Slashdot Mirror
CSIRO Reinvests Patent Earnings
ozmanjusri writes with an update to a story we discussed a few days ago about a $200 million patent victory by CSIRO, Australia's governmental science research body. The organization has now turned around and reinvested $150 million of the proceeds into the science and industry endowment fund, which has already established three grants: "$12 million for two wireless research projects and $7.5 million for up to 120 fellowships and scholarships." CSIRO boss Megan Clark said, "It's very important that when you have a success like this, you reinvest it back into the wellspring. It's really about supporting areas that might need a helping hand in some of the frontier areas and research that actually tackles the national challenges."
When a patent victory comes, it goes straight out as executive pay bonus.
New Economic Perspectives
"After seeing the media impact of the previous results we decided to treat it with elementary PR care".
Well, in an environment with so many PR failures, I guess it's something.
"$12 million for two wireless research projects" CSIRO boss Megan Clark said
She declined to comment on the fact that the first project took place at the roof of her apartment building and the second was located near a datacenter.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
allocating 3/4 of your winnings to science does not diminish the fact that a state-funded organisation has probably spent the remainder on litigation and harassing hi-tech companies. The issuing of patent with a lifetime of 20 years to technology that has a lifetime of much less is stifling progress.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
If by government you mean "research organisation" and by "tax" you mean "earn money on" and "industry" you mean "use of their inventions", then yes, absolutely.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
How does a $200m settlement, for several years of use of the technology, spread over an industry which earns billions per year, stifle progress? The wireless industry's probably been hit harder by the increase in the price of ketchup for the staff canteen.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Maybe the companies shouldn't have tried to weasel out of paying royalties then.
What else were they supposed to do with the money? It's not like they have shareholders to support.
Known as "The Red Blackout", "The Redout" or simply "Ketchup monday".
The issuing of patent with a lifetime of 20 years to technology that has a lifetime of much less is stifling progress.
You're absolutely right, the fact that years of research went into the creation of this outdated technology does not count for anything.
This is just ridiculous - you clearly have no idea about this particular case.
The research for which this patent was granted was THE thing that made modern wireless networking possible. It took radio data transfer from kilobits per second (where it had languished for some time) to a hundred megabits per second. At a time when you were using a 14k modem if you were lucky.
And secondly, while software patents in the USA may be commonly used to stifle innovation, this technology was the thing that enabled the wifi industry to get started and IN NO WAY stifled anything. They haven't limited what it is used for. Or who uses it. Multiple standards have emerged based on it, all in the full foreknowledge that this was the basis technology. This is no submarine patent - the devices and the standards were based on this - and $200M total is pocket change spread among the multibillion giants of the world technology industry.
Third, it is a patent granted for a short time for technology that will be in use for an extremely long time to come.
This is exactly the kind of technological progress that the patent system was designed to encourage - this is the patent system WORKING the way it was intended.
It is amazing that you can be so grossly wrong in so many ways in such a short comment. I have no idea how that got modded 'insightful'.
It's not just "THE thing that made modern wireless networking possible", it is modern wireless networking. The patent abstract:
Shit like Ask Geeves was valued at two billion dollars and people are quibbling that fourteen multi-billion-dollar companies have to spend $200m between them? Seriously?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I'm unsure as to what you mean. Are you bashing patents all together? Or do you think that a private company holding the patents and winning the case in question would stiffle progress less? Or that it is wrong for public organizations to do research?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
The greed! First they get lots of money, then they go and put it to good so as to deprive me of being able to indignantly call them out for their immoral ways. The government can never do anything right!
My webcomic
a state-funded organisation
An organization funded by the government of Australia doesn't take any tax dollars from US citizens or any tax euros from EU-member citizens. So CSIRO is "a state-funded organization" to only 0.31 percent of the world population.
Too bad it was invented in the 1960's. CSIRO's patent amounts to "using COFDM indoors".
