Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CSIRO Sues US Carriers Over Wi-Fi Patent

Posted by kdawson on from the milking-it dept.

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."

69 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. CSIRO are still good guys by ignavus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Itninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...independent government-owned..

      Oh, you're adorable.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by dwywit · · Score: 3, Funny

      And they need the money - they recently lost edu status with Microsoft, so they'll have to pony up more $$$ for software.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps they should have said "possibly marginally less corrupt quango". (Let's face it, you can't vote out a corporate board of directors but you can vote out a quango's paymaster.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Mark19960 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then why are they in East Texas District Court of all places?
      If you don't want to be labeled a troll, don't act like one.

    5. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. However, I wonder whether the Australian taxpayers like the idea of paying an incrementally higher cost on all the wireless devices that depend upon the technology invented by CSIRO? Buy a cell phone? Pay more. Buy a wireless access point? Pay more. And so on. We know that if AT&T, Verizon, Dell, or whatever Australian equivalent lose the case and pay licensing fees they'll just pass the costs on to consumers. So, for their multi-million (billion?) investment in CSIRO, the Australian taxpayer gets to: A) pay more for products, B) fund a whole lot of lawyers for years and years.

      Win!

      As far as I'm concerned the only reason a government institution should be able to patent something is so that it can be royalty-free and someone else can't patent it. Making money off it seems ultimately self-defeating.

    6. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One could argue that this is worse. I expect multinational conglomerates to sue or demand royalties if given the chance, but a research body should arguably be above this, and their research should be freely available to all. This attitude is reflected in the way works for the US government are put into the public domain, and universities both public and private often release software under permissive license (BSD stands for 'Berkeley Software Distribution' and the MIT license comes from MIT).

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because an act is normally taken by a patent troll, doesn't mean that acting in that way makes you a patent troll. If you are undertaking legal action, the smart thing to do, regardless of the merits of the case, is to do whatever you can to maximise the likelihood of success.

      For patent infringement cases in the US, that means filing in the East Texas District Court.

      If you're looking to recoup a few billion dollars, and taking a particular action gives you an extra 10% (for example) chance of winning, wouldn't you do it?

      Or, to put it another way, boiling it down to the simple logic of the statements: let A be the statement "You are a patent troll." Let B be the statement, "Your case will be filed in East Texas District Court." A implies B. B does not necessarily imply A.

    8. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because even if you're right you'd be a fool not to sue in the easiest possible court.

    9. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      CSIRO is responsible for research and development,

      the money from royalties is funneled back into research and development.

      CSIRO invests heavily in developing alternative fuel sources including Biodiesel and environmental protection weed erratication in australia, advices government of sustainable business practices and improve farming practices.

      most importantly the more money they take from greedy International companies
      the less they drain from Australian Taxpayers

      Increasing the price of WIFI instruments may add a bill to 30 million Australians, but this is far outwieghed by 5 billion people world wide which will now pay extra on WIFI devices and that money will make its way into Australia

    10. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Normally I'm cynical about government, but the CSIRO do good work.

      They're a bunch of scientists who get left alone by the government because the Australian Government doesn't understand them well enough to interfere with them. Previously underfunded, this 'lazy billion' might actually cause the government to sit up and try and to pay attention.

    11. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NASAs technology isn't open to all why should CSIROs?
      http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/working/patent.html

      As an Australian i'm happy that the government has a research arm. I'm also happy to see we make an effort to get other coutries to pay their share for the products of this research.
       

    12. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by victorhooi · · Score: 5, Informative

      heya,

      Mate, as an Australian, I have to say the CSIRO is one of the more respected bodies here. They're government funded (meaning we taxpayers fund them), but they are completely independent and they churn out some damn good research - sure, a lot of it's probably agriculture-oriented, but not all, as this shows.

      To accuse them of being a patent troll is patently (pun intended :p) ridiculous.

      Firstly, they're not a patent-house - they're a research institute, that does government-funded research. It'd be like accusing NASA, or DARPA, or say the NIH of being a patent troll. Here's a story of the NIH suing a pharmaceutical giant over missing royalties for an AIDS drug:

      http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html

      I don't exactly see Slashdotters up in arms accusing the NIH of being a patent troll. Is this some kind of weird US-centric bias?

