Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wi-Fi Patent Victory Earns CSIRO $200 Million

Posted by samzenpus on from the pay-up dept.

bennyboy64 writes "iTnews reports the patent battle between Australia's CSIRO and 14 of the world's largest technology companies has gained the research organization $200 million from out of court settlements. CSIRO executive director of commercial, Nigel Poole, said the CSIRO were wanting to license their technology further, stating that he 'urged' companies using it to come forward and seek a license. 'We believe that there are many more companies that are using CSIRO's technology and it's our desire to license the technology further,' Poole said.'We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a,g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.'"

9 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Only fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pat on the back for CSIRO. One of the ways government-owned research organizations can expect to survive is by monetizing inventions - when companies like Lucent, Buffalo, Linksys, Apple etc. all make a killing off this stuff and didn't invest in its development it is only fair they are forced to pay up.

    1. Re:Only fair by dark_requiem · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it's a government-owned research organization, what right do they have patenting it? Government-owned implies tax-funded, which means that the costs have already been shifted to the general public. How is it legitimate to force people to pay for research and then deny them access to the results? And to preempt those who will bring this up, yes, you can argue that corporations aren't "people", but they are groups of people. Besides which, if a single individual wanted to hack together some wifi cards and sell them to a few people, they would still technically be infringing on the patent, and thus be as liable as a corporate entity.

    2. Re:Only fair by technobok · · Score: 5, Informative

      Regardless of the validity of your point, penicillin probably isn't a good example.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Walter_Florey

  2. CSIRO now in budget surplus by bennyboy64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was also the first time the research organization had seen a surplus in its financial reporting http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26209952-12377,00.html

  3. Re:Patent trolls by nickd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that they aren't patent trolls - they are the Australian Government's science organisation - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), they have been in this battle for quite a while.

    Read up on the WLAN stuff here http://www.csiro.gov.au/science/wireless-LANs.html

    Then get back to us when you think that inventing wireless networking technology is easy and doesn't warrant the possibility of being patented.

  4. Re:Desire to license by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Noticeably absent from the list of defendents-to-be: Cisco. Not because they aren't infringing on any patents,

    Cisco aren't on the list because they already have a licence for the tech for which they pay royalties.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  5. in spite of having their funding savaged? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    n spite of having their funding savaged

    Er, according to this article:

    With government funding boosted for the fifth year in a row to $668.1 million,

    What "savaging" are you talking about?

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  6. Re:can you explain? by Teancum · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can name two "traditional" inventions in the 19th Century (just off the top of my head) that had nearly identical patent applications that arrived within a day or two to the USPTO:

    • Aluminum Refining - This is the current electro-synthesis process that cheaply extracts this metal from raw ores. This one was literally the difference of a single hour in terms of getting to the patent office.
    • Telephone - Alexander Graham Bell dodged a bullet on this one. He is even a classical "textbook" inventor often described in glowing light about how patents are so useful to society and why they are necessary.

    Yeah, I'd say that simultaneous patent applications are a serious problem, and patent law doesn't really deal with research efforts where obvious areas of research are looked at by multiple individuals.

    At least in terms of copyright, if two authors come up with similar topics and submit the books to the library of congress at nearly the same time, all that happens is that the books get classified with the same catalog number (mostly) putting them on the shelf next to each other. The copyright is completely in force for both books (presuming one author didn't plagiarize the other in a blatant manner).

  7. Re:can you explain? by Migraineman · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's unworkable, agreed. However, I find it unfortunate that we as a society don't value more than a single path to a solution. If I create a Cardboard Transmorgrifier, only to find out that some guy named Calvin beat me to the USPTO by a few hours, our society declares my efforts to be worthless (or worse, infringing where no infringement occurs.)

    Given the current copyright and patent shenanigans that are in-play, I'd rather take my chances with no such system in place. How am I supposed to benefit from an inventor's time-limited monopoly if it doesn't expire until after my death? I am supposed to benefit from this deal, right?