Is Australia's CSIRO a Patent Troll?

schliz writes "Australian tech publication iTnews is defining 'patent trolls' as those who claim rights to an invention without commercializing it, and notes that government research organization CSIRO could come under that definition. The CSIRO in April reached a $220 million settlement over three U.S. telcos' usage of WLAN that it invented in the early 1990s. Critics have argued that the CSIRO had failed to contribute to the world's first wifi 802.11 standard, failed to commercialize the wifi chip through its spin-off, Radiata, and chose to wage its campaign in the Eastern District courts of Texas, a location favored by more notorious patent trolls."

Comments

umm

[NerdmastaX]

yawn

Re:umm

[crutchy]

maybe cos its a government research organisation, not a commercial company. maybe the difference is that many other government research orgs are quite happy to sink countless millions in taxpayer-funded grants into new tech that is merely ripped off by commercial companies, so that taxpayers get to pay for it twice-over.

what csiro does with patents in the commercial world is called "business".

i say good on csiro for working for their major shareholder - the aussie taxpayer.

Re:umm

[wisty]

When a research organization files a patent on non-trivial research they did, it's called "innovation", and when an organization which employes mostly lawyers files one on a fairly obvious thing it's called "trolling".

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

its 4cents per wifi adapter

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah god damn bastards making wifi possible an increasing the cost by 4c. How come they didn't just practically give it away to the US like the scramjet, they are our lord and master of course.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

actually its 4cents per wifi device over a period of ten years or more.
devices like wireless modems, access points, routers, wificards, wifi in phones etc.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

don't know if its 4cents per wifi device but it could easily be 10cents if you read this link and do some maths
http://www.isuppli.com/Mobile-and-Wireless-Communications/News/Pages/More-Than-1-Billion-Devices-to-Have-Embedded-Wireless-Networking-Capability.aspx

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.

Re:umm

[damienl451]

The problem is that this overlooks one of the major problems with the current drive to patent all that can be patented, even when it was found as part of a government research project. As soon as there is a possibility to directly profit from research findings, it becomes more likely that research will be directed toward what will maximize the likelihood that something patentable will be found. This reduces the difference between what government and what the industry will focus on, which undermines the rationale for having government research in the first place (i.e. to fill in a gap and allow for "pie-in-the-sky" research that, although interesting for theoretical, basic science reasons, has no immediate applications). If the government ends up researching the same things as industry does because they want to be the first to patent it, launch a spin-off and get bought out by the industry, it might be easier to just subsidize the industry.

I have seen it happen at my own institution. Several departments have now all but abandoned basic research and focus on applied endeavors that would be best done by private companies. Mostly recycling well-known solutions with minor, incremental changes rather than trying any "bold" new research that might or might not work but has the potential to fundamentally enhance our understanding of the world.

It's quite a significant departure from the traditional role of government and universities in research and also restricts the diffusion of knowledge. If something has been funded by public money, it belongs to the taxpayer and should be freely available. This is one of the important roles of government, to release things into the commons so that it can be used freely. If, as an offshoot of basic research, interesting information is released and allows companies to improve their products at a low-cost, then the taxpayer benefits from that (especially since, with no patent, all companies have equal access to this innovation and cannot leverage the exclusivity to charge more), probably more than if universities join in the patent thicket and start suing companies on the basis that they "invented" such things as predictive text (University of Texas).

Patents might still be useful in pharma, where the costs of developing a new drug (even when the basic research has already been done by a university) are very high and the marginal of the drug is close to zero. But in most other fields, it's just a nuisance.

Re:umm

[Gadget_Guy]

Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.

Why? What would businesses do in the case of the Wi-Fi patents that would be different to (and better than) what the CSIRO is doing? It seems to me that how the CSIRO has handled the patent situation prove that they don't need to leave "business" to businesses; the government is doing quite well enough.

I think perhaps that your argument stems from ideological views rather than an objective analysis of the facts. The CSIRO Wi-Fi technology happened as a byproduct of their research into radio astronomy. Do you really think that businesses can be relied on to do all the work required for astronomy? Is there are big market for that sort of thing?

Re:umm

[doktorjayd]

Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.

Perhaps business lobbies should leave "government" to governments.

pun aside, the csiro is a research organisation, funded by the commonwealth, and providing a return on the investment through patenting the outcomes of its research. another former public asset was the commonweath serum laboratory ( CSL ), which was sold at a price some years ago, and no longer returns its profits to the previous owner ( the australian government ).

we've been down this path with telcos, water authorities and power distributors ( privatisation ), and as far as i can tell, the only upside is if you land a senior management or board level gig with the new owners. certainly not the consumers, let alone the lower level employees who are thinned out before sale, then outsourced as soon as the public outcry over privatisation settles down.

i for one am all for government businesses, as these tend to be much more long-term result focused ( though short electoral cycles and the penchant for the right to strip and sell the assets do get in the way), which leads to steady training and employment through higher education in these fields.

universities in australia are largely publicly funded, and although there has been a push by some recent governments to make such institutions profitable in the short term, applying the long term lens to education is key to economic development for both public and private business.

why then do you think its bad for governments to be running institutions that can return on the investments they make?

 

Re:umm

[waddleman]

If you file for patents on decade old techniques and then use those patents to sue for millions, you are a "troll"; regardless what else you do. How the Aussie government "invented WiFi" and sued its way to $430 million

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

I'm not saying that CSIRO shouldn't have done the research. I'm saying that government funded research shouldn't result in patents or copyright. It's double dipping, taking two forms of government subsidy.

Re:umm

[NerdmastaX]

maybe cos its a government research organisation, not a commercial company. maybe the difference is that many other government research orgs are quite happy to sink countless millions in taxpayer-funded grants into new tech that is merely ripped off by commercial companies, so that taxpayers get to pay for it twice-over.

so i get modded troll for pointing out the trolls like this one ^^^ i watched two ac's seed this comment list at 5 am. i call total bullshit

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

The reason to have something run by the government is because the profit based incentives of a business do not work in that area. Like you pointed out, private, for-profit utilities do a poor job. I see no good reason to run a government research organization like you would a private research organization. The sensible way to handle this would be to do the research and make it freely available. The funding would come from taxpayers, and if this research is truly fruitful, the public would have greater prosperity, and greater capabilities of funding further research. It also means that agencies like CSIRO can make research decisions based upon what is best for the public to research, as opposed to partially or wholly avoiding research that isn't patentable.

