Slashdot Mirror
The Story Behind Australia's CSIRO Wi-Fi Claims
An anonymous reader writes "U.S. consumers will be making a multimillion dollar donation to an Australian government agency in the near future, whether they like it or not. After the resolution of a recent lawsuit, practically every wireless-enabled device sold in the U.S. will now involve a payment to an Australian research organization called the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, or CSIRO, which hired U.S. patent lawyers who told a very lucrative tale in an East Texas courtroom, that they had '[invented] the concept of wireless LAN ... [and] when the IEEE adopted the 802.11a standard in 1999 — and the more widely-used 802.11g standard years later — the group was choosing CSIRO technology. Now CSIRO had come to court to get the payments it deserved.'"
U.S. government - and therefore U.S. people and consumers who voted and allow the government to continue - have been bullying other countries with their insane views on patents and copyrights for almost a century. Oh what you say now, don't like it when other countries do the exact thing you have been doing for a long time. Cry me a river.
Before posting a link to this article, perhaps you should have read it. Ars is usually pretty good, but the fact that they allowed this incredibly biased piece of crap be published in their site makes me ashamed to go there.
There have been many good articles posted about the CSIRO's fight to get a reasonable royalty out of all these companies that agreed to pay one right at the beginning of the process. This is not one of them.
Nice summary there, painting the CSIRO as some kind of patent troll. They never claimed that they had "[invented] the concept of wireless LAN", they claimed that they had developed some very clever algorithms dealing with rejecting interference and the like. This is the work of a serious research organization, and without it wireless networks would be a lot less useful.
Go flame on an actual patent troll, or do your basic research yourself.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
I thought Kevin Flynn had that idea back in 1989?
It's not a donation, it's payment for use of the technology which was developed and then patented.
Having a troll as a story - kudos!
Ignoring the validity of the patent, IEEE was aware that it might be needed. http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/loa-802_11a-csiro-04Dec1998.pdf
The story? Well, it's a story, anyhow. The tone the article takes is unfortunate. All the "us and them" in the article takes away from the few interesting things it mentions.
Everyone will/may be paying, not just U.S. consumers. (I avoided the U.S. = us pun). The article splits the technology into separate methods, while the patent covers a working combination of methods, so the article draws a conclusion that the whole method was just something that was already invented, they don't say the same thing about the wheel, which is also part of many patents.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I wonder how much of the money is actually going to the scientists that invented it? My guess is probably not much.
1. Notice that a very poorly written, inflammatory, intentionally non-researched, racist and obviously biased article on Ars is creating a lot of traffic. /. /.
2. Post on
3. Get more traffic on
4. Profit!
Slashdot: you aren't even a shadow of your former self.
... when the mouse bites its arse.
Congratulations CSIRO - you are either one hell of a mouse, or just joining in the fun that Apple, Google, Microsoft and every other damned tech company is having. Either way - I don't see what the problem is.
Oh - by the way, given my government is getting the money - I am a touch biased :)
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Unlike patent trolls, CSIRO actually creates technology through research.
They deserve payment, unlike most who file their claims through East Texas.
American customers aren't the only ones who'll be paying. Just the only ones who refused to without a lawsuit over the issue.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is the work of a serious research organization, and without it wireless networks would be a lot less useful.
If this is true then how did the IEEE committee manage to include these ideas in the 802.11 standard despite never having heard of Dr. John O'Sullivan or his patents? Like many inventions, multiple people had the same idea at about the same time, which shows that it was a naturally progression of the art. Dr. O'Sullivan is a smart man, but WiFi would have progressed along fine without him. In fact it did, and CSIRO has spent the last 15 years trying to get recognition for their previously ignored work.
The article is a bad hacket-job, and it is unfair to characterize Dr. O'Sullivan and the CSIRO as patent trolls. But the situation does highlight the current problems with how the patent system handles independent discovery. IMHO, when this happens it should be considered proof that the idea does not meet obviousness criteria and thus does not warrant a 20 monopoly on the idea. Or at the least, independent inventors should be offered some sort of co-patent (although this could be messy to manage).
