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."
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 wonder, if patent-holders are justified in doing anything with their holdings, except donating them to public domain — in your opinion...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
CSIRO is funded by the Australian taxpayer and is fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries. Neil
because research cost money and they need to be paid for it.
Votator.com implements a fair voting scheme (free
Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.
On a more calm note. I understand your point. But I feel that by allowing companies to patent technology they never implemented, or even pursued, we do more damage via patent trolls; than the damage we would do by disallowing companies to patent unused research.
CISRO got a good deal with the settlement.
If it went to court, it probably would have been easy to fight. Since CISRO is south of the equator, the WiFi technology they developed is out of phase with what we use up here, so clearly different.
That's why Australian toilet manufacturers can't break into other big markets. The water spins the wrong way.
Dual Opteron < $600
Take this example: You come up with this fantastic way sending data through sewer pipes. You patent it because it's a really unique and inovative idea and since almost everyone has sewer pipes it means you have a huge potential market. Next you try to market it to Big Company[A-C], they turn you down because they see the market potential but think they can save money building their own then paying to license from you. You now have an idea that you have tried to market but can't. Finally Company A comes along with their own version of your idea using your process but you don't get a dime. All because they are big and took your idea and made it their own.
Let's say I'm doing some cool scientific work in wireless communication stuff and I invent a cool method for communication over soda which is sure thousands of times more efficient than ethernet over fiber. Now, do I have to build a factory to make and commercialize my new cool NICs ? Or can I patent my idea, and get a share from whoever makes money out of it ? I think you get the point in this case.
I feel you pain. The point of having patent is to incite company to publicize their research. Worst, if those "research troll" would not patent their discoveries, their discoveries would be probably forgotten. Maybe the real problem is that patent are valid for such a long period of time.
Votator.com implements a fair voting scheme (free
You are probably going through deep packet inspection in your country and the firewall is having trouble deciding if Slashdot is The Pirate Bay.
Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.
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?
They invented the technology to which they own the patent. How should they recoup the public and private money that went into of years of fundimental research that led to that discovery, besides licencing it out? You want them to spend umpteen more years dreaming up a product that they can stick a bit of fundimental research into, just because you have an objection to scientists recouping some of their hard work?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If they'd followed due dilligence and gone to the CSIRO and licenced the technology, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the CSIRO deserved patent royalties for this technology that they "never implemented". You feel that the CSIRO is not obliged to royalties for this discovery because of the mistaken perception that they've just dreamed up this patent dispute as a way of extracting cash from companies which happen to accidentally cross onto their IP turf. That's usually the case with patent trolls, but this isn't a patent troll. They invented it, at their expense, and they were ripped off.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
How long are you willing to wait, before confiscating someone's patent? It may take a while after getting a patent to "get going", for example.
Also, your approach completely destroys the concept of a purely research organization — one, that would concentrate on scientific discoveries, while leaving actual practical use of them to the highest bidder. Because if your logic is implemented, no one will bid for the patents, because everyone will know, that if the patent-holder does not sell to any one, you will place the discovery into public domain.
Which means, your system will favor giant corporations, able to combine research and manufacturing...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
DO you know how hard it is to get to ther patenet stage to the manufacturing stage?
A large company could start manufacturing your device before you even got your first bit of money.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I were to break into your house and delete everything off every bit of magnetic or flash media, I think you'd disagree.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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. 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.
Maybe they shouldn't be able to change the frequencies mentioned in the patent. Maybe they shouldn't be able to patent obvious things like multiplexing over different frequencies. Maybe they shouldn't bring the lawsuit up in a court district that is a known haven to patent trolls. Maybe they should go after the WIFI Alliance, who knowingly introduced the standard including the patented tech, but did not provision for licensing fees. On that subject, who should be responsible for those fees? The WIFI Alliance? The chip designers (Broadcom, RALink, etc.)? The manufacturers (Netgear, Buffalo, etc.)? The companies and individuals using the equipment?
A standard should not include patented technology. Or, the patent holder should be contractually obliged to not sue over the patents when they are used within the standard before the standard can be introduced.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a question that should be asked of the Australian taxpayer. Perhaps research of this nature should not be publicly funded in that way.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
Mod parent up please - a very good point. In order for Dell, Apple, Microsoft, etc. to capitalize on CSIRO's research, they had to first establish design, manufacturing, sales, marketing, and logistics channels to sell the retail product(s) in question. All of those things cost money that CSIRO either didn't have or wasn't willing to spend to bring their "research" to market. Does CSIRO deserve a piece of the pie? Yes. Do they deserve to make a giant mess out of everything to get that piece of the pie? No.
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?
I guess I should stop giving patent holders amnesia after "stealing" their designs, then.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
Or maybe companies should stop trying to think they can steal someone else's research and profit from it.
Why should the American public fund research that benefits the rest of the world?
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
CSIRO is funded by the Australian taxpayer and is fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries. Neil
So, Neil, is this the case ONLY for taxpayer funded organizations? Or are ANY organizations "fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries"?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
That's just the point: What discoveries?! The patent looks like it takes existing LAN and DSP technology and adds, "but do it wirelessly." This is shades of patents that added "but do it on the internet". Where a specific infringement is not obvious, I wonder if the vague and all-encompassing idea of using a wireless LAN in an office or home setting would allow them to attack any home wireless technology, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with their invention.