Re:umm

[icebike]

maybe cos its a government research organisation, not a commercial company. maybe the difference is that many other government research orgs are quite happy to sink countless millions in taxpayer-funded grants into new tech that is merely ripped off by commercial companies, so that taxpayers get to pay for it twice-over.

Really?
First: lets set the record straight, they didn't invent wifi. It was working long before they got involved. They merely improved it, by applying state of the art backscatter minimization techniques already well known in the radar and UHF radio industry so that it could penetrate walls, and work in confined spaces.

CSIRO patented an idea. An algorithm. A mathematical formula for signal timing. Its exactly the same thing as MP3 patents, or the patents (expired) on GIF images. Had an american company done this, even a publicly funded one, you would have been all over them as patent trolls. But because its Australian it gets a pass?!!?

Second, instead of setting up a company or licensing others to set up companies to produce products they publicized their work, waited till it was widely adopted, then started suing people. They initially released it for open use, not expecting much. Even when the world+dog decided they wanted laptops they did nothing to license it. Only when it became ubiquitous did they jump in with lawyers.

If it was tax payer funded, it already belongs to the people.
People weren't paying for it TWICE until CSIRO decided to sue. So the very thing you condemn was brought about by the action you applaud.

Only when they started patent trolling did those licensing fees get passed on to the consumer to pay yet again for something they had funded and contributed to the community. Routers cost money to build.

Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer? Is their government funding in any way reduced in light of their licensing revenue? Nope.

Re:umm

[icebike]

Except it was trivial. They simply moved techniques long know in the radar industry to low-power routers to prevent them being swamped by reflection of their own signals. So, by your own definition: Trolling.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it working for the aussie taxpayer? By denying the taxpayer to access to the inventions made with his money? This is no different from government funded research, that ideally should be open to all.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

NASA simply put men on the moon using technology invented during world war 2

everything seems simple in hindsight

Re:umm

[icebike]

NASA simply put men on the moon using technology invented during world war 2
everything seems simple in hindsight

Riiiiiight....
Why not attribute it to cave men, after all fire was involved.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

There is little incentive for companies to commit significant investment in long term research and development projects because of the significant risk of industrial espionage or another large company simply cornering the market first when the technology becomes known. Patents are barely worth the paper they are printed on as there are a multitude of ways to get around them and even blatent violations must be defended which is difficult if the return on investment cannot fund the legal battle.

The CSIRO is able to defend their research because they have been around for a long time (almost a century) so they have a lot of innovation experience, and they have a government as a shareholder. If they were small private company, they would be toast.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

i think you have that the wrong way around; it's double-dipping when companies do what the csiro are doing (R&D with government money) because tax-payers pay twice (once as a tax-payer and again as a consumer).

as a government R&D organisation, CSIRO are taking tax-payer money and then saving tax-payer money; they are actually working for their tax-paying shareholders by making money from patents, which by the way happens to be what every private and public company does.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

The real patent trolls are those that buy up patents to sue other companies, something which the US allows. Deal with them first you morons.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

profit based incentives of a business do not work in that area

funny, it has worked just fine for the CSIRO for years. got any examples of the failure you speak of?

the public would have greater prosperity

actually, company shareholder would have greater prosperity, at greater cost to the public

agencies like CSIRO can make research decisions based upon what is best for the public to research, as opposed to partially or wholly avoiding research that isn't patentable

all their research is automatically covered by copyright anyway, but regardless, profitable companies don't research in the public interest either; they are actually worse than the CSIRO because not only do they focus on what is patentable, but they only research what they can make a significant profit from, and most of that profit goes to a select few major shareholders.

if your point was that profitable companies do R&D in the public interest moreso than a government R&D organisation, its a lost cause. if you were being sarcastic, i don't get it.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

...and if your a company that rips off government-funded research to boost your otherwise dwindling profit-margins, it's just business right?

Re:umm

[crutchy]

you got modded down because nobody has any idea what you're on about, including you

Re:umm

[crutchy]

they didn't invent wifi

i didn't claim they did invent wifi, but there are a lot of patents covering the technology that makes up wifi. no single company or organisation invented wifi. they did invent something that refined wifi, regardless of where it come from. all current invention is standing on the shoulders of those that came before them. most patents cover a relatively small level of innovation that is based on previous innovation. there are very few major breakthrough innovations nowadays (like invention of the light bulb or integrated circuit, but even these major breakthroughs required previous innovation to assist in understanding, such as electrical theory and invention of materials that made light bulbs and IC's possible)

Had an american company done this, even a publicly funded one, you would have been all over them as patent trolls

whatever your point here, an american company didn't invent it, and i'm not "all over" companies that patent algorithms like mp3 and gif either. you're starting to sound like a dipshit

instead of setting up a company or licensing others to set up companies to produce products they publicized their work, waited till it was widely adopted, then started suing people

try doing your homework first dipshit. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation#802.11_patent "In 1997 Macquarie University Professor David Skellern and his colleague Neil Weste established the company Radiata, Inc., which took a nonexclusive licence to the CSIRO patent for the purpose of developing commercially viable integrated circuit devices implementing the patented technology.". the patent was granted in 1996, so there was no "waiting until it was widely adopted". now you're just a fucking retard troll.

If it was tax payer funded, it already belongs to the people

wrong again fucktard. it belongs to the australian taxpayer, not leeching american corporate shareholders. the CSIRO doesn't work for american anything

Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer?

less taxpayer money is going to CSIRO than would be necessary if there was no return on investment from patent licensing, so they are saving taxpayer monies

you really are just a wanker

Re:umm

[crutchy]

from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2889701&cid=40197219

less taxpayer money is going to CSIRO than would be necessary if there was no return on investment from patent licensing, so they are saving taxpayer money

how is the aussie taxpayer denied access to inventions made with this money? wifi is commonplace in Australia

Re:umm

[crutchy]

so you understand the pointlessness of your original reply. good for you

Re:umm

[stainlesssteelpat]

Wish i had mod points for that mate.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer?