What a slimy article. The writer is doing a few dishonest thing here... First, he exaggerates the claims being made. Nobody ever claimed Austraila invented WiFi, in fact, what they said is later in TFA: . "CSIRO did not invent the concept of wireless LAN, it just invented the best way of doing it, the best way it's used now throughout the world," Furniss told the jury in 2009.
Second, he does some iirrelevant hand-waving, talking about IEEE defining the standard, talking about WiFi (802.11b presumably) existing before CSIRO's patent, asking a rep from one company if he'd heard of CISRO, etc. All this is completely irrelevant. Either the WiFi standards in question use technologies that CISRO developed and patented, or they don't. Everything else is pointless distraction from the topic at-hand.
Third, he tries to just lump them in with patent trolls... guilt by association. These other companies are making baseless claims about WiFi, and CISRO is suing over WiFi, ergo, CISRO's claims MUST be baseless as well. It's a bit like insurance companies claiming that, because there are some frivilous lawsuits against them, EVERY suit against them MUST be frivilous.
Nowhere in the article is there ANY discussion at all about the patented technologies in question, and whether CISRO's patented technology is, in-fact, integrated into the 802.11 standards. That's what matters, and that's what the author doesn't want to talk about at all.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
the CSIRO had found a technique to heavily inteference and transmission of wireless signals
at the same time consortiums threw significantly more money at the problem couldn't come up with a better solution
yes, IEEE started the standards process before the patent was filed
unlike most patent filings today, CSIRO had already developed the hardware
also unlike today, you don't have to file a patent the second you come up with an idea
after years of tech consortiums failing at an alternative, IEEE asked for use of the "patent"
CSIRO agreed to it becoming part of the standard on the basis of receiving royalties
(just like any other corporation or patent holder would demanded)
the problem being CSIRO never got any royalties
the article "writer" expected the CSIRO, after years of companies not honouring their agreement, to simply roll-over and bugger off
but who's at fault here? the CSIRO for asking for what they were told they'd get, or the companies using the patrent for free?
from what i can tell, the companies were hoping to play the waiting game
thinking the next iteration of wireless tech could work without the patent
so if you wait long enough, you can profit all you need from it's use, then expect a small payout years (decades?) later when the patent is superceded
unfortunately for the companies, the patent still applies today as it did when the standard was formed
also, the writer upfront says the CSIRO sued for $4 per device
he makes no mention of how much the original royalty was for
which if the companies paid it in the first place, they would be making this "donation"
i mean ffs. the writer says CSIRO is commonly called "si-roh"
it's never been called that outside of small pocket of idiots thinking CSIRO is a word rather than an acronym
so either Joe Mullin got trolled hard by certain "fact" presented to him, or he was lazy and didn't do research
overall i'd put this to the public:
would you rather pay your "donation" to government research organisation, or to a technology corporation?
see above
The CSIRO did indeed invent the wireless technology which we all use in wireless LANs today. However, they're a government-funded agency, they should be creating technology for the good of all citizens of the world and making that technology available for free.
As far as I'm concerned, my Australian Tax dollars have already paid the CSIRO for this work. They're not patent trolls but I disagree with their actions to assert royalty payments over this patent.
Ethernet took ideas from ALOHAnet, which was a wireless system.
I thought wlan was based on Israeli military technology.
Yes - If the USA government wanted to Pay for research and then license it - it too could then use that money to FUND more research - its actually a good model... after all - look at all the stuff that NASA research has spun off over the years... but it its no different from a company be it european or USA developing and licensing it. The tone of the article is inflammatory and unjust. Maybe instead the USA could think about ALL THE LOST opportunities to reduce their taxes by doing similar things. (And no - Im not talking about open slather research that will fund itself of course but I would suggest that the money the USA put into the INTERNET has repaid the USA many many times over in greater employment etc) ... its done by the people for the people
Much of the CSIRO research is given free also mind you
but we try to take a reasonable approach (Tony Abbott excluded) to these things.... and per capita - Australia has been incredibly well represented in Research in many fields
CSIRO is one reason why - but we arent big enough for the market to fund plus the market isnt wise enough to fund many of the things that we now rely on.... Like the INTERNET.....
