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."

Comments

CSIRO are still good guys

[ignavus]

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.

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[SpazmodeusG]

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

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

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.

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[victorhooi]

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

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[victorhooi]

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

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[victorhooi]

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

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[TooMuchToDo]

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.

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[Capsaicin]

[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!

Re:CSIRO are still good guys

[atmurray]

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?

For once...

[macraig]

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

In before the "Patent Troll" cries.

[ColaMan]

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.

What's a CSIRO?

[Itninja]

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

Re:Patenting Math?

[cappp]

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

Re:info from http://en.swpat.org

[batkiwi]

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"

Re:That's one huge shrimp on the barbie

[Quabbe]

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

Re:info from http://en.swpat.org

[Liam Pomfret]

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.

Would this not be a case of double dipping...

[bleh-of-the-huns]

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.

This is the way the system is supposed to work

[Swampash]

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.

Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Got links for that?

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> /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?

Re:Why they're called a troll

[Capsaicin]

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?

Re:Why they're called a troll

[Capsaicin]

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?

Re:Got links for that?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why they're called a troll

[Capsaicin]

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.