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.'"

Comments

Only fair

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only fair

[dark_requiem]

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.

Re:Only fair

[Barny]

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.

Re:Only fair

[Znarl]

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.

Re:Only fair

[tpgp]

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?

Re:Only fair

[technobok]

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

CSIRO now in budget surplus

[bennyboy64]

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

Re:Are you fucking serious.

[Bilestoad]

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

Re:Patent trolls

[scjohnno]

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?

Re:Are you fucking serious.

[Cryacin]

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.

Re:Patent trolls

[nickd]

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.

Re:Desire to license

[Chuck Chunder]

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.

Re:Speaking of trolls

[MichaelSmith]

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.

in spite of having their funding savaged?

[Chuck Chunder]

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?

can you explain?

[jipn4]

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?

Re:Are you fucking serious.

[mabinogi]

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.

The public yes ... of Australia

[N Monkey]

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.