      Secondly, they happened to pick a place that favours people litigating on patents - what's the big deal? You'd expect them to pick a place that disfavoured patent holders? Please, why would they intentionally sabotage their case like that, it makes absolutely no sense at all - you can take your pick of any of the 50 US states, and you happen to pick one that doesn't like patent holders? Don't be silly. They obviously have lawyers with half a brain, and they happened to pick the right state. I think

      Cheers,
      Victor

    13. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by victorhooi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      heya,

      Oh please....

      As somebody insightfully pointed out above, the money CSIRO makes from these royalties will be used to fund more research - recouping the government's investment in R&D, so to speak. We may pay more for Wifi devices, if the manufacturers try to pass it on (although I suspect the highly-competitive nature of the market may mitigate that somewhat), but ultimately they'll be a net inflow back to the Australian people.

      From your statement, I'm going to assume you're US - see here, your NIH sues a pharmaceutical giant over missing drug royalties:

      http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html

      And NASA's been embroiled on the receiving side with patent litigation with Boeing.

      Thing is, at the end of the day, this is the real world, and people like to protect the R&D they make. And as an Australian citizen, who's taxes fund this research, I would like to see the CSIRO being smart, as opposed to being dumb, and getting walked over by big manufacturers.

      Cheers,
      Victor

    14. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not patent trolls, they've been fighting to be compensated for nearly a decade and a half. Wireless wasn't really anywhere near as big back then as it is now. You act like they waited until it exploded before going gotcha, pay me my money.

    15. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would agree that NASA should release their patents as well, and the same would go for any other US government agencies and agencies of other governments. It's a waste of taxpayer's money all around (unless you are a lawyer, perhaps). If you want others to put in a share for research, do it collectively with an organization like CERN, or have your research be privately funded.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the world sees their government and its subsidiaries as more answerable than a corporate or multinational.

      You can vote out a government, but a corporate monopolist is here to stay - until they get bought out by another one.

      I have heard of this organisation before. If it is a choice between corporate pirates or a Quango I will usually try and avoid the corporates. In the UK, we are just about to close a load of quangos that have outstayed their welcome. I imagine that there are many here on /. who would love to close down Microsoft. Too bad. They are not going anytime soon and they are just one of many.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    17. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by victorhooi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      heya,

      Err, yes it does, you silly twit.

      And it's not just an "idea", it's an investment that they invested a bucketload of money in perfecting, probably more money than you and I have seen in our lives, and took them several years.

      It's only naturally that after say, publishing a paper on it, they don't want to see other people come and read the paper, take those years of research, and make money off stupid consumers like you and I, without the original brains behind the invention getting a cent.

      And they're a research institute. They're interested in creating good quality research, not in offshoring US jobs to China. It seems a bit ridiculous that you expect them to be a manufacturing house as well, in order to "keep" their inventment/research. That seems completely unfair.

      The NIH does cancer research, AIDS research etc. You don't see Americans cry bloody murder when the NIH then goes to sue pharmaceutical giants that refuse to pay royalties do you? (I've already pasted the link to that above - but here it is again http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html).

      Cheers,
      Victor

    18. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The carriers are doing something with this technology and simply inventing it does not entitle CSIRO to an automatic right to be paid money, or worse to deny its use for the benefit of everyone.

      Perhaps you're not familiar with how patents work. That's exactly what they're there for.

    19. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Funny

      [I]f it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Patent trolls love to litigate, so these guys appear to like to litigate...

      Ducks breathe. You breathe, therefore you are a duck. Nicely reasoned dude!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    20. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...independent government-owned..

      Oh, you're adorable.

      Yes, independent and government owned, you find that difficult to grok? Is the simplistic ideology you use to filter reality getting in your way of your understanding? Time to drop it and develop a less B&W view of the role of government. It will only make you wiser.

    21. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by atmurray · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The CSIRO is playing the same rules that apply to everyone. The reason why the big company's aren't happy is that the CSIRO has no need to do a patent "swap". Normally, the big companies would just threaten to sue each other due to patent infringement and then at the last minute agree to cross licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-licensing with a minimal (if any) amount of money trading hands. However, the CSIRO doesn't make end product. As such they have no need for cross licensing. They just want royalties for their IP. Big business goes after the smaller guys that don't have IP to cross license all the time, why is it that now the shoe is on the other foot that everyone is up in arms about it?

    22. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if CSIRO hadn't come up with the technology and some corporation had, we'd be paying the corporate R&D costs not to mention the royalties they imposed on other companies, which would be likely higher than what CSIRO are asking.