They're spending the money on the Science and Industry Endowment Fund, including scholarships named for the guy who did most of the scientific work behind the patents. In other words, they're plowing the money back into research which will hopefully produce more useful technologies in the future.

Disclaimer: I'm an astronomy student currently working with some people at the CSIRO (but not receiving one of the above scholarships).

Re:umm

[Scott says]

"Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer?" - Yes, half the monies collected in this case went straight back to the government. That is the mandate that CSIRO operates under.

Re:umm

[icebike]

"Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer?" - Yes, half the monies collected in this case went straight back to the government. That is the mandate that CSIRO operates under.

So the answer is no then, and Aussie wifi users STILL had to pay for development, and pay again when they buy a router.

Giving money to the government doesn't get any back into taxpayers pockets.

Re:umm

[Hellsbells]

These radar techniques were also pioneered by the CSIRO in their radar division. They clearly weren't trivial, since they took a decade of development.

Re:umm

[Hellsbells]

Using this argument, government run trains shouldn't charge passengers, since the tax payer has already paid for the infrastructure.

I don't see why the Australian government can't reclaim some of its initial investment by charging the consumer of the product, especially when most of the consumers are overseas.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

No, because it costs the train station every time they run a train. CSIRO bears no costs when a third party makes a WiFi device.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

funny, it has worked just fine for the CSIRO for years. got any examples of the failure you speak of?

Yes, privately held for profit electrical companies were a very bad idea. The same goes for water companies and other utilities. Telecoms are pretty much the most awful businesses that are still around, and are in an area that really should be either run by municipalities or a membership corporation. These are all areas where being run like a conventional business is idiotic.

actually, company shareholder would have greater prosperity, at greater cost to the public

How the hell do you figure there would be a greater cost to the public to not be taxed on wifi devices?

if your point was that profitable companies do R&D in the public interest moreso than a government R&D organisation, its a lost cause. if you were being sarcastic, i don't get it.

No, my point was that government funded R&D should be completely free and open. I'm not saying that private companies doing research and getting patents is good, but rather, that government agencies doing research and getting patents is bad.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

Taxpayers are paying for it twice here as well. They paid whatever it cost to do the initial research as taxpayers, and they are paying the four cents or whatever for each wifi device. The only thing that makes this 'okay' in any way is that some of the money is going back into research. However, this is an indirect tax, making it much less efficient and reliable than directly funding, since it requires a slew of lawyers and other administration to enforce, as well as the overhead of patent applications (this includes prior art searches, payment to patent lawyers for filing the application, the application fee, and it even puts more strain on the patent office, which in many cases have extensive backlogs as it is.). It also means that research is going to be focused upon areas which are patentable and profitable, which is the stuff that private R&D is going to bring us anyway under the current system.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

if taxpayers, as consumers, saved 4c on every wifi device should CSIRO not charge licensing fees, then you might have a point, but we would be charged the same. companies charge what the market will bear, which in many cases has little resemblance of what it actually costs.

actually, it might only cost wifi device manufacturers 4c per device, but you can be sure as hell the aussie consumer gets slugged more than that out of spite. companies can be that petty, but the aussie market can probably also bear a much higher price than many other countries, but i don't know whether that's because we're better off or because we're just too easy going and take whatever crap flies our way even if we don't like it. putting up with the politicians that we do it's probably the latter.

unfortunately, while i see your point, the csiro not charging fees would make things much better. the corporate world is just that greedy.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

How the hell do you figure there would be a greater cost to the public to not be taxed on wifi devices?

the aussie taxpayer isn't taxed on wifi devices, they are making money from wifi technology. where did you get the impression there was a wifi tax?
if CSIRO was privatised, according to you patenting would be ok, but the aussie taxpayer would then get no benefit from its licensing, the profit would go offshore, and consumers would still get slugged the same. how the hell do you figure it would be better for the aussie taxpayer if CSIRO gave away its patent?

government funded R&D should be completely free and open

my point was that if private companies can make money for shareholders, then government agencies can make money for taxpayers

whatever your point, its not very pointy. its fine that you think that government research should be free, but i think that it shouldn't and that private companies can go to hell

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

the aussie taxpayer isn't taxed on wifi devices, they are making money from wifi technology. where did you get the impression there was a wifi tax?

AFAIK, Australian citizens are still having to pay the same fees. If you have data that Australian companies don't have to pay CSIRO or that sales in Australia are exempt from that royalty, please provide it. Otherwise, the cost is passed on to companies, and shit rolls downhill, so consumers are still paying for it.

if CSIRO was privatised, according to you patenting would be ok, but the aussie taxpayer would then get no benefit from its licensing, the profit would go offshore, and consumers would still get slugged the same. how the hell do you figure it would be better for the aussie taxpayer if CSIRO gave away its patent?

I'm not saying CSIRO should be privatized. I'm sayng they shouldn't have sought a patent in the first place. Personally, I'm a patent abolitionist, but I find the idea of government agencies, whether they be American, Australian, or any other nationality, getting patents, even more offensive than the backwards practice of patent already is in the first place.

my point was that if private companies can make money for shareholders, then government agencies can make money for taxpayers

The government isn't intended to be just a business that has citizens as shareholders.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

The price in a market depends upon a number of factors. You are correct that in many cases, the price has very little relationship to the costs involved. However, that tends to most often be the case in markets that are not competitive, such as cellular providers charging ridiculous prices for text messages. At the retail level, there also tends to be differences in margins, such as use of loss leaders, but that's more of an issue of where the money is made.

However, if there's anything we can count on, it's that if you make a company bear a direct cost, that cost and more will be added to the price.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CSIRO managing to make returns on patents from its work, the Australian government doesn't need to put as much funding into the organisation.

Thus more tax dollars are able to be spent on other processes and programs that benefit Australia tax payers, or they can reduce the total amount of tax paid by Australians. Both are beneficial to us.

Just because leaching American corporations no longer get a free ride... doesn't mean there is no benefit to Australians.