From one of the court papers on the subject:
'The trial court found that Rault disclosed several of the limitations of independent claims 42, 56, 68 -- the modulation means, the data reliability enhancement means, and the interleaving means. The district court did not find that Rault anticipated any of the claims, however, because the court found that Rault had failed to disclose the limitation, found in the preamble of each of the independent claims, that referred to the use of the invention "in a confined multipath transmission enviroment." The trial court construed the words "in a confined multipath transmission environment" to mean "in an indoor environment."'
Note that Rault (the author of a paper attempted to be used as prior art) DID address multipath. He just addressed it in the context of a moving vehicle in an urban environment, not an indoor environment".
So CSIROs $200M award was for... moving a radio indoors. (where, BTW, the problem is easier than a moving vehicle in an 'urban canyon'; indoors you have mostly static multipath (some dynamic due to things and people in the environment moving) and no Doppler, outdoors you have dynamic multipath and Doppler.)
Getting royalties on a patent does not make you a patent troll. Buying up patents you didn't invent just to make money off them IS. (There is NO "research, patent, troll" cycle, only a "buy/write trivial patent, wait, troll" one.)
The CSIRO spent money developing the technology in the patents. They're reinvesting the royalties (which are a fucking PITTANCE) back into new research. That's the very opposite of being a patent troll.
Wow, I've worked with some ex-CSIRO people. You're just screwing yourself there I'm afraid.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
You're an idiot.
CSIRO's patent which netted it 200 million is not a software patent. It's a hardware patent. Read the patent itself (from way back in 1993) if you don't believe me. The word "software" doesn't even appear in it.
This is exactly the way the patent system is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage innovation and protect investment. What CSIRO is doing is improving the world. Can you imagine the world today if they hadn't done the research and developed the WIFI technology that everyone takes for granted?
It on the public record that they licensed the technology and expected to receive payments. As the court cases showed, the big tech companies just tried to weasel their way out of actually coughing up the cash after taking the technology and incorporating it into their products.
How can you be mad that this cash is going into cutting edge research projects rather than hookers and coke for some executive's next mediterranean cruise?
A software patents wiki, and you're rambling on about a patent on radio signalling schemes on it. Bravo, sir.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
This is completely misleading.
The Rault paper was published in 1989, not in the 60's. Less than 4 years before the CSIRO patent was filed. Moreover Rault's techniques, while similar to those being developed at the SAME TIME at CSIRO, were not those that led on to wifi as we know it.
Yes - multiple groups were working in the area at that time; but the CSIRO researchers got there first, built it, made it work, published it, patented it, and it is on THAT RESEARCH that wifi is based.
The Rault paper was put forward as prior art, examined and rejected. I don't know how to put it more simply.
And how many lucrative patents will this research yield?
From an organization that invents real technology and licenses it very cheaply to everybody? Hopefully a lot.
When can we expect the next shakedown?
The next time the megalomaniacs of intellectual property like Microsoft and Apple think they can pilfer legitimate IP from others at will, hopefully!
Help in documenting CSIRO and other troll activities is welcome:
Why yes, I'd like to document some troll activity!
Overheard at one of the settlement meetings: "That's not a patent! That's a patent."
