Slashdot Mirror
CSIRO Sues US Carriers Over Wi-Fi Patent
An anonymous reader notes that CSIRO has sued Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile in — wait for it — East Texas District Court. "Australia's peak science body stands to reap more than $1 billion from its lucrative Wi-Fi patent after already netting about $250 million from the world's biggest technology companies, an intellectual property lawyer says. The CSIRO has spent years battling 14 technology giants including Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo, and Toshiba for royalties and made a major breakthrough in April last year when the companies opted to avoid a jury hearing and settle for an estimated $250 million. Now, the organization is bringing the fight to the top three US mobile carriers in a new suit targeting Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile. It argues they have been selling devices that infringe its patents."
The CSIRO is an independent government-owned technology research body - a bit like (say) NASA is in the US.
The money isn't lining the pockets of some uber-squillionaire with a Lear jet, it will be funding a very worthwhile agency that can churn out even better research.
Yeah, I would like it to be free too, but at least it is going to one of the more worthy technological causes.
I am anarch of all I survey.
After having to pay for a bullshit data plan for my son's phone on Verizon - part of me is glad they can potentially get it in the butt with this suite. However, I know that the one who will pay for this is me (and all the other users) of their services. How about a law that prohibits these companies from passing on their "mistakes" to the consumers?
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
... I think I might actually be rooting for a patent lawsuit to succeed.
As I recall, these companies had an agreement with the CSIRO to implement their technology into the wifi standard in return for royalties. Everyone was happy with this, it was duly noted, etc.
Which mysteriously turned into a big collective "Fuck You" when the CSIRO asked for their royalties a few years later on.
So, as an Australian, I send a cheery "Fuck You" to those companies now, and I hope the CSIRO gets what they're owed, plus punitive damages.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
CSIRO, which is also now targeting Lenovo, Sony and Acer in new cases, says mathematical equations in its patents form the basis of Wi-Fi technology...
For those of us not nerdy enough to actually know what the crap CSIRO is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
When did Aussies get so good at American Business practices? I mean its either pay up or end "The Game"
But they're not a patent troll. They:
-developed technology to fix an (at the time) unfixable problem using scientific research they'd be doing in signal analysis (funny enough related to astronomy!) for decades
-signed agreements with everyone stating that royalties would be owed
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-sued
In what way is that patent trolling?
From the link you posted:
"an entity that does not have the capabilities to design, manufacture, or distribute products that have features protected by the patent"
Too right that mate, and we don't bloody call 'em shrimp - they're fucking PRAWNS, as in District 9, you insensitive yank clod!
Here's what I have on their previous trolling:
How can you possibly arrive at the idea that CSIRO are engaging in patent trolling? They were the ones who actually developed the technology, their patents hadn't been submarined in any way, and the only reason they're fighting now is because they still haven't been paid the royalties the companies originally agreed to give them when they first implemented the technology. This is an unusual case of patent law, not because of any supposed trolling, but because it's a superb example of how patent law was always meant to be used.
I always believed that the "shrimp" term was an ironic statement referring to an extremely large, or "Australian-sized," steak. Is this not correct?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I always believed that the "shrimp" term was an ironic statement referring to an extremely large, or "Australian-sized," steak. Is this not correct?
If it's under 16oz, it isn't even American sized. :p
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
As I understand it, chipset makers license the technology. Those chipsets are then incorporated into whatever product is being made, be that phones, pda's, laptops, etc etc.
So in effect, the CSIRO wants to be be paid by the chipset makers, and then by the companies that use those chipsets, seems greedy.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
This is an unusual case of patent law, not because of any supposed trolling, but because it's a superb example of how patent law was always meant to be used.
It...it...it can't be!
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
For once the patent system is actually working as intended.
I for one applaud the CSIRO, and I look forward to seeing the freeloading corporations that have made billions on the back of the CSIRO's research get fucked in the ass.
It's 100% incorrect. Shrimp refers to the decapods we affectionately know as Prawns here in Australia. Crocodile Dundee (characterised by Paul Hogan) was an American selling the Australian image to Americans.
Just plain wrong. Crocodile Dundee (characterised by Paul Hogan) was an American movie studio selling the Americanised Australian image to Americans. Hoges sold out, mate.
I wasn't aware of any carriers manufacturing their own wireless chips. Which ones are?
