanting royalties, only after years of refusal did they sue.

    The question then becomes, is it legal to give someone infringing your patents ample time to sort out patent issues after contacting them before suing, I'd like to think yes.

  6. Re:How the fuck is this legal? by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the patent. And it's pretty damn comprehensive. The patent was filed for in 1993, and granted in 1996.

    As in the report here (2000), CSIRO attempted to license the tech and recieve royalties but then in 2005, big tech companies didn't want to play ball anymore.

    I say, good work CSIRO - screw these guys for every penny and keep on conducting your groundbreaking research.