    23. Re:CSIRO are still good guys by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I suppose that's true. But a corporation is actually independent. Whereas a quango, like NASA, just does what they are told by their leash holders.

      But it doesn't work like that in Australia. For a start the independent government-owned (but increasingly partially self-funding, for which see CSIROs patents), organisations are corporations (statutory corporations), and exhibit a large measure of independence from government. For instance the ABC (the public broadcaster) is the only news service that will regularly criticise government of all complexions. State owned media should never be on a leash, rather it should bite the hand that feeds it. I know this isn't always the case, but it is here.

      On the other hand the (previous) Australian government was described, with some accuracy, by a senior Murdoch executive as "a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corp." I'm not sure that the change in government has affected that position substantially.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. For once... by macraig · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I think I might actually be rooting for a patent lawsuit to succeed.

    1. Re:For once... by nephilimsd · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's nice to see telecos reaping what they sowed, but in the end, consumers pay for everything. At some level, this will mostly harm end users.

    2. Re:For once... by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this unusual circumstance, the assertion that "At some level, this will mostly harm end users." isn't really correct at all.

      Without the invention of these technologies, the telco's wouldn't have a product to sell. These technologies were funded by the Australian taxpayer. A patent was placed to ensure the invested cost of research could be recovered. US industry saw the technology, liked it, and used it without permission.

      Should the CSIRO win the case, they will use the money to develop more useful technology, which in turn will enrich the lives of consumers everywhere. This will mostly benefit end users. Should the CSIRO lose, the corporates will spend the money on more backroom deals, enforcement of oligopoly, DRM, lobbying, gold plated executive bathrooms and so on. This will mostly harm end users.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  3. In before the "Patent Troll" cries. by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:In before the "Patent Troll" cries. by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real question is "Does the current AT&T have access to the old Bell Labs IP?" in which case this patent it dead if enough research is done.

    2. Re:In before the "Patent Troll" cries. by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because they have thousands of patents, rejected patents and prior art that cover all parts of this patent. The predecessor of the AT&T Pixel machine was making use of some of those techniques and that was at least 3 years before this patent. I'm guessing the developers of some of the radar gear in the AWACS might also have prior art. I know of one person who claimed to have prior art and since he has related patents I suspect he might be right. I've helped break about 20 patents so far but I'm not sure I want to break this one.

    3. Re:In before the "Patent Troll" cries. by Barny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the patents they are suing over are the core signal filtering tech used by 802.11N wireless. Basically if you make anything that is compatible with 802.11N, you should be sending these guys a few $$$ (as prior settlements have shown).

      Pretty much the whole industry said "cor struth, that's a nifty signal filter you have shown implemented in hardware, we will make that a part of the standard and pay you a small amount to use it", however when it came time to write the cheques the bits "pay you a small amount to" were completely forgotten. Now they are left with a large infrastructure they helped make based off technology that is supposed to be licensed.

      So far a little aussie research company who gets paid about $80M a year by the government to help prop them up has recieved $250M in "back royalties", looks like its payday again soon :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  4. Patenting Math? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Patenting Math? by cappp · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think the articles may be misstating the patents in question. You can't patent mathemetical formulae BUT you can patent their application. I would imagine that the patents specifically refer to the use of said equations in ensuring wi-fi reliability as suggested by the article's comment

      The CSIRO first applied for its Australian Wi-Fi patent in 1992, which solved the problem of patchy wireless reception caused by waves bouncing off objects

    2. Re:Patenting Math? by Johnno74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the relevant US patent is this (5487069).

      It appears to describe an special antenna setup as well as how to use the radio/antenna to get a data rate/ghz of bandwith ratio much better than previously practical.

      So its not a math patent, or a pure software patent (although part of the implementation is software). It looks like something the patent system was designed to protect.

  5. What's a CSIRO? by Itninja · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  6. Re: Bracing for impact by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about a law that prohibits these companies from passing on their "mistakes" to the consumers?

    How about a Congress that isn't owned by companies who want to pass their mistakes on to the consumers?

    Oh, and I'd like a pony to go along with that.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Re:info from http://en.swpat.org by batkiwi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"

  8. Re:That's one huge shrimp on the barbie by Quabbe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Too right that mate, and we don't bloody call 'em shrimp - they're fucking PRAWNS, as in District 9, you insensitive yank clod!

