Slashdot Mirror
CSIRO Settles With Tech Giants Over WiFi Patent Spat
Combat Wombat brings news that the legal battle between the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO) and a host of major tech corporations has come to end, with a large settlement going to the CSIRO. The fight was over a patent on wireless LAN technology, which already earned the CSIRO a victory in court over Buffalo Technology and a settlement with Hewlett-Packard. The remaining 13 companies, which include Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Nintendo, have now chosen to settle as well. "[The CSIRO] will use the money won from a Wi-Fi technology patent battle to fund further research. ... It is unclear how much money has flowed to the CSIRO, but experts say the technology would be worth billions of dollars if royalties were paid on an ongoing basis."
Just because they do reserch doesn't mean they are not money grubbing patent whores.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I am going to patent the air that the radio waves travel through. That way they will owe me money.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
If these giants have had to settle I wonder what the smaller companies will be made to... (glasses)... didgeree-do. (YEAH!)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I'm going to patent the process of patenting air.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I believe that if you aren't using the item that's patented, you shouldn't be able to sue over it. The purpose of a patent is to protect those who innovate from having their ideas stolen. But if you aren't actually using those ideas (as a product, business, technology, whatever), then why should it be patented? More succinctly, why should companies be able to make money off of hoarding patents, without actually developing anything?
You are probably going through deep packet inspection in your country and the firewall is having trouble deciding if Slashdot is The Pirate Bay.
All kidding aside, I really wish they would improve the entire patent system/process. Anyone that's familiar with Buffalo's wireless routers knows their products got pulled from shelves for months due to patent litigation. Yes, it hurts Buffalo, but it also hurts their customers. Is it really necessary to pull products off shelves while the litigation is going on? In the end, if the company is found not to be infringing, then business continues as usual. If it is infringing, then it pays some royalty based on number of infringing units sold. That sounds like a good way to make everyone happy without pulling products off shelves and destroying free market competition.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know you were joking but for the benefit of everyone else who doesn't know this yet: Your location on the Earth has no effect on the direction that water rotates as it drains from your bath/toilet.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
Between this and the most recent decision regarding Rambus RAM designs, it should be obvious that no technology used as a standard should be SECRETLY encumbered by a patent. Signatories PLANNING on a Standard could be declared in violation (and lose all royalties thereby) if relevant patent data is not disclosed. That is, when planning on a Standard, every party wishing to participate needs to sign something up-front regarding relevant information and the patent process (or else). This of course won't prevent a Standard from devising something that was patented by someone outside of the working group, unknown to anyone in the group, but it would cut down on deliberate attempts to Standardize a patented thing.
If this were a private, for-profit company that was fighting for IP rights, Slashdotters would be up in arms defending those wanting to use the tech with arguments of Free-as-in-Speech, good-of-humanity, etc. But when it's a non-profit research organization doing exactly the same thing, Slashdotters rush to defend them.
Are the ideals here really about freedom and liberty or just thinly-veiled anti-corporatism?
The patent was later modified from 10Ghz and up to all frequencies...
first establish design, manufacturing, sales, marketing, and logistics channels to sell the retail product(s)
http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0011/0366.html for more info...
Worth billions? Knowing patent values in this country, the deal was probably only a few hundred thousand then...
The name is "Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation".
congratulations csiro . Keep up the good work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALOHAnet
Let's see, if ethernet was more or less a wired version of Alohanet and wifi is wireless ethernet, there's nothing new under the sun, at least not in 40 years.
"Actually, the way the patent system works is kind of perverse. No one ever looks for patents they might infringe on, because if you find one, then it becomes "willful infringement" and you could end up owing triple damages."
*Waits for someone to quote an American case an applies it to an Australian legal system*
"And patents are so badly written, that if you're doing anything interesting there's probably a dozen overbroad, ambiguous patents that you could be infringing, but can't tell without spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to find out, and which wouldn't hold up in court anyways."
*Waits for someone to compare the Australian patent system to an American one*
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Private individuals.
And rather than spend money, they hoard it.
Because after a certain amount, money as cash isn't worth anything. What it then becomes is POWER. And the more money, the more power you have.
So spending your money is losing power.
So they hoard it.
But it was valid. It was told before the process became the standard and the companies involved agreed to pay for the patent.
If they didn't want to pay and didn't think they had to because the patent sucks, why didn't they fight the patent application?
Because they have their own sucky patents and don't want any sucky patents fought because they'll lose theirs.
$2.50 plus Whatever the CSIRO gets in the settlement! :-)
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
Conversely why should manufacturers pay money for the invention when they've had to do all the work and taken all the risk refining and setting up mass production.
Apologies if I get some of the details slightly wrong, but in a previous slashdot article discussion, someone pointed out that CSIRO agreed with the WIFI standards committee that the technology could be used for a licensee fee. The manufacturers using the standard must therefore pay for the right to use it.
IIRC something similar happens with manufacturers using the technology in MPEG/DVDs etc.