I was looking forward to the legal battle, but I guess CSIRO gave them a price they couldn't pass up. Maybe now we'll never find out what they "discovered".
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
The patent was later modified from 10Ghz and up to all frequencies...
Are international companies violating the patents held by publicly funded research companies based in the US? If so, I don't see the parallel.
If it's publicly funded information, shouldn't the public be entitled to use it?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Since when did Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc fund the CSIRO?
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...
They do business in Australia so I assume they pay at least some taxes in Australia.
CSIRO is taxpayer funded, so there you go.
You're overlooking the main point though -- publicly funded information should be publicly available and made available for use by the public. If the Australian taxpayer funds research and a Ugandan person wishes to use it, why should he not be allowed to do so, just like an Australian could/should be able to use the fruits of publicly-funded Ugandan research.
Shouldn't publicly funded research flow to the benefit of ALL of the public? I don't see why nationality or borders are particularly relevant.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Because your Constitution says so that's why.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
CSIRO, like most universities, has a commercial arm and will commercialise their technologies if they are found to be worth it. Its ubiquitous to major research organisations.
Nope, we (Australian) taxpayers paid for it, and if it has a commercial benefit the CSIRO should get money from it to roll back into the research.
Again, Dell et.al pay taxes in Australia, so where's the problem?
They paid for that research, just the same as you did. In absolute dollar terms, they probably paid more for it than you did.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I think you could quite comfortably argue the opposite.
The danger with a company "making things" is that the patent is used to enforce a monopoly.
With a research organisation at least they have motivation to get the patent used as widely as possible, albeit for a fee.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Shouldn't publicly funded research flow to the benefit of ALL of the public?
Sure, but allowing a bunch of multinationals to make billions of the fruits of public research? No.
Sure, but allowing a bunch of multinationals to make billions of the fruits of public research?
Why not? Aren't they part of the public too?
You should have the same right to make billions off of the fruit of the same public research if you wish to.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I wonder, if patent-holders are justified in doing anything with their holdings, except donating them to public domain -- in your opinion...
Well, they might be out of toilet paper...?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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.
I'm Australian by the way. I hope the settlement is a fair and equitable one where the CSIRO isn't left out in the cold but nor are the manufacturers now making a loss on all those previous sales.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Isn't it better that the Ugandan researcher patents it and draws licensing revenue from huge international markets (US, EU, JP, etc) to boost her research and the Ugandan economy? I prefer that story to mega-corporations taking whatever technology they please without doing any pure research and making billions of dollars profit.
Maybe the real problem is that patent are valid for such a long period of time.
How long is that? Somewhere around 2 decades? Hardly "such a long period of time," say in comparison to copyright terms.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Again, if it's that kind of research (stuff that's easily commercialized) then perhaps it shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. Basic, "pure" research is a horse of a different colour than "let's build a better mousetrap".
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
There's quite a difference between a government organisation doing research and securing patents, and a private company doing the same thing. In the case of a government organisation, the benefits will actually trickle-down to everyone, whereas with a private company, they just hoard and profit.
That's a question that should be asked of the Australian taxpayer. Perhaps research of this nature should not be publicly funded in that way.
Thanks, but most of us would probably rather have wi-fi as a thing that has been invented rather than living in your libertarian fantasy world. Particularly down here in our socialist utopia, where we are not so simpleminded as to think that anything involving the government is inherently wrong and bad.
Of course, Dell, MS, Nintendo and co are welcome to go and develop their own, non-infringing wireless technologies.
Regards,
Australia
Read Pynchon.
Err, how so? In a private company they will ultimately serve only the shareholders. But in a govt research agency it will fund more research. Except that they seem to be in the business of making you pay for what they discover. Assuming it is just used to reinvest in the research agency, and assuming in the case of a company which doesn't pay dividends (which most tech companies don't), it looks pretty dead even. The final result is a general benefit in the technology of humanity, but neither appears to be ultimately more altruistic to the individual.
If the claim is valid and legal. I.E. so long as the company isn't an abusive monopoly, attempting to use the patent to wipe out a competitor or leverage it to get an unfair advantage in the market.
If the organisation or individual can prove beyond doubt that the patent is being knowingly and/or deliberately violated then yes, most certainly yes.
But what is actually happening here frosty, is that companies including Dell, Apple and Microsoft are suing CSIRO (not the other way around) in order to renege on paying CSIRO the patent licensing fees.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Heh. When its' a case of a patent troll winning royalties slashdot is full of condemnation and arguments.
This is a case of a company that genuinely did put the effort in and was not recompensed for their efforts and involving a non-US company. Barely a peep from Slashdot in comparison. CSIRO has invented many many technologies in its' time, the Cochlear ear being the most well-known example and a decent portion of its' funding now comes from licencing due to the steady erosion of govt funding.
I'd expect more support for a genuine research company from slashdot in the past. A sad reflection on what it has become.
"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"
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.
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.
Wot mjwx sed. Neil