Sorry, that should have read: Crocodile Dundee (characterised by Paul Hogan) was an American movie studio selling the Americanised Australian image to Americans. Hoges sold out, mate.
wait for it -- East Texas District Court.
That court is popular with IP plaintiffs. Reasons cited: sympathetic jurors, lots of judges who don't need to brush up on IP law, low backlogs. We've actually been here before:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/1236255/Patent-Trolls-Target-Small-East-Texas-Companies?from=rss
If they're genuinely good guys, I'll document that too. Do you have any links to back up your story?
Your story could be a true example of software patents being used to prevent mega-corps from abusing their power, but it's exactly the sort of story a PR department would come up with regardless of the truth.
So it comes down to numbers and proofs. Can anyone help me look for documents to answer:
* Has CSIRO promised to only sue companies that broke deals with CSIRO?
* Does CSIRO has massive royalties to pay? (their law suits are estimated to be worth more than a billion USD, so the royalties owed would have to be of this magnitude to justify continued enforcement)
* Where are the agreements that these companies signed with CSIRO?
* Which companies signed the contracts?
* Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract??
That sort of info would be great to document. Thanks.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Lenovo sells hardware outside of China. If you want to sell things in the US, you have to follow US law. If you want to sell things in Germany, you have to follow German law.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
> /Are you suggesting that the only way someone can legitimately enforce a patent is with a party that has been forewarned?/
No, I'm not suggesting that. However, if CSIRO is going to be painted as a good guy while suing software developers, I'd like to know what narrow limits they're placing on their aggression/retaliation in order to deserve that.
Am I safe? Is Red Hat safe? Are small businesses safe? Are other research institutes safe?
And the question I posted below: if CSIRO's law suits are justified because their business partners broke signed deals (as the original reply claims), why don't they sue for breach of contract instead of software patent infringement?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
How about a law that prohibits these companies from passing on their "mistakes" to the consumers?
When they don't make money from a product or service they don't provide it. (Even if you force them to provide it, do that to enough products/services and the company as a whole dries up and blows away - unless you "bail them out" by - guess what - giving them still more money, which comes from - guess where - the consumers' pocket by way of taxes or inflation.)
It's just another form of price control. Set it too high and you cost the consumer more than a non-regulated market would have cost. Set it too low and the product or service becomes scarce. Your proposal falls into the "set it too low" camp.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
To software developers, CSIRO is an aggressive patent litigator. The karma they earn through their agricultural research doesn't change this.
Maybe we should always specify that "CSIRO's *software department*" acts like a patent troll, but given that the software context is pretty clear here, that doesn't seem necessary.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
If they're genuinely good guys, I'll document that too. Do you have any links to back up your story?
Your story could be a true example of software patents being used to prevent mega-corps from abusing their power, but it's exactly the sort of story a PR department would come up with regardless of the truth.
So it comes down to numbers and proofs. Can anyone help me look for documents to answer:
* Has CSIRO promised to only sue companies that broke deals with CSIRO?
Who would ever promise something like that and why? Examples please. Such promise would make about as much sense as putting a cart ahead of the horse. You're supposed to make "deals" based on patents you own, not the other way around.
* Does CSIRO has massive royalties to pay? (their law suits are estimated to be worth more than a billion USD, so the royalties owed would have to be of this magnitude to justify continued enforcement)
This screams of "I want to invent something once and get paid for life" mentality. This is NOT the way patent law was originally meant for. CSIRO does what patent law WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT FOR - funnel the money back into the research. Not royalties. Royalties in these cases will always be parasitic in nature, sucking off the resources from the actual research.
* Where are the agreements that these companies signed with CSIRO?
Most likely, like most contracts, these are not public documents. They can obviously be examined by court of law, however courts are required by law, for obvious reasons, not to disclose such contracts to random people.
Essentially, we have no way of ever finding out, unless one of the parties decides to come out and show the contracts to us, and doing so would most likely weaken said party's negotiating position.
Therefore we are highly unlikely to ever see any of the documents.
* Which companies signed the contracts?
This is a PATENT. You do not need to sign a contract to owe money for using technology based on a patent. Usually contract is signed after weighing the patent and its usefulness - not the other way around as you seem to imply.
* Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract?