Aussies use some every day....
Notable Inventions
Notable inventions and breakthroughs by CSIRO include:
A4 DSP chip
Aerogard, insect repellent
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Biological control of Salvinia
Development of Linola (a flax variety with low alpha-linolenic acid content) with a longer life used as a stockfeed
Distance measuring equipment (DME) used for aviation navigation
Gene shears
Microwave landing system, a microwave approach and landing system for aircraft
Use of myxomatosis and calicivirus to control rabbit numbers
Parkes Radio Telescope
The permanent pleat for fabrics
Polymer banknote
Relenza flu drug
'Softly' woolens detergent
Wi-Fi[1]
X-ray phase contrast imaging
It's unlike ArsTecnica to have such poor journalism. Mind you, SlashDot is going the same way too. I normally scour Digg for my trash tabloid.
Was this an obvious invention/solution? No
Did CSIRO make their commercial position clear from day 1? Yes
Did a number of US companies refuse to pay because they thought they could steal someone else's work? Yes
This is HOW the patent system is meant to work. ... unless Ars is now just about the number of hits regardless of the trash they post.
Ars, I recommend you get rid of that w@anker "wannabe journalist" now. he has no idea about journalism
It's been said many times before ... CSIRO is a "Research and Development" house ... not a patent troll. They use the money gained from royalties/patents to develop "new technologies".
AC
I smell troll dung. From down under no less.
Let me start by saying that the money CSIRO will be receiving on the WiFi patents is well deserved.
However, I'm not so sure wether this is such a massive win for CSIRO in the end. The reason for this is that it takes a lot of effort to patent things on top of researching them. This one set of WiFi patents will surely pay for itself but what about all the other patents which are not so lucrative?
Meanwhile CSIRO is paying patent attorneys and patent agencies throughout the world instead of paying Australian scientists to do science work. It would perhaps be enlightening to see some numbers. I know for a fact that numbers of scientists at some CSIRO divisions have been dropping significantly. Is this a sign of good health?
CSIRO is a public body. I'm not sure it should patent anything. Actually I'm not sure it should conduct business the way it does now.
Disclaimer: former CSIRO employee here.
The permanent pleat for fabrics
This would probably get more patent money than WiFi
Aggregate percentage of total posts on this topic from:
Aussie nationalists with no clue about wireless communications: 40%
Other nationalities with no clue about wireless communications: 58%
I'm confused. They developed a technology, yet somehow developing technology is stifling innovation? Of course they didn't make devices, that isn't their job - they're a research institution, and the patent system was designed to encourage research and development. This isn't a misuse of the patent system, it's exactly how it's meant to be used.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
...which is exactly what 'civil servants' are supposed to do, and is arguably more important than anything else they do or say.
They're Australia's national science body, the equivalent of NAS in the US. Thier traditional role is to report to government in matters of science. The organization is nobody's lap dog, in the late 50's early 60's they were the ones who showed the causal link between high levels of plutonium in childeren's bones and atmosphereic nuke testing. Nearly two's decade before the French attack on the rainbow warrior, these guys were telling governments and newspapers why it should stop, even though they were under enormus pressure from the Australian and UK goverments to STFU and concentrate on killing those fucking rabbits.
For at least the last decade, possibly longer, one side of parliment has relentlessly sought to soil the CSIRO's reputation because their climate reseach, ( which tells us we're shiting in our own nest ), offends the industry that is laying the golden shovels. From my personal POV the luddites with the golden shovels have failed in their efforts to assasinate the character of a group of exceptional 'civil servants', in fact they have significantly increased my respect for the integrity of the institution and the people within it.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Didn't we already talk about this?
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/04/01/2011245/australian-wifi-inventors-win-us-legal-battle
This sort of post disgusts me.