Re:umm

[Anonymous Coward]

It does when the government is able to give tax cuts because one of its organisations is able to pay for itself.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

Australian citizens are still having to pay the same fees

they do, but they would be anyway even if csiro wasn't licensing patents. do you really think wifi hardware manufacturers would cut aussie consumers a deal for the right to use aussie innovation? that's not the way the corporate world works

if csiro wasn't making money from patents, aussie taxpayers would be subsidising foreign companies

I'm a patent abolitionist

that's fine, but it doesn't mean you're right. patents do have very important purpose, even if the system that administers it isn't the greatest. surely you would understand this; if you had invented anything you would understand. consumers with no appreciation for patents and copyright are just as greedy as leeching corporate rip offs. why are you a patent abolitionist rather than a patent reformist? eliminating patents altogether will merely ground investment in innovation to a grinding halt and people with ideas will simply keep them to themselves out of fear of being ripped off and having no legal recourse to protect their investment.

The government isn't intended to be just a business that has citizens as shareholders

perhaps not, but it would be a hell of a lot more efficient and productive if it were

Re:umm

[crutchy]

if you make a company bear a direct cost, that cost and more will be added to the price

you're dead right there; it's called "user pays" and applies everywhere (not just australia), which is better than other countries and corporations merely freeloading off hard-earned aussie taxpayer dollars

Re:umm

[crutchy]

privately held for profit electrical companies

but government-owned organisations aren't privately owned. duh!

how did you come to compare the failure of privatisation to the success of government-owned institutions being run in a business-like fashion?

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

"Freeloading" and "free-riding" are almost always baseless arguments.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

perhaps not, but it would be a hell of a lot more efficient and productive if it were

No, it wouldn't. Governments have to focus on what is best for citizens, not what is best for the treasury department. Running government your way would eliminate policies that aren't profitable to the government, even if they provide a major benefit to the public. Here's a newflash for you: that would eliminate CSIRO entirely. CSIRO is not profitable. Licensing patents has reduced their costs, but not in a huge way. If CSIRO were part of a business, it would be eliminated.

if you had invented anything you would understand. consumers with no appreciation for patents and copyright are just as greedy as leeching corporate rip offs.,blockquote> There's your first mistake. Copyright and patents are about the public, not inventor or authors. I am a part time author, but I don't have the vanity to think that I deserve a legal monopoly. I actually didn't obtain this viewpoint until AFTER I had started to take up writing more seriously. why are you a patent abolitionist rather than a patent reformist? eliminating patents altogether will merely ground investment in innovation to a grinding halt and people with ideas will simply keep them to themselves out of fear of being ripped off and having no legal recourse to protect their investment.

No, legal monopolies are a backwards tool that has no purpose in modern economics. And no, it won't drive innovation to a grinding halt, it will accelerate progress. The idea behind copyright and patents is noble (at least the 'promote the progress' one), but the mechanism doesn't work, and it is fundamentally flawed.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

I'm saying that running utilities 'like a business' is idiotic. Who owns it doesn't matter, because the problem is that it's not an economically efficient way of running them. Utilities run like businesses aim to maximize profit. Utilities run like utilities aim to provide the best service at the lowest cost Utilities are not run like businesses, and are not run like businesses for a reason. Likewise, government research facilities should not be run like businesses.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

as far as operation of an organisation (any, be it private, profitable, utility) there is no functional difference between maximizing profit and maximizing cost efficiency (because as you would no doubt be aware, profit=revenue less expenses).

if a government owned utility improves its operational efficiency, then it can "make a profit", but for a utility profit is really just a cash asset, so it offers the opportunity to reduce prices for consumers, or reduce funding required from government (does this sound like what CSIRO is doing yet?).

many government agencies/organisations/utilities are so poorly run that they wind up being privatized just to offload the financial black holes. we should be cherishing and promoting any government organisation that operates more like a business, because otherwise you end up with bureaucratic inefficient financial black holes that while may be performing an essential service, has an unsustainable cost to benefit ratio and winds up requiring tax hikes or new taxes to cover them.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

i know your argument is baseless. if any organisation (be it corporate or government) has a patent, they should be free to license the use of that patent. whether that patent should have been granted is a different issue, and many patents shouldn't be granted, but in this case I think CSIRO have innovated and deserve their patent, and anyone who thinks they should be able to make money from CSIRO's work without paying royalties doesn't deserve to be in business. perhaps you are one of them?

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

No, using the word "freeloading" or "free riding" is a huge red flag that you don't have a competent argument. Mark Lemly has an excellent paper in which he attacks the kind of criticism you use.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

as far as operation of an organisation (any, be it private, profitable, utility) there is no functional difference between maximizing profit and maximizing cost efficiency (because as you would no doubt be aware, profit=revenue less expenses).

That is only true if the revenue stays the same. Of course, what we are debating here is specifically a revenue model. CSIRO's research practices won't change much, other than perhaps avoiding non-patentable research, which is likely to decrease the social welfare their research results in. If you really want to reduce CSIRO's tax burden, completely disband it.

if a government owned utility improves its operational efficiency, then it can "make a profit", but for a utility profit is really just a cash asset, so it offers the opportunity to reduce prices for consumers, or reduce funding required from government (does this sound like what CSIRO is doing yet?).

The problem is that you aren't seeing the big picture. It doesn't reduce what consumers pay. It actually increases the overhead. What it does is move the cost, so the direct funding is lower, but the total cost to consumers is greater. It's not particularly surprising, because that's what patents did initially. They were largely used as a way of collecting taxes without it being a visible tax, which would be an unpopular move. So, they would grant a party that gave the king money letters patent, stating that they had a monopoly on such and such market. However, this was really, really stupid, and it got so out of control that the statute of monopolies was passed, which limited the grant of monopolies to new inventions.

I'm all for increasing operational efficiency, but this isn't actually more efficient. The US could help the post office if they had mailmen rob banks every now and then, but that's clearly an idiotic policy, andd nobody would dare claim it efficient.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

i could have easily made the same argument without using the words "freeloading" or "free riding"

wtf is your point?

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

You could have used different words, but you would still make be making an argument based upon certain parties benefiting from positive externalities without bearing a cost. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we both do it every day in regards to technology older than 20 years, and technology that is not patentable.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

still make be making an argument based upon certain parties benefiting from positive externalities without bearing a cost

had to chuckle at that one

so i guess the word "freeload" isn't the reason why my argument is baseless any more?