They are doing this as we discuss the topic, and have been doing it for some time now. Read the OP.
>"Now, the organization is bringing the fight to the top three US mobile carriers in a new suit targeting Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile."
Um, sorry, but the top three US mobile carriers are Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. T-Mobile is a distant fourth.
Lots of patent holders make promises limiting who they will use their patents agressively against. They do it so that people will work with them and to avoid being branded a troll or a threat. Here's a list: Patent promises. Even Microsoft has made some (very limited) promises.
Nope. Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit. Not to make money for researchers. Sometimes the two goals go together, sometimes they don't. In this case, we have an organisation claiming veto power on anyone wanting to implement wif. That monopoly's probably not in the public's interest.
Exactly. So, if this is private inter-company horse trading, why is any outsider using these broken agreements to justify CSIRO's patent aggression? For all we know, there's nothing of substance in these agreements.
If you read the story, or people's comments here, you'll see that CSIRO seems to have made deals with a bunch of tech companies, then the companies broke the agreement (according to unconfirmed slashdot comments), and *this* act is what justifies CSIRO suing people (again, according to the same slashdot comments).
Oh. You're the first to claim this and it's not mentioned in any of the news articles. Got any links to back up this scoop? Everyone else thinks CSIRO is taking people to court over software patent infringement, not breach of contract.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
You can vote out a government
Duverger's law is that a plurality election system will converge to two parties. If both parties support a measure, such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, how can one vote out that kind of government?
The Science and Industry Endowment Fund: http://www.sief.org.au/
"The Fund will make strategic investments in scientific research that addresses issues of national priority for Australia."
Do you realize how much money research and development costs? Do you realize that the only way it makes sense to pursue research and development is if it can support you financially? Do you realize why patents are a _good_ thing (not software patents). No? Well then you, sir, are a fucking moron. This is the real world not some hippie commune. Grow the fuck up. If you can't realize why CSIRO getting money it deserves is a good thing, then fuck you. If you can't realize why NASA getting royalties for THEIR research as well, then fuck you.
God I fucking hate dumb people.
And no, I'm not conservative.
stargate
Star meaning celebrity and gate meaning scandal? Just turn the TV to HLN or E! and see Stargate happen everyday.
Otherwise, it looks like a research group, that indeed makes stuff, but has now realised that suing people is a better business than research. That might fail the "non-practising entity" definition that you quoted, but I don't think it fails the broader "troll" definition.
So you think they have stopped doing research? I've read that they allocated a large part of the settlement as an ongoing research fund.
I'm getting the impression that you feel anybody that has a patent and enforces it is a patent troll. Is that what you mean by broader "troll" definition? Your website defines it as a company that acquires patents simply to demand royalties. I would think that is the idea of patents in general though isn't it? You patent something to make money from it. Perhaps you need to tighten your definition a little bit.
if CSIRO's law suits are justified because their business partners broke signed deals (as the original reply claims), why don't they sue for breach of contract instead of software patent infringement?
For the same reason that a GPL violation is prosecuted as a copyright infringement.
Too right that mate, and we don't bloody call 'em shrimp - they're fucking PRAWNS
PRAWNS sounds more like pictures of naked women.
That they're the laughingstock of the American justice system, and that people on both sides of patent litigation see them as milking cows for patent squatters.
> So you think they have stopped doing research?
Nope. I'm sure they'll continue with research.
One related worry I have is that now that they've shown their colours, I hope their future research does produce patentable software ideas that will in turn be used for further litigation. Society can get by just fine without that sort of research. Patent aggression is a nuisance, whether it comes from Microsoft, CSIRO, or Acacia Intellectual Ventures.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Being smart is taking your innovation and actually doing something with it, in this case, manufacturing. This is called "value added" in economics. Ya, they might get a quarter to a full billion from a settlement, but the people who *use* that tech and build with it make umpteen billions, over and over again.
That's smart(er).
Mideast oil producing nations sell their raw resources..then did nothing with it beyond splurging and blowing it mostly. They failed to develop any heavy industry of note, or any sort of trans-oil-selling sustainable economy despite generations of serious cashflow in...they failed the next step and didn't use that surplus windfall in any "value added" manner.
I can sell my spiffy new invented hammer and saw design one time, or I can use this innovation in the market place directly and build a lot of furniture and houses with my new hammer and saw, beating my competition handily, and make a lot more. This gives me ten times the potential budget to play with for more R&D and then manufacturing gains.