The CSIRO is a sterling example of why the patent system exists. They have done some amazing research over the years, and have given away many of their inventions without fee.
I've made the choice to boycott slashdot, and have asked my fellow Aussie IT geeks to do the same.
I only briefly looked at the patent, and it looks like it's simply the application of OFDM to wireless communication between computers. OFDM, for those who aren't very familiar, is a way to deal with linear time invariant systems that can corrupt the data. For example, you can consider the signal going from one antenna to the other as going through such a system. Since these types of systems will only modify the amplitude and phase of each frequency band separately, instead of mixing them together as would be the case in the time domain, you encode the information you want to send as specific frequencies. For example, if you send out a wireless signal and it echoes all over the place, the time domain signal gets all mixed up and "slushy". However, if you perform a Fourier transform on the input signal and the output signal, you'll notice that the echoing only caused frequency bands to individually get attenuated/magnified and/or shifted in phase, but none of the frequency bands has mixed together. OFDM exploits this property to provide for robust communication (well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the general gist of it). However, it sounds like this patent is simply saying "hey, OFDM is good for wireless communication", which feels kind of obvious to me considering the point of OFDM.
Slashdot is increasingly becoming a platform for conspiracy theorists and political agendas; Maybe it's time for slashdot to post a story on the increase in shameless bias in slashdot articles?
One wonders whether the Ars article has been ... sponsored ... by an American company in order to stir up shit and create anti-CSIRO sentiment.
they don't say the same thing about the wheel
Cough it up yank, the guy who owns the patent for the wheel lives in my home town.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"A better job" is why the CSIRO attracts such talent in the first place.....oh wait, you ment a job that pays more money than one needs to live comfortably?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Great list there with some really interesting stuff. That myxomatosis and calicivirus bit, though, sounds like a bit of a euphemism for something or other.
Found the Catalyst story from 2009, Wifi Windfall
We need to pass legislation which bans Lawyers and Law Firms from venue shopping. For example the East Texas courts have been extremely favorable to patent claims and so firms try to bring patent cases there.
With the Comhttp://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/04/05/2131233/the-story-behind-australias-csiro-wi-fi-claims#monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization being based out of Australia they should be required to file the case in whatever districts the corporations in question have their headquarters.
They should also not be able to bind the case together unless there was a clear link between the companies in question (common owner, direct collusion, etc). I doubt they can tie Acer, Atheros, AT&T, Broadcom, Gateway, Lenovo, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sony together in that manner.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
I think the three are to blame:
- IEEE; How can you define a standard if there are patents in place (that you are aware of) and have not agreed to royalties
- CSIRO; It's a bit lame to only came back more than 10 years after the fact to claim royalties. You're supposed to be defending a pedant actively and don't start saying you didn't think 802.11a/g has only become successful very recently.
As for the patent itself: I think it is a load of bullocks. Take some interleaving, OFDM, and FEC and patent it???? You cannot patent algorithms. OFDM (basically an FFT (or IFFT if you are a mathematician), interleaving (pure mathematics), FEC (pure mathematics). Who's to blame? Patent office probably.
Perhaps I should patent 1+1=2, that should give me nice royalty to the end of my life....
Patents are supposed to help innovation, so far it is just doing the opposite. /Flatlander
While wifi might have been "invented" there, i see 2 problems:
1 - Prior art of wireless communication existed long before in the form of packet radio.
2 - Things of this nature that effects all of humanity should not be allowed to be held hostage like this.
Oh, and #3, patent trolls taht wait until after a tech has widespread use, should be told to F-off.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IP = Slavery
I have actually been to CSIRO and these are smart and good natured folks. The lawyers did what lawyers do, and now an agency of the Australian Government, near as I can tell, will get some new funding. Don't spend it all in one place! In fact, bank it and live off the interest forever. Office parties!
JJ
Responses and clarifications on the CSIRO patent lawsuits:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/op-ed.ars
so any time a message bounces that's a patent infringement
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.