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
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.
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'.
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.
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?
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.
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