CSIRO does some good research, but in the end after all is said and done, once you follow the economic breadcrumbs around, manufacturing is the big kahuna on making loot, and China still gets it for free or chump change and makes the real serious moolah from that same research (same as they are doing with every other nation's R&D now). Selling raw R&D-failing to use it yourself- is no different at all from selling any other "raw" natural resource, like mideast oil. Ya, you can make some money, sometimes big money, but never the ultimate serious money.
Ideas are cheap on the global scale, implementation of those ideas makes the hugemongous national trade surpluses. CSIRO does implement their ag research domestically, but the other..not sure what they do with it other than try to sell it cheap, and even then they are forced to sue to get a little. And frankly, a billion dollars for wifi? That's chump change on the international scene. Better than nothing, but still just selling off raw resources (oz brains in this case) cheap.
I wouldn't feel bad about it, and don't take it as a dig against Australia (sort of a joke there..) because most nations are doing that now, they have more or less conceded world economic dominance to China for short term profits and some cheap consumer trinkets, a couple generations worth, then..that stuff won't be all that cheap anymore. China will reach a point they can demand more, they won't have to sell cheap, once they have more or less completely squashed manufacturing elsewhere, and also built up their own R&D establishment.
They would probably fit under a non-practicing entity. I don't think you can buy a CSIRO wireless card. They better be careful, as I think there is at least one patent on the non-practicing entity business method.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If they're genuinely good guys, I'll document that too. Do you have any links to back up your story?
I suspect that you won't. You have an overly broad definition of patent troll to include a research organization that found a revolutionary way of dealing with a complicated problem in wireless communications. This solution allowed WiFi and other wireless technologies to become popular and useful. I think that it is up to you to document why you feel that CSIRO isn't doing research and merely trolling patents.
Here is a brief summary and timeline of the development of the patent.
I'm not arguing legality. I'm arguing ethics.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
* Has CSIRO promised to only sue companies that broke deals with CSIRO?
You ask for this in many of your posts... Are we to understand that if CSIRO only sues people for patent infringement when those people broke deals with them, you'd be okay with that? But if they sue anyone they didn't have a deal with, that's wrong?
In other words, it seems like you want CSIRO to only sue for breach of contract, not patent infringement. Meaning that, in your preferred reality, anyone who wants to use CSIRO's invention should never, ever contact them for a license because if they do, they can be sued, but if they don't, they're immune.
Why would anyone ever agree to pay royalties when they could just use the same IP for free, provided they never sign any contracts?
Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article. More welcome.
> why you feel that CSIRO isn't doing research
But this isn't my opinion. I'm sure they are still doing research. (But I sure how they don't develop any more patentable software ideas.)
CSIRO certainly falls outside of the "non-practising entity" category. "Troll" is broader - the border isn't clear, but Microsoft has been accused many times of being a troll. Sure the develop and distribute lots of software, but they also act like a troll that demands a toll to cross a generally useful bridge.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
As I recall, these companies had an agreement with the CSIRO to implement their technology into the wifi standard in return for royalties. Everyone was happy with this, it was duly noted, etc.
If there was no agreement or they are seeking revenge from the companies that breached this alleged contract, this part of the defense falls apart.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The government? I think a lot of Australians would think that would be a good way of guarunteeing that Australian citizens don't get a return on the money!
Personally I think they should keep it as it helps maintain their independance from government.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
You do realise that the CSIRO is a government organisation, therefore, is the Australian Government, and you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value?
I suppose that you can argue that they don't (see: Senator Conroy, Internet Villian of the Year 2009).
On the flipside I don't believe governments really fit into the narrow scope of a patent troll. How about, Australian taxpayers invested in researching technology that may otherwise never be developed. US corporations rip that technology off despite knowing full well that it was patented. I advocate that the corporations need to pay up. You advocate that corporations, some of whom actually are patent trolls, should be able to ignore patents if they are held by the Australian taxpayer's organisation for scientific and industrial research, to prevent that organisation from developing more technologies?