  9. Re:info from http://en.swpat.org by Liam+Pomfret · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Would this not be a case of double dipping... by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Would this not be a case of double dipping... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 agree. I have no problem with the organisation receiving royalties from the companies who misuse their IP, but going after their customers is just not on. While I have no love for telecommunications companies, in principle they should only sue the companies who directly use their technology.

      What's next? Sue all the customers of Verizon too?

    2. Re:Would this not be a case of double dipping... by jrumney · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is quite normal for chipsets to not include royalties for patents, as the chip by itself cannot infringe many patents (only ones related to IC packaging and design). It is not until it is put into a circuit with other components that the patented technology is realised, and there may be ways of using the chipset that do not infringe on the patent, or the finished product may only be going to countries where the patent is not recognized.

  11. Re:info from http://en.swpat.org by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)
  12. This is the way the system is supposed to work by Swampash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:That's one huge shrimp on the barbie by Quabbe · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  14. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wasn't aware of any carriers manufacturing their own wireless chips. Which ones are?

  15. Got links for that? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!
  16. Re:Got links for that? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > /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!
  17. So you don't want to use WiFi after all, eh? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  18. Why they're called a troll by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:Why they're called a troll by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To software developers, CSIRO is an aggressive patent litigator.

      I've never been sued by the CSIRO, have you?

      They seem to take action only against people who make unlicensed use of the patents they own. No trolling there. Why should CSIRO not be paid for what they develop?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Why they're called a troll by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      how does that differentiate them from any other patent troll

      If people actually develop new patentable technology how does enforcing their legal rights over that make them a patent troll? Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Why they're called a troll by harlequinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      I do believe this patent covers the hardware and software implemented in every 802.11 wireless device.

      According to this article the patent was granted in 1996 and the IEEE 802.11a standard was ratified three years later.

      http://www.csiro.au/news/CSIRO-honours-wireless-team.html

      The only reason the previous lawsuit settled instead of going to a jury trial is because the coalition of companies being sued knew the gig was up. If they thought they were in the right and were using their own technology then they would have gone to trial and probably won. Instead they backed down since they weren't using their own technology.

    4. Re:Why they're called a troll by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?

      That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.

      Everyone calls them trolls. I'm not sure what your question is. Why "troll"? Well, I guess it's a cultural reference to a bad monster that lives under bridges and demands payment for crossing said bridge.

      --
      Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    5. Re:Why they're called a troll by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.

      My understanding of a patent troll, which seems to be the definition being used in regard to a NPE on the page you cited above also, is someone who floats an idea and lodges a patent which is invalid by reason of their having not specified an actual method or design by which that idea is to be realised.

      Remember what a patent actually is. It is an agreement to publish to the world a method for realising some original invention. If a third party cannot from the patent reproduce the invention, it's obviously not a patent, yes?

      CSIRO developed actual working hardware. It specified the design to such an extent that 3rd parties have misappropriated their work and are illegally (facially) making money out of this misapproriation. You are perhaps using this design right now. It's real, it's an original invention, it is most certainly not a troll.

      by defintio

      As an Australian taxpayer, I find it objectionable that you think I should donate my money to foreign private corporations only to have to buy back what I paid to develop. We invested millions of dollars in this and we would like the return for our investment, thank you very much.

      Oh and as far as patents existing, I definitely know they do, because I had a patent (which is was a troll by a looser definition) hanging over the work I did. We were told "you develop that and see what we do." We called their bluff. It was a bullshit patent. That might give some context to "I haven't been sued [or even threatened] by the CSIRO," which was in any case a quip leading into my actual point that they only sue on valid patents they rightfully own. Your logical analysis was supercilious.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Why they're called a troll by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In any case, CSIRO isn't acting against software developers, it is asking to be paid royalties by hardware manufacturers who have been freeloading on their WiFi technology for about a decade. Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo and Toshiba have already paid up, and now CSIRO are asking Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to do likewise.

      US companies expect and require everybody to pay royalties on their technology, so they have no right to complain when developers from other countries do likewise. Same rules for everybody: it's only fair.

    7. Re:Why they're called a troll by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The conventional definition of patent troll is definitely a body who 'develops' some obvious piece of technology, but never commercializes or publicizes it, instead waiting and hoping for some other group to do the obvious thing, and then to have to pay them big money for having done nothing.