"certain parties benefiting from positive externalities without bearing a cost" being roughly equivalent to "freeload" (obviously) doesn't actually introduce anything new, so you've basically made the same argument as your previous reply

is there some reason why you think making such an argument is "baseless", or is all you got some reference to some "excellent paper" written by a retard who has never invented anything worth patenting?

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

is there some reason why you think making such an argument is "baseless",

Because there isn't a problem with this 'free riding.' In fact, the ability to 'free ride' is undeniably far more important than the patent system.

written by a retard who has never invented anything worth patenting?

Why would inventing something worth patenting necessarily give you a better understanding of macroeconomics? The answer is that it doesn't, but assholes like yourself pretend that it does. The reality is that the people making those arguments want a handout from the government because they can't or don't want to compete in a free, competitive market. Cry me a river.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

Because there isn't a problem with this 'free riding.' In fact, the ability to 'free ride' is undeniably far more important than the patent system.

yes there is. if i spend thousands of dollars and many hours of my time, skill and knowledge to invent something, why the hell would i give it to you to freely use and make money from?

a free competitive market wouldn't work without patents, because only the largest companies would ever make any money and new business ventures wouldn't be viable due to poor return on investment.

you clearly don't understand economics at all, loser

...but go ahead and keep whining about how patents make it hard for you to blatantly rip off people who can actually invent things. you suck so bad that its funny

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

I recommend that you read this book. It's chock full of examples of how patents and copyright have consistently resulted in worse results than free competition, and the examples include both industries and individuals within them in both the past and modern times, and it goes into great detail on the theory end too.

And again, you and I and every human on the planet 'blatantly rip off people who can actually invent things' all the time. Even that worthless asshole Isaac Newton blatantly admitted to such horrendous behavior, claiming that he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants.'

Re:umm

[crutchy]

chock full of examples of how patents and copyright have consistently resulted in worse results than free competition, and the examples include both industries and individuals within them in both the past and modern times

i'm sure there are lots of examples of patents gone bad, and patents that should never have been issued, which is all the more reason to be a patent reformist rather than a patent abolitionist, because while the patent system has been abused (more often by large companies than the small ones that the system meant to protect), they do still have a purpose, and my previous point still stands regardless of what some moron UCLA student wrote (the professor was more likely to have merely supervised, and may not have even read it nor authorized the use of his name in an attempt to garner credibility for such garbage); without patents, new innovation would ground to a halt. with patents, at least there is a minimal level of protection for small startups against giants like walmart who are quite happy to reverse engineer products and mass-produce and sell their own sub-standard ripoff.

Even that worthless asshole Isaac Newton blatantly admitted to such horrendous behavior

i'll bet "that worthless asshole" (you're joking right) was simply being modest, or joking himself, but in any case it doesn't matter because as i've said elsewhere in comments for this article, all current innovation stands on the shoulders of giants. it doesn't than current innovation is in any way inferior to the innovation before it, and innovation still costs huge sums of time and money that few would be willing to give up without recompense of any sort. also, i don't know if newton received any financial compensation for his work, but he certainly gained personal recognition, with is another right that patents are intended to protect (as opposed to some other moron stealing his work and claiming it as his own, which may have happened back then too).

at the end of the day, patents exist and they aren't going to go away in the foreseeable future because thankfully fruitloop "abolitionists" like you are few and far between. software patents and some other abstract patents (for things like business methods) are obviously bad and there is growing support for reform to the patent system to restore it as a tool to protect real innovators of all sizes rather than merely a weapon of choice for exclusive use by trolls and megacorporations.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

i'm sure there are lots of examples of patents gone bad, and patents that should never have been issued, which is all the more reason to be a patent reformist rather than a patent abolitionist, because while the patent system has been abused (more often by large companies than the small ones that the system meant to protect), they do still have a purpose, and my previous point still stands regardless of what some moron UCLA student wrote (the professor was more likely to have merely supervised, and may not have even read it nor authorized the use of his name in an attempt to garner credibility for such garbage); without patents, new innovation would ground to a halt. with patents, at least there is a minimal level of protection for small startups against giants like walmart who are quite happy to reverse engineer products and mass-produce and sell their own sub-standard ripoff.

Levine is pretty active in writing papers on this subject, and his stance is that patents do not and never have served a purpose. But it's amusing to see you try and rationalize that intelligent people can be opposed to legal monopolies. He points to cases where certain countries didn't have patents in a certain area, and their industries were much more productive. And no, patents do not help startups. Startups can't afford to engage in lengthy court battles, and any remotely profitable field is going to be chock full of patents that have to be worked around. The effect that patents have is that they protect established interests, and they are the biggest reason that we have those giants in the first place. It's idiotic to think that legal monopolies will help in competition.

i'll bet "that worthless asshole" (you're joking right) was simply being modest, or joking himself, but in any case it doesn't matter because as i've said elsewhere in comments for this article, all current innovation stands on the shoulders of giants. it doesn't than current innovation is in any way inferior to the innovation before it, and innovation still costs huge sums of time and money that few would be willing to give up without recompense of any sort. also, i don't know if newton received any financial compensation for his work, but he certainly gained personal recognition, with is another right that patents are intended to protect (as opposed to some other moron stealing his work and claiming it as his own, which may have happened back then too).

No, Newton was being honest, and had perspective (and yes I was joking about how you moronically create this dichotomy of inventors and non-inventors by pointing out a widely respected contributor to human knowledge who openly admitted to freeloading). You've failed to address my point, however, which is that 'freeloading' is undeniably more important than patents. And patents are a horrible way of granting personal recognition, especially since the world is now using first to patent, not first to invent. Furthermore, work cannot be 'stolen.' Credit could arguably be, but not work or an invention or an authored work. Again, you use the cliches of idiotic supporters of medieval economics.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

Startups can't afford to engage in lengthy court battles

i expect you will never understand, and that's ok because you're getting boring anyway, and Levine sounds like as much a dipshit as you (maybe you should try reading books by a more intelligent author).

if i invent a widget and want to start up a new company to manufacture and sell it, how can i be sure that a large established company like kmart or walmart wont acquire a widget and mass-produce and sell copies of it (claiming it as their own) and use their much larger market share and resources to drive me out of business?

if you can answer that question reasonably, then you might have a case, but at the moment you're just sound like an idiot (who has never invented anything worth patenting).

court battles are expensive, but currently patents are the ONLY defense that a startup has against giants like walmart. without them there is no point in inventors creating anything if they expect to get any recognition or return on investment.