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-2619-00-0000-802-11-wg-chairs-received-email-letter-response-from-csiro-regarding-loa-requests.doc
www.ieee802.org/CSIRO-Patent-Memo-19JUL2007.pdf
here the CSIRO got sued first:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/CSIRO-hit-with-wifi-patent-suit/2005/05/19/1116361656580.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/australian-government-defends-wireless-patent-139192549.htm
and with a timeline here :
http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/No-backdown-from-CSIRO-over-Wi-Fi-patents/0,339028227,339282521,00.htm
Look, that's all I can be bothered to find now, but just google LOA, 802.11a,g,n CSIRO and the patent number in various combinations, and you'll find loads of crap.
What's happened is that :
1. CSIRO File and get a patent for WiFi
2.CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
3. It sues Buffalo Tech and wins (this essentially upholds their claims)
4.CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
5. CSIRO gets sued by MS, Intel, Netgear etc to overturn the patent.
6. They fail.
7. CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
8. CSIRO sues 7 colors of shit out of everyone and everyone in that case settles.
9. CSIRO sues teh remainder of people not paying royalities.
It is noteworthy that the CSIRO has repeatedly said it was willing to license technology, and even sold to CISCO the startup the created for developing this (for 295 mil) which is why CISCO isn't in any suits (I think..).
The IEEE asked them for a exemption and the CSIRO explicitly said no.
The companies in question went ahead and implemented it, then sued to overturn the patent they knew they were infringing on.
Fuck them, the CSIRO deserves every penny they get out of these fuckers.
That's a very pro-CSIRO viewpoint. It could very well be that CSIRO got a trivial and obvious patent, others developed the 802.11 tech independently, and CSIRO started bitching, and nobody wanted to pay them. The truth probably lines up somewhere in between these two. I'd say the technology or something equivalent certainly would have been eventually developed. It might have taken 10 years longer, but we'd get probably still get there.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent? Everyone here is always up-in-arms about software patents (hell, you have a wiki devoted to it) but this is just a case of you missing the forest for the trees. This is a scientific research patent which if you had bothered to read the actual patent for does not cover any software implementation; it covers the theories behind WiFi (and some low level scientific theories such as mQAM, BPSK, etc).
You forgot C) reap the benefits of the original wifi research that CSIRO did, and all the future research too, and D) when CSIRO collects, we can put our taxpayer dollars to better use than funding the CEO salaries and shareholder dividends of international companies that just want to rip us off.
I wouldn't mind if CSIRO made it royalty-free for Australian companies, since their taxes helped fund it, but I'm quite comfortable with CSIRO collecting a billion or so from overseas companies that didn't contribute, even if it means slightly higher costs for me. Still a total net gain for Australians.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Verizon AT&T and other carriers do not build their phones, they sell other's phones. If they have a beef with a wifi patent they need to go after the device makers ALA Apple, Nokia, Motorola, Google.
All this will serve to do is raise our already high wireless bills to pay off these lawsuits.
Did these guys participate in the wifi standards body? Did they push their patented tech if they were part of the spec, and then backstabbed these companies who thought the standard was licensed correctly? I think people deserve to know.
If they pushed their tech and now sue, they are by definition a Patent Troll just as much any company who buys patents with the sole intent of suing for money.
To anyone that really doesn't know how/why this all came about watch this 12minute news story on the case, its history and the players involved.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2708730.htm
I said nothing of the sort. The replies I'm getting in this thread are surreal.
Your end paragraph suggests a dream, wherein each contributor to progress owns their contribution, and the value gets shared fairly among them. That's the promise of the patent lawyers, but it's not the reality. The reality is that a small number of patent holders jam up the system, demanding taxes, demanding licences which aren't compatible with free software, wasting everyone's time with legal messes... The country of origin of these aggressors isn't was makes them a nuisance.
Guess who agrees with this? The Australian government's Venturous Australia report! Now there's some useful public research that's publicly usable:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Venturous_Australia
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Just another good case of why standards should never include patented technology unless the patent(s) are signed over to royalty-free public use. I'll settle for cheap and good enough, rather than better, but patented.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
> How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent?
Yes, that sort of information would be great. If you could explain here, I might see it and add it to the wiki page. Or even better, if you could add something yourself to he wiki page, even a rough draft, then it would be sure to get mentioned.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Do you think Microsoft should have a 20 year monopoly on each file format they invent?
