Slashdot Mirror


Wi-Fi Patent Victory Earns CSIRO $200 Million

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.'"

25 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 Barny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok then, this should be fun :)

      So lets put a tax, oh about $2 should do, on any N class wireless device sold outside of Australia, the results would be more favorable to the CSIRO (an Australian tax-payer funded research group) I think.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Only fair by Znarl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO) is funded by the Australian tax paying citizens.

      It is legitimate for Australians to be rewarded for research they paid for by in the form of licensing fees from the rest of the world.

    4. Re:Only fair by tpgp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      You missed a few pertinent words in your question Let me add them for you - they make the answer obvious.

      How is it legitimate to force Australian people to pay for research and then deny American & European Corporations access to the results?

      --
      My pics.
    5. Re:Only fair by MrMr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting viewpoint. How much does Oz contribute to DARPA for the use of internet?
      Or to England for Penicillin?
      Or for any of the thousands of inventions funded by non-Australian citizens?
      But that would actually cost money, so that cannot possibly be fair.

    6. 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:Are you fucking serious. by Bilestoad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Idiocy. CSIRO is nothing like a patent troll. CSIRO developed the technology...

  4. Re:Patent trolls by scjohnno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can someone please justify why we should consider the CSIRO to be a patent troll? They are an actual research organisation (a taxpayer-funded one at that); they don't exist just to file patents and make claims on them. Why are people dismissing them as trolls?

  5. Re:Are you fucking serious. by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yup. Isn't this *EXACTLY* why patents *REALLY* should exist? Hi - we've developed and tested a new technology, here it is, and here is how to use it. Please pay us money for the privilige.

    Good on them, and hopefully we'll see some more great work from them in the future.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. Re:Patent trolls by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone please justify why we should consider the CSIRO to be a patent troll? They are an actual research organisation (a taxpayer-funded one at that); they don't exist just to file patents and make claims on them. Why are people dismissing them as trolls?

    Because it's slashdot. You would be lucky for the majority of posters to read the the summary let alone any background info. Congratulations to the CSIRO for their success on this - in spite of having their funding savaged. Though the technology was patented in 96 so the r+d was possibly done before it became a target of budget cuts.

  9. Re:Speaking of trolls by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The nicest example I have heard of patents working the right way is the Rolling Loop IMAX Projector. The IMAX developers actually went to Ron Jones's home in Western Australia, looked at his prototype projector and pretty much bought his patent on the spot.

  10. 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
  11. can you explain? by jipn4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not so sure. It's not my area, but this patent sounds like it might be an engineering solution, a simple application of known techniques, instead of an invention. The fact that a standards body decided to use this technology (either not knowing about the patent or deliberately ignoring it) also suggests that this is not actually a new technology.

    Can you explain what you think is novel and unobvious about this technology?

    1. Re:can you explain? by SlashWombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At the time of its invention, it was not a simple application of known techniques. Now many digital transmission schemes use similar techniques. So yes, they deserve some credit for the invention. (The reason it wasn't mainstream before this is due to them using a CSIRO FFT hardware chip, something that wasn't really around until chip manufacturers/designers achieved the miniaturization necessary for its implementation. The FFT wasn't even described as a mathematical process until early 1960.

    2. 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).

    3. 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?

  12. Re:wifi allergies by biovoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you have an allergy to your wifi, you shouldn't have married her.

  13. In other news by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Funny

    The government announced that CSIRO's funding allocation for next year will be reduced by a one-off amount of $200 million.

    The savings will be used to fund a series of very large plaques in school gyms where, by pure coincidence, most polling booths are set up during federal elections.

    --

    Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

  14. Re:Are you fucking serious. by mabinogi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Australians would be perfectly happy that an Australian government research organisation funded by their taxes was also making additional income licensing their technologies to overseas and multi-national companies.

    I know I am.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  15. The public yes ... of Australia by N+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CSIRO exists because it's publicly funded. It's publicly funded because it's supposed to benefit the public and create research results usable by everybody.

    It's publicly funded, yes, but by the people of Australia,, not of the people of other nations. In that sense CSIRO are absolutely entitled to obtain license fees from international companies. I'd also argue that they are entitled to collect fees from Australian companies since that should then allow them to decrease their funding from Australian tax payers.

  16. Sorry, but I call BS by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the taxpayer funds the research, the taxpayer owns the results. Nobody should be able to patent something that came about because of taxpayer-funded research.

    Furthermore, patented technology shouldn't be allowed to make it into "standards." "Standards" should be open and unencumbered. It's fundamentally anti-competitive to standardize on encumbered technology.