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

if i invent a widget and want to start up a new company to manufacture and sell it, how can i be sure that a large established company like kmart or walmart wont acquire a widget and mass-produce and sell copies of it (claiming it as their own) and use their much larger market share and resources to drive me out of business?

You can't. But you can't in the patent system either. You have to realize that regardless of what system you have, small innovators are going to get screwed over most of the time. The argument to make is not that they don't get screwed over, it's that they don't get screwed over as often, when the evidence on the subject points to the very opposite. A large company might find a way around the particular wording of the patent (and they have more budget to get around less patents, while the startup has less of a budget to get around more patents), or more likely, they will have a hundred relevant patents to sue you with, and will end up owning your company and your patent, and doing the same thing with YOUR patent to the next startup with an awesome widget that tries to upset their business. You are making erroneous assumptions about the nature of invention. Even the massive 'game-changers' that people associate with invention after patent systems resulted in patent thickets that either resulted in patent pools in which those with money became richer and were more able to dominate the market, or agreements couldn't be made. This happened because inventions are virtually always cumulative, gradual steps forward made by a large amount of ideas cross-pollinating.

You also fail to realize that without patents, the giant scary conglomerates you are afraid of would not be able to exist in their current form (although you for some reason thought that Kmart and wal-mart are manufacturers in a major fashion. You should actually be afraid of the GEs, the IBMs, the DuPonts, all of which have enormous patent portfolios)

Re:umm

[crutchy]

You can't. But you can't in the patent system either

predictable much. your saying that because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all. i can come up with your counterarguments myself, and then provide counter-counterarguments that you will then predictably face plant with some more bullshit.

i'd rather go argue with a brick wall than with a dipshit like you

You are making erroneous assumptions about the nature of invention

this was however unexpected, and hilarious :)
you won't believe me (you're so predictable) but at least i've actually invented something worth considering patenting. i chose to keep it to myself because in the current environment, patents aren't worth the paper they are printed on and its easier to just work as an employee for somebody else. it doesn't mean that the concept of a patent is wrong though, hence why i'm a patent reformist and you are a moron

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

predictable much. your saying that because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all.

No, I'm saying that because, on average, both inventors and society as a whole a harmed by patents, the treatment is worse than the disease, meaning that doing nothing is better than 'protection'. Perhaps you should learn to read before calling other people dipshits.

you won't believe me (you're so predictable) but at least i've actually invented something worth considering patenting.

You've 'invented' something you think is worth considering patenting. However, since it seems you didn't patent and likely didn't commercialize the invention, you are unaware of the existing patents that a final product would cover, and have no confirmation that there is anything patentable in your 'invention.' You think that because you've done something that in all likelihood is the same as what others in your field have done, that you understand the macroeconomics of patents.

Re:umm

[crutchy]

treatment is worse than the disease

hey dipshit, maybe you should learn how to read, because the above quote is pretty much the same as "because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all", because if you had some other form of protection in mind you would have no doubt subjected me to it already.

inventors and society as a whole a harmed by the current patent system

there, ftfy.
repeating myself, but you're still comparing the current patent system with the concept of a patent, which is (again) why you're a retard.

unfortunately for you nothing i say will help you see the light, because you have been brainwashed by UCLA retards (you poor thing). you seem to have a limited grasp of basic business and you don't understand invention, so anything i say will keep going in one ear and out the other, and you will merely continue to spout the same bullshit.

there's no intellectual stimulation or challenge here so its getting boring. you're repeating the same shit and not building any argument and i'm just pointing out the same flaws in your understanding of how the world works each time. having to resort to calling you names just to keep myself interested only works for so long, and since i don't want to be responsible for you committing suicide it's time for me to go find some other poor unfortunate imbecile to pick a fight with.

cheers, fuckface

Re:umm

[king neckbeard]

hey dipshit, maybe you should learn how to read, because the above quote is pretty much the same as "because patents aren't completely effective that we may as well have no protection at all", because if you had some other form of protection in mind you would have no doubt subjected me to it already.

No, I'm saying that patents are ineffective at accomplishing their goal, and are in general a net harm to that goal and to the welfare of inventors. It's like if your doctor still prescribed blood letting for every ailment you come in with. You would be better off letting your body handle it 9 times out of 10.

repeating myself, but you're still comparing the current patent system with the concept of a patent, which is (again) why you're a retard.

No, it applies to all patent systems that have ever existed, and to the theory of patents in general. The evidence available suggests that there is no way that patents could be a net benefit, and even if there were, we don't have a reliable way of getting a policy that would yield such results.

I do agree that we seem to be getting nowhere, although you are the one that is slathering on the insults and has not pointed to any actual evidence (although to be fair, pretty much all of the actual pro-patent evidence would fit into a single paragraph), so the brainwashed fuckface would appear to be you. I'm not quite as generous as you, though, and would probably be amused if you did commit suicide.

Their work, their say.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an amateur photographer, I don't sell any of my photography. I do post it online for people to look at and enjoy, but I don't commercialize it.

As an open source software author, I also don't sell or commercialize any of my code - I license it for the most part under the GPL and have for years.

But in neither case does this mean others are free to take what I've created and do with it what I do not wish. You don't get to sell my photography for your own profit, you don't get to include my code in your commercial app, not without my permission. I've been in court over two photography infringements and won, and went damned near it for code I've written with others. I don't see why patents in a system that accepts them as valid (their validity is another entire argument) are any different. Creator gets the say...

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Hentes]

Ideally, patents only give rights to an implementation of an idea.

Re:Their work, their say.

[rtfa-troll]

If that were strictly true then patents would be no use. Just move the screw connecting two parts by a tiny bit and you have a different implementation of the same idea. So then you have to come up with some clear definition of when two machines are the same as the one described even though, in some detail, they are different.