First, standards should never be based on patents. This creates an opportunity for this to happen. There are a lot of people who get misled in thinking that since it is a standard they are free to use it. Second, their approach was an obvious solution. I have witnessed on several occasions individuals solving the same problem in much the same manner independently of each other and each having a different level of intelligence. A lot of people have this misconception that they have a gift, whereas each individual is born with the same capabilities as the other. The only thing that changes is the rate in which their physical brain can modify itself in which to further gain intelligence and their desire to persevere. If someone tells you differently then they are that percentage of the world that beats others down so they can retain power since they have either the inability to better themselves, or just too damn lazy to do so. I find it best to describe my point in the following way. A person will claim that since they aren't as good as Michael Jordan then they can never play professional ball, but yet while they know there are other people better at driving a vehicle they will continue to do so. As the population increases it is ever present that the percentage of the population that will have the exact same thought pattern also increases. It is is because of this that they should really think about the possible obviousness of some patent being processed. I miss the days of having to have a physical device that demonstrates your solution. Too many people nowadays can't quite get theirs from paper into something tangible. Third, I would argue the fact that this technology will be around for a long time. I would even bet money that it might be replaced in as little as 2 years. Don't worry it won't be patented so feel free to use it however you will want to. Anyways, I have work to do so piss off mates. =)
I hope CSIRO enjoys not being invited to any more IEEE standards meetings, because that's what the verdict means. The patent wasn't granted until well after the 802.11 standards were set up, so this perfectly matches the "submarine patent" idea - it's Rambus all over again.
All I can say is good for them. They developed a core piece of technology and have re-invested for the future. As another poster already mentioned, this is the way the patent system should work. Now, if only the damn patent trolls would wake up, stop their frivolous lawsuits and coercion tactics and actually invent something instead of profiteering off of other companies investments by buying up patents, we would be getting somewhere. Unfortunately, the current patent environment in the US won't let this happen.
Integrity matters in my company.
Says the Anonymous Coward.
Have you ever been paid for work that you did? Sorry, you've just been blcklisted, integrity matters in my company.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Yes, the Rault paper (which includes all the techniques in the patent, just not one particular application) was published in 1989, years before the CSIRO patent was filed (it doesn't matter how many years, as long as it's greater than one year). COFDM itself was invented in the 1960s.
You've put it too simply. The Rault paper was rejected as prior art because it didn't mention that the same techniques would work indoors. That's an indication that the system is broken, not a testament to the validity of the patent.
Absolutely correct. Interesting that you had to go AC to post a positive comment about patents.
The patent describes the implementation of a WLAN using OFDM as the transmission mechanism. Given that WLANs and OFDM existed well before 1993, the patent appears to be rather obvious. What exactly is the innovation covered by this patent?
Comparing with ridiculous factoids does not prove your argument right. if 200 million is pocket change to you, I'd beg you to give a small part of that to me. In return, I will teach you about the tranquility one obtains by not having to work for your money.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
because that 200 million (+ similar amount in attorney fees) could have been spent on research by the ones actually designing and making the devices. add to that the millions of manufacturers that did not fight but decided to pay up. But the bad thing is the methods they used to get their earnings, not the actual subject. patents per-se are bad, so these ones are too. That is is a public institution that does the extortion makes it even worse. Their results should be for the good of all people, or for the good of all australian people if you want to be nationalis.t
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
CSIRO appearing on a resume should result in an automatic blacklisting from employment or consulting (it will with me). This is sociopathic theft.
Steve Jobs? Is that you?
"The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume
Have you ever been paid for work that you did?
Have the patent trolls? Or did they just dream up an invention and wait for someone else to come along and actually do the work?
You seem to imply CSIRO didn't work for their money, despite inventing, and testing, the technology that a very, very large number of people use daily. That qualifies as then not being a troll, and it qualifies the companies as trying to weasel out of something so small, the payment for the use of their patented technology, it's absurd.
Also, do you think that any company would put that much of the 200 million dollars into research on this one technology? Any company would take that money and run, and usually only come up with an incremental upgrade to what we have now, if anything at all.
I wonder why you think that is inherently better?
Given that we're looking at a case where a fresh approach taken by an independent research organisation arrived at an impressive solution that the people "actually designing and making" the devices weren't even beginning to think about I think it's fairly obvious that there is value in external research.
I remember the bad old days of wireless networking where you could eke out a bit more speed by choosing equipment from a single manufacturer that used their own particular proprietary, patented technology to get a speed boost. Personally I'd prefer an external organisation willing to licence that technology to everyone.
