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."
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.)
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?