That's the point where your patent attorney steps in. He writes a patent which shows every nearby variation he can possibly think of and generalises the original design so that you can see all sorts of similar machines. Now your patent becomes "overly broad" but nobody can really define that properly. This is the reason why most calls for "patent reform" are fundamentally flawed. The system works pretty much as well as it can given the fact that people are involved.

The only solution is to clearly ban some types of patents and enforce licensing of others at reasonable costs.

Re:Their work, their say.

[damienl451]

Assume that the taxpayers are paying you to take these pictures because it has been decided that it was important for art to be produced. Wouldn't it make sense to make these photographs available to all, without restrictions?

Re:Their work, their say.

[Hentes]

Where people are involved there's always room for development. The most important thing would be for patent offices to consist of much smarter and more educated staff, the kind that can actually understand the applications. Also, there are ways to effectively combat overly broad patents: prior art, used properly, could be one; pricing patents based on broadness could be another.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Gadget_Guy]

Copyright and patent are very different. Patents give you exclusive rights to an idea, process, or method. Copyrights only cover making copies of a specific implementation. Comparisons between the two will always result in a flawed analogy.

It is true that copyright and patents are different, but then so are cars and patents - and yet we still accept car analogies. Being different doesn't mean the analogy is flawed. So where exactly did the grandparent go wrong?

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

By comparing copyright to patent. His analogy of his photographs and software is completely unrelated to patents. He doesn't own the ideas embodied by his pictures or code, he only owns the specific pictures and code, and he controls the right to copy them (thus the name copyright). Anyone can go take materially the same photo, or write a program to do that same things and it has no relationship to his copyright. They can even sell their photos and programs. That isn't true of patents. The attempt to compare his rights under copyright to the rights of patent holders is the flaw. Specifically, his comment "I don't see why patents ... are any different" is the flaw.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Gadget_Guy]

I still disagree. Just as someone else can take their own photographs of the same subject matter, so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided. For example, if you can make your own Wi-Fi standard and avoid having to use fast fourier transforms to cancel out the echo then you would not owe the CSIRO a cent.

But I think you are missing the point of the original poster. The AC was merely pointing out that the CSIRO invented the technology and appropriately patented it. This means that they get to license their patents as they see fit. The creator gets their say, be they the copyright holder or a patent holder. Both are using the IP laws as they were intended, despite any differences between copyright and patents that you may find.

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

...so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided.

Which is exactly why a comparison to copyright is flawed. It's different (from his examples) because it IS different (rights).

No, I didn't miss the point of the OP. I addressed his statement. Him not commercializing his copyrighted material doesn't limit anyone else. If he had a patent and didn't commercialize it, he CAN prevent others from doing it. Different rules, invalid comparison.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Gadget_Guy]

Different rules, invalid comparison.

This is never going to end, because we are going around in circles. My final comment would be to suggest that you look up the definition of the word analogy and see that it describes a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Copyright and patents do not need to be 100% agreement for an analogy to take place, especially when the differences do not alter the intent of the original statement.

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

I suggest you re-read the thread and try to understand what was actually said.

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

Or, to make it simple for you. The OP described how he deals with his own COPYRIGHTED material, using rules that apply to copyrights, not patents. Then, without making any attempt to apply that logic to patent rights, says "I don't see why patents ... are any different."

They're different because the rules are different, exactly as I described my in my reply to him. His analogy is based upon rules that are specific to copyright and it doesn't address patent rights at all. Therefore, the analogy is flawed. Nothing you say can change that in the least.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Gadget_Guy]

Oh dear. I made the mistake of having a peek to see if you had replied

Let me make it even simpler for you. Look at the subject line of this thread. "Their work, their say". It is a theme that is reflected in the last sentence (the take home message). "Creator gets the say". It appears that the topic the OP wished to discuss was that the patent holder has final say over who gets to use his patents. His main point was that it doesn't matter if you do not make commercial use of your patent or copyright, you still have control over how it is used and people can't just appropriate it:

But in neither case does this mean others are free to take what I've created and do with it what I do not wish.

And that is the crux of his message. It is the same as his subject line. It is the same as his last line. It is what his examples were all about.

The controversial part for you was that he could not see that this should be different for patents. So is that true? Compare these two statements:

A copyright holder can dictate the use of his copyright, and can ask for money for its use.

A patent holder can dictate the use of his patent, and can ask for money for its use.

Are both statements true? If so, then his analogy is sound because that is all his message discussed. He did not make any other claims about the two systems. He certainly showed no signs of making the common mistake of mixing up the copyright, patent and trademark laws. The fact the he referenced both copyrights and patents as separate systems shows that he is aware that there are differences.

The reason you think he is making the grand claims of 100% similarity is that you are fixated on those two sentence fragments that you keep quoting. But you are looking at them out of the context of the message and reading a different meaning to them than was indicated by the surrounding sentences.

All of your responses are arguing against a statement that nobody else here has made. That is why I said that we were arguing around in circles. You are obviously not wrong that patents and copyright are different things, and everyone here would agree with that position. So hooray! You can go to bed tonight knowing that your ideas are correct. But so can the original poster, because he never claimed anything different.

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

A copyright does not prevent anyone from using the same idea, process, or technology, it only prevents copying a specific expression of it. Failure to commercialize copyright has ABSOLUTELY no impact on anyone other than the copyright holder.

Patents exclude anyone from using the patented material without a license for the duration of the patent. Failing to commercialize a patent affects EVERYONE who could benefit from that patent.

Copyright and patent are fundamentally different, the rules are different, the rights are different, and the effects are different. His analogy is flawed. His failure to commercialize his copyrightable material has absolutely no relationship to patents.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Gadget_Guy]

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS ARE DIFFERENT BEASTS!

Seriously, what is the point of continuing to keep posting virtually the same message no matter what is said to you? Do you just not read the messages or something? Do you just look for keywords like "copyright" in a story about patents and then post rants? Are you incapable of entertaining the idea that you misunderstood what the original poster said? If people use a car analogy, do you start arguments about gas vs diesel?

I am beginning to suspect that you might be trolling me to see how long you can keep the thread going on. Try this for a change. Have a look at the two statements in bold in my last message and tell me which one is false. Feel free to append your next rewording of your original message to it if you so desire.