Whether or not it is 20 years, or some shorter period, is a matter of debate. But yes, I believe people should be rewarded for the work they do and I believe that technological progress can have some positive benefits and ought to be encouraged.
If a file format is an 'invention' for the purposes of patent law (which falls not to me to "believe," but is a matter of the courts and the legislature); if a particular file format possesses the requisite originality; and if the details of the file format are published with sufficient specificity to allow anyone to reverse engineer it --then why should the person developing it, Microsoft or any other person, be granted protection in return?
Do note that this is not an argument for or against software patents in particular! If you don't think software should be patentable, that's something for you to take up with your lawmakers. Personally I'm more concerned with patents on discoveries (eg in the biological sciences) as opposed to invetions proper.
What I believe is that the patent system is basically a good idea, but one, which if we do not guard against it, is capable of being distorted to serve a purpose contrary to its basic aim --which is to promote innovation by counteracting the "Free Rider" market failure.
Or is the "actually develop" justification limited to CSIRO?
Huh? Do you still not understand what a "patent troll" is?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
A) Quite obviously hasn't done any othe research on this case himself
B) Continues to argue a viewpoint that has no practical application to the argument at hand.
Thanks for the links, I've added them all to the article.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
No, the implementations of these WIFI patents still need to be done in hardware. It will be a while before general purpose processors are fast enough to run equivalently functional software to do the job in real time.
However, the problem isn't hardware patents being good and software patents being bad. It's that the patent system is too broken to cater for either.
Hardware is simply the embodiment of a functional device that is performing a described functionality. Software is simply a reduction of (potentially the same) functionality into a descriptive language that can be implemented 'on the fly'.
In the end, any invention, whether it be a manufacturing process, physical implementation, or software code, needs to be evaluated on both its usefulness and ingenuity.
Anything that ends up in a public inter-communications standard needs to be considered with that in mind and re-evaluated with more stringent criteria, reduced term lengths, and proportionally non-discriminatory licensing terms. This should be part of the legal framework of the patent system, and not left to the whim of various colluding standards organisations or corporations.
Patent and copyright durations need to be evaluated in terms of the usefulness of the idea to the public trust. If an idea becomes useless (or close to useless) before it expires to the public trust, then the term should be deemed excessive and reduced. That means that software should be patentable, but at a reduced term length.
Also, the amount of required inventiveness (ie. non-obviousness) needs to be relative to the protection afforded and the number of potential 'inventors' operating in the given fields of expertise. The problem with the current system is that very small inventive steps are protected for 20 years. In many cases this locks out all competition by making it far too risky to even try to work around the patent (which in some cases is not possible due to vagueness/broadness of the pre-existing patent). For software developers this can quickly become a disaster when there are millions of players participating in their domain, and the cost of litigation prohibitive.
s/why should the person/why shouldn't the person/
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
That's not the top 3, that's 1, 2 and 4.
+5 Insightful, really!
CSIRO actually made (substantially) the damn tech and they patented and now want to get paid paid? If MPEG is allowed to exist defensive why on earth can't the CSIRO, and they are a research organisation for crying out loud not a money grabbing corp.
Am I safe? Is Red Hat safe? Are small businesses safe? Are other research institutes safe?
From being sued for not honoring someone's legitimate patent? No, of course not. Why should you be?
Not sure if this was a troll or not... but here you go anyway:
King prawn info from Sydney Fish Market
This is what is being cooked when Hoges says he will 'slip another shrimp on the barbie'
Australian tourism ad from 1984
The CSIRO Patents cover a lot more than just software. It is a complete signal processing system that includes hardware and software. As stated before you cannot patent an algorithm and strictly speaking software should fall under the algorithm principle. But if the software is just a part of a whole system then the whole system is covered under the patent. It would be possible for some one to create another patent that uses different hardware and the same software. The hardware would need to be quite different to make sure it doesn't infringe on the existing CSIRO patent.
As the CSIRO had a need (develop a better radio telescope) and they actually developed and built this system they are the true inventors and cannot be considered as trolls
Wi-Fi is IEEE 802.11 a recognized standard. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association (IEEE-SA) has a 7 step process to make a technology a standard. Part of it involves getting sponsorship from companies involved in the technologies that make up the proposed standard. Next is authorization from the standards committee and the companies involved. What this means is that either IEEE-SA began the standardization project without CSIRO's authorization or CSIRO is lying or has changed their mind and is attempting to reclaim lost profits.