      The key element of the trolling problem is that the invention is obvious, but got through the patenting process because the patent office is overwhelmed and incompetent. The supposed 'invention' is being invented over and over again because EVERY engineer comes to the same conclusion when faced with the problem. Nobody is stealing CSIROs ideas and commercializing them, they are coming up with the SAME ideas and commercializing them. Patents were not intended to reward the first to write down every obvious idea, but that is what they have become, and those who abuse the process are labeled trolls.

      CSIRO are trolls.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:Why they're called a troll by Capsaicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The key element of the trolling problem is that the invention is obvious, but got through the patenting process because the patent office is overwhelmed and incompetent.

      Yes "originality" as I expressed it is more correctly described as a "non-obvious improvement." In any case the patent would still be invalid (if tested in court) because it lacks the requisite originality/non-obviousness (how ever you want to put it). So I pretty much covered that.

      It's not that the patent office is overwhelmed and incompetent, it's that increasingly, and this is the certainly the case in Australia, and I believe in the US also, patents are granted presumptively. The week after this innovation in the patenting process came into effect some engineer in Melbourne patented the wheel. :)

      Nobody is stealing CSIROs ideas and commercializing them, they are coming up with the SAME ideas and commercializing them.

      I'm not a telecommunications hardware engineer, so I can't judge the originality of CSIROs invention on technical grounds. OTOH it's stretches credibility to imagine Intel, Microsoft, HP, Toshiba et al. simply rolling over and paying up for an invention which so obviously lacked the novel step as to render the patent invalid. If the current defendants, on considering their position don't do the same, we should have a good assessment of how original the invention actually way.

      CSIRO are trolls.

      That would seem to be an opinion unfounded in reality.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  19. Duverger's law by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Duverger's law by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If both parties support a measure,

      Lucky for you, "parties" don't get elected. Individuals do. And you'll find plenty of politicians from both parties that disagree with their party on plenty of issues...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Duverger's law by Surt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say it would happen something along the lines of the tea party movement. Get liked by one side of the MSM more than the existing party representing that media. In this case, FOX, tired of the Republicans hewing too close to the center, decided to throw in their lot with the tea party.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Duverger's law by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well that has to be the silliest statement, The Tea Party was a fabrication of News Corp via Fox News. It was nothing more that a short term publicity show to create an illusion of a grass roots movement that was intended to be folded back into the lobbyist controlled Republican party. It was a Rupert Murdoch response to the power of the internet to alter the political status quo and to drive actual real publicly motivated policies.

      The Tea Party is a mass media sham, well at least that was the intention, oh my. Fox News of course lost control of the Tea Party as in fractured into three groups. Group 1 was of course the News Corp lobbyists grass roots sham, same old same old, of less government for the poor and more government for the rich and, deregulation to grease corruption powered by mass media. Group 2 were actual conservatives who wanted to reform the Republican party more than they want to win the next election ie. no point winning with corrupt corporate losers. Group 3, radical and all over the place, from racists to angry tax cheats to religious fundamentalists. Now of course News Corp is trying to reign in the Tea Party but driving out the non lobbyists controlled elements, which eliminates the bulk of the real grass root elements, rendering the Tea Party largely to insignificance, except in a few hold out areas that a fending off Fox News control.

      Government funded research is often far more cost efficient for the public, in fact no comparison a the patent inflated prices of corporate research. Never forget, from a public perspective lower costs for the public are of far more benefit than inflated corporate profits for the minority.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  20. Get your fucking head out of your ass. by casings · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. being smart by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  22. Re:Got links for that? by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  23. Re:Got links for that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  24. Re:Got links for that? by omni123 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  25. Video Story on the CSIRO lawsuit in Texas by phoenixdigital · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  26. Re:Why all that is wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit.

    All the research CSIRO does is for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean they have to give it away free to the entire world, after Australian taxpayers funded it.

    Nor are CSIRO "vetoing" anyone from implementing wifi - they're simply asking for a reasonable royalty for the work they did. The lawsuits only started after companies knowingly used CSIRO's technology over other, inferior alternatives, and refused for years to licence it. I doubt many of these companies actually signed contracts with CSIRO, but they certainly and knowingly chose to use the technology that CSIRO developed, then ignored any request for the compensation they knew was owed. The fact that these companies are now settling for significant sums of money instead of fighting it out in court means they know they're in the wrong, and always were.

    I'm not even sure why you think this is a software patent. References to "data processing" components are only part of the patent, and there's lots of descriptions of tranceivers hubs, error correction and demodulation techniques, circuit switching and circuit diagrams.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?