Slashdot Mirror
CSIRO Wins Wi-Fi Settlement From HP
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."
I liked these guys much better when they stuck to making the ultimate desk toy, of science.
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.)
Yes and no. The question is how did these patents get into the 802.11 standard. And is this a legitimate patent or a blatantly obvious one?
To say well its OK for a government funded body to base their business model on licensing patents But its not OK for a private company to do so is a double standard. Basically saying the motive justifies the act.
To my mind the motive does not excuse the act. If patent trolling, especially on standards, is wrong then it is wrong on all cases.
The only mitigating factor I could think of is if the patented technology was knowingly included in the standard. And that the relevant commitee did this on the expectation that the CSIRO would not enforce their patent. In which case their would be a clear intent to commit IP theft.
read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
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:
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.)
Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Asus, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3-Com, Buffalo, Microsoft and Nintendo."
Notice one missing? What happened there? (did they actually license rather than "borrow without permission"?)
Actually I suppose I don't see Compaq anywhere in there either. Any other big names I'm overlooking?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Why should the Australian Government fund research that benefits US, japanese and Korean companies?
These guys are not patent trolls. they are set up to do research and solve problems.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Sony makes consoles? Have they sold any?
The CSIRO is suing the wrong people. They should be suing the chip manufactures(Broadcom, Intel, Atheros, and maybe some others), not the people who bought chips and had them re-branded.
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.
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.
Actually its 802.11a and 802.11g
Make SELinux enforcing again!
You don't have it right. The patents were mentioned in the process, and CSIRO has been contacting companies for YEARS. They only filed the lawsuits when they finally realized these companies were never going to pay up.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
No, sorry bluefoxlucid, CSIRO is not a company. And as others have already replied, yes it is legal the companies were told about the infringement and been given plenty of time to cough up.
Now I know it's part of the fun of /. to get all up in arms at the sniff of a patent troll, but in this case there isn't one. RTFA and do a wiki search for CSIRO. Then come back and post a "meh" or something.
I don't therefore I'm not.
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.
They are not 'raising money via lawsuits'. The way you say that makes it sound like it was part of their business model. That is completely false.
Other companies *agreed to pay* royalties to license the technology when the standard was being ratified.
Then, the other companies basically said: "agreed to pay? agreed to pay what? what is this agreed to pay you are referring to? I don't see anyone named 'agreed to pay' around here, perhaps you are lost?"
The companies took the tech and didn't pay anything, in blatant violation of the terms of the agreement, and are now being sued as the CSIRO's last recourse.
The CSIRO has been negotiating with these companies for YEARS trying to get the royalties to which they are entitled. The companies were given ample time to come good without getting the courts involved.
Apparently though, American companies only feel as though they should pay royalties for IP from other American companies, and everyone else can get stuffed.
Well, who's stuffed now?
I dislike the patent system as much as anyone, but this is an organisation who is using it in an honest fashion, for its intended purpose - to encourage innovation and actually develop useful products with their patents. Other companies tried to take the technology and not pay anything, and are now being forced to pay up.
This is one case where the patent system truly is working as it should.
Solve problems... like "How do we prevent the wireless revolution by patent-trolling the standards committees"?
Gee, that's a useful skill. They should probably get with the DRAM committees and see if they can extend their work to the innovation of preventing new memory technologies, or partner with Intel on the prevention of higher resolution lithography. You know, for the social good that would arise from bringing a screaming halt to technological progress.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The CSIRO has been chasing the hardware companies for years. The paper trail is a mile long. The CSIRO should be complimented for only pressing the SUE button as a last resort.
The hardware companies, on the other hand, deserve a swift kick to the nuts. But a payout will have to do.
So it is okay for American based patent trolls to do this completely unchecked and ignored by your population at large for completely frivolous patents but when another country that has a legitimate patent comes a long wanting what is rightfully theirs BY YOUR BROKEN SYSTEM they are the true villains. Home of the brave indeed.
(Not a troll but with a majority American audience I'll bet I'll have the +5 troll achievement in no time with this opinion.)
I ate your fish.
Pony up the prior art and get the patent invalidated. I'm sure you'll get a big kiss from "Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Asus, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3-Com, Buffalo, Microsoft and Nintendo"
Yay me!
So you'd prefer it to be the other way? CSIRO getting screwed by big companies, like it has in the past.
I say good on them, they need the funding. I know a few CSIRO scientists and they are always getting dicked with pay and contracts because the organisation keeps getting dicked out of funds.
If it was patent trolling they'd have just submitted the patent rather than showing proof of concept and actually developing the technology.
Learn what patent-trolling is before you troll yourself.
I thought the modus operandi of a patent troll was to go after the little fish who either didnt have the money to defend themselves so settled out of court, or who tried to defend themselves and lost so setting s precedent with which to go after the big fish with.
Looks like the CSIRO thought they had a strong case and went after the big boys straight off and the courts agreed with them. I'm sure HP threw everything they had at them, which your garden variety patent troll wouldn't survive.
Do patent trolls:
-disclose their patents ahead of time in the working group
-agree to let their patents be used in the standard as long as compensation is paid
-contact the infringing companies immediatly after the standard was formed, continuing for 10 years, getting the cold shoulder, before FINALLY suing them
Oh.. wait... you mean you couldn't even RTFA, let alone do 2 minutes of googling about the situation?
This patent trolling crap is bitched about more here than Microsoft is.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?