Get liked by one side of the MSM more than the existing party representing that media.
Fox News liked the Tea Party movement because it hasn't articulated any views on copyright. A Pirate Party, on the other hand, would get liked by neither side of the mainstream media because it would threaten the revenue stream from the back catalog of the movie studio that shares a parent company with the news outlet.
And you'll find plenty of politicians from both parties that disagree with their party on plenty of issues...
Yeah, like Ron Paul. The mainstream U.S. news media buried his campaign, not letting him get a word in edgewise at the Republican primary debates.
If you read the wiki article, you'll see it's based on plenty of research.
They're called a non-practising entity by Patently-o. That's a generally patent-holder friendly site, and "non-practising entity" is the strictest possible definition of "troll".
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
Can anyone help draw that line?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Yeah Cisco went the legal avenue, and I bet they are now feeling quite smug about it :)
Red hat is fine unless they are also manufacturing hardware. The patent covers a complete solution to the problem including software, mathematical formulas and hardware. I'm all for punishing people who patent the obvious, this wasn't the case.
How about you demonstrate how they are "non-practicing" to the rest of us.
Show us what they do and don't do. In detail please.
Can you do that for us?
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
Can anyone help draw that line?
I guess it all comes down to your definition of troll, really. I think the fact that they are non-practising is not an implication of being a troll (likewise, patent trolling can be done by practising entities just fine) but in my mind trolling is patenting for the sole purpose of gaining the ability to sue for patent infringement where the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to legally make use of the research.
That isn't the case here. The CSIRO had an agreement with these entities, an agreement that they failed to uphold their end of. They had every reasonable chance under the law to make use of technology that the CSIRO had invested millions of research in; consumers benefitted from these technologies where the cost of royalties to be paid to the CSIRO were (presumably) passed on to the consumer. In my mind a patent troll would of waited for major companies to make use of their research, without intervening and warning them or offering them a royalty option, and then sued them for infringement.
Conversely the CSIRO exceeded their legal obligations and negotiated a fair deal for use of the technology. The money they were to make from these royalties was then to be put back in to further research that would again benefit consumers and the cycle continues; a perfect world and exactly why patents were invented.
Man all you Auzzies are so full of crap it is hilarious. Let's start with:
http://www.auzziefamilies.com/
http://www.rawauzzie.com/
And there are thousands of other examples...
And yeah, maybe only Paul Hogan referred to prawns as shrimp, but that's how we do it in the greatest nation on earth.
Ay mate, have another tube o' Fosters - my original comment was funny.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Not me. They can still make money from that. I said consumers should be protected from their mistakes. They keep funds available for legal shielding - I'm merely suggesting an industry practice similar to that for "mistakes" we should not have to help them absorb.
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
Since CSIRO is an Australian entity and is foriegn to the USA. The proper jurisdiction for the suit is the DC circuit. They should have this thrown out and be sanctioned for shopping the jurisdiction.
There have been so many abuses of the patent law in recent years and so many stories on patent abuses here at /. that many people just automatically get their knickers in a twist at the mere mention of the word "patent". I have to admit that this was my own initial reaction until I started reading the posts like yours in this discussion.
If the purpose of said government institution is to promote and fund research, then this is exactly the sort of thing that should be done with the research they've done. This money will go towards other research, which could end up producing another similarly useful patent that benefits us all.
CSIRO sell one patent and they are a troll. But IBM sell a lot more patents are they are not trolls? Go figure. And since CSIRO are not primarily in the business of making patents and making money, why should we care if you are impressed by CSIRO's patents or not?
IBM has 400,000 employees and CSIRO has 6000. And IBM makes more money. Who would have thunk? CERN has a budget of $10 billion dollars, and CSIRO has a lot more bases to cover, and a tenth of the budget, and they couldn't afford to build CERN. Who would have thunk?
Did this rant actually have a point?
Why do Americans have such a problem with govt depts & statutory authorities using their comparative advantage to successfully compete on the open market & make money?
Every dollar a Australian govt dept or statutory authority makes is one less dollar required from us Aussie taxpayers, which is a good thing for us.
If they can get a away with hiking the prices on their products they will anyway, regardless of whether there's a royalty to the CSIRO to pay or not.