Indeed the reason's for CSIRO's existence is to benefit Australians. As an institution funded by Australians that is reasonable. What they are doing is in the interest of Australians.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
WTF? Seriously, blow a minute of your precious slashdot time to look the CSIRO up before you throw stones from the comfort of your glass house. They're not some slimy shell company with a patent vault, they're an actual research-and-development organisation with thousands of employees - actual scientists and actual laboratories doing actual scientific work - and they've made a real impact on our way of life.
Yes, patents have become a corrupted abomination of their original nature, but if you're going to blacklist the CSIRO you are totally at the wrong end of the carpark. We can only dream that more companies would spend on real science the way that organisations like the CSIRO do.
This is exactly the way the patent system is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage innovation and protect investment. What CSIRO is doing is improving the world. Can you imagine the world today if they hadn't done the research and developed the WIFI technology that everyone takes for granted?
Yeah, I can imagine it --- somebody else would have done the research and the world would be basically just the same. If this is an example of how patents are a good thing, I'm not convinced.
There would have been just as much pressure / motivation for wifi without patents: the first laptop to have wifi would have been an enormous hit, and all the competitors would have had to follow.
(FWIW, I'm an Australian scientist and taxpayer. I have plenty of respect for the CSIRO, and I'm happy to see them land 200 million. But I'd much rather fund them through taxes than have a massive patent system.)
Well, sort of. The intention at the time was a 60GHz WLAN (which a lot or people are working on now), not at 5GHz, or 2.4GHz. Partly that was because a lot of the people involved (the five guys on te patent were just the tip of the iceberg) came from a mm-wave background (especially with respect to antennas), and also for internal politcal reasons since the particular CSIRO division was also trying to get a GaAs pHEMT process off the ground.
But also, the patent should never have been granted. Very similar patents had been granted in 1966 and 1986 (could eb alittle out with those numbers, but not by more than a year or two), plus, other researchers had already beaten CSIRO to OFDM radios by 6 years or more.
They are not trolls. They spent millions on research and development and rightfully expect royalties for use of the fruits of their labour. Or do you have a problem with valid patents on real inventions too?
Not quite. CSIRO was granted the patent '96. IEEE 802.11 was released in '97.
The standards comittee and all involved partners knew of the CSIRO patent and requested that they promise not to sue. They didn't promise. The IEEE went ahead anyway. Those that implemented it and did not pay royalties got sued. No submarining involved, only knowledgable parties who happily used but refused to respect the patented technology.
No subterfuge, no trickery, just a bunch of companies not paying royalties to a legitimate patent holder. However slashdot feels about that (I personally think intellectual property is a misnomer, ideas are etheral to start, and common goods of all humanity) the courts tend to frown.
There would have been just as much pressure / motivation for wifi without patents: the first laptop to have wifi would have been an enormous hit, and all the competitors would have had to license the technology for a trivial fee or reverse engineer/recreate the technology at great expense.
FTFY.
Then write to your MP, asking them to increase funding for the CSIRO (throw in all othe other agencies such as ACIAR, AIMS, ANSTO, NMI, Geoscience Australia and NICTA while you're at it) so that they don't have to rely on patent licensing and commercial spinoffs.
(Disclaimer: I work for one of those agencies, though not the CSIRO.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I think the CSIRO deserve every penny. Though I wouldn't want them to go Microsoft on us all.
Yes, patents are bad as a whole. Patents exercised by public institutions are just a disgrace. There was a one time cost for the research, but there should be a 20-year payback because some standards were based on it? Fair would be dedicating the patent after the costs have been recuperated. Otherwise it becomes gamblimg with public money.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Ok, if you don't trust technology companies to invest enough in research, then make a tax to ensure they do. If public bodies ('teh gubbermint') cannot do it, and private companies cannot do it, then I wonder how we get any progress at all. relying on a system of state monopolies is very outdated, and very inefficient. The other 50 million was most likely spent on litigation.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you