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

I keep posting it because you don't seem to be getting the message. The OP's analogy is flawed beyond repair, yet you keep trying to defend it. Clearly I'm not trolling, my post is rated higher than the OP, I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't replied with anything more than clarifications and additional details of my original post.

The question is why to you keep posting trying to make the OP/AC's point for him when clearly he's coming from a flawed premise?

Re:Their work, their say.

[gstrickler]

Neither of your statements in bold are false, but your conclusion is flawed for the reasons I've sited in several of my previous posts.

Re:Their work, their say.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that CSIRO apparently had nothing to do with inventing wi-fi. What is flawed is how backwards the Texas court are to allow unfair judgement towards companies who are twisting there own patents or buying other patents then twisting them, to give themselves the appearance they created something they did not, or how a component that others had created before but failed to get patent for it, is somehow exclusively something they made.

The problem with the patent systems are those who decide something should be patented, question? would anyone else have created it, or could it be a common idea? It is stupid to give out a patent for a method or just a written description over how something works, and the companies that are multi billion dollar makers surprising get instant patents without the patent getting heavily criticized, or questioned..

The patent system is a monopoly all its own. You look at some of the inventors through out history that physically invented something and you can say. Yes that is a unique idea at the time, while it could be created by someone else, it would not be considered a common idea, maybe only even thought of by a hand full of people over the course of 30-60-100 years from now.

Copyright is another flawed system, you can rewrite a program or code and create a image without copying the original and get away with it, the original creator has to prove if you copied his work. You can re-tune a guitar and play a common song without lyrics and it is not copyright infringement. You can go online and get free tablature ONLY if it is not an exact copy to the pressed one. So I agree that it prevents someone from copying the original authors work, you can still get around that very easily and create your own and even sell it, and good luck to the guy/gal who think you copied it.

Just the way I fell about, nothing insightful that slashdot users have already talked about.

But they actually did the work

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does having actuallly done the damn work and in fact continuing to put their efforts into doing even more research fit into the patent troll definition?

Re:But they actually did the work

[FirephoxRising]

Exactly. So the answer is no, they're not patent trolls at all. Others have said that they could've got it to work and that the solution they found wasn't revolutionary, but no one else did get it to work, so CSIRO gets the credit and should enjoy some benefits from that. If you're saying that they did nothing unique, then why didn't you do it first, get a working solution out there and enjoy the results?

Re:But they actually did the work

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Trolls are also supposed to have no business model other than litigation. This article focuses on one single lawsuit and entirely disregards all the positive innovations the CSIRO has done. Its so stupid, "its not even wrong"

Re:But they actually did the work

[quenda]

The answer is patently no.

Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Hognoxious]

Australian tech publication iTnews is defining 'patent trolls' as those who claim rights to an invention without commercializing it

Dingo dongers. Some companies are good at R&D, some at mass production. It's perfectly valid to specialise in one or the other.

Is an architect a troll if he doesn't dig his own foundations? Article's a bag of arse, mate.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[mjwx]

Yeah, deffo taking the piss here.

CSIRO is not a patent troll because they freely license their patents to almost anyone who wants to use them. They don't lock their patents up and wait for someone to accidentally infringe them, if you want to license a CSIRO patent you just contact them. Patent trolls do not license their patents. CSIRO developed the technologies they license, the money gained from the patents goes into more research, so they aren't trolling to get money for shareholders because they haven't got any.

So the article doesn't know its arse from its elbow.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[rtb61]

Not to forget CSIRO does a whole bunch of research that they give away absolutely free. It was only the right wing ass hats Liberal Party that demanded all CSIRO research must generate a 'Profit' ie research for pesticides is OK but research using natural predators to controls pest is bad (don't get to sell pesticides etc.). Fortunately this idea was tossed out as basically evil and CSIRO still do a lot of free to access research http://www.csiro.au/. The whining about this patent is likely because money going to CSIRO is a double loss for the greedy, having to pay and a lot of that payment going to free to access research.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Carewolf]

Patent trolls do not license their patents.

What?! That is the primary purpose of all patent trolls! Why do you think they take companies to court in the first place? To force them to license... Same CSIRO.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[rat7307]

No, it's to retroactively sue for infringing that patent. A common trick is to wait until your patent has ALMOST become a defacto standard then sue (see Microsoft's FAT lawsuits and some of the LCD companies out there)

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[king neckbeard]

Going through lawsuits are expensive, and carry big risks, which is why settling out of court is so common. The lawsuits are the threat to get the other party to accept licensing.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

The CSIRO does a lot of pure research that doesn't have any practical application in the forseeable future, so there's no point in trying to patent it: there's no specific invention, so there's nothing to patent. I'm a graduate student in astronomy in Australia, and a lot of the people I work with work at the CSIRO.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Gadget_Guy]

Patent trolls absolutely license their patents - they simply do so at absurd rates (e.g., $220M for some wireless patents of dubious quality).

Your argument rests on the idea that the patents are of dubious quality. What about them is dubious? They solved a problem that nobody else at the time could solve. Doesn't that mean that they were indeed a non-obvious invention?

The CSIRO did actually shop the technology around the place to get people to license it, long before it got used in a standard. This was not a submarine patent.

So it is more like saying that someone's not a thief because they spend their stolen money on really cool stuff.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Grond]

Patent trolls do not license their patents.

Sure they do. How else do you think they make money? Even when they sue, the purpose of the suit is to force the defendant to take a license, either court-imposed or in settlement negotiations. In the case of a non-practicing entity, the purpose of an injunction is just to give the patentee leverage in the license negotiations. There are exceptions, such as a patentee that has an exclusive licensee and is suing to prevent others from using the technology, but ultimately that's about protecting the value of the original license.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Carewolf]

That is an _additional_ trick that some troll have used (and plenty of producing patent-litigators as well), but it is not the primary mode of operation, just one of the more offensive ones.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, CSIRO did not develop the technologies. ODFM was developed in the 50's. Forward error correction was developed in the 60's. They didn't even come up with the idea for it, the 802.11 committee was working on it years before them.

CSIRO is still a good company, but are misguided in litigating for this. The 802.11 committee developed their own standard completely separate from CSIRO, and yet CSIRO thinks that they should own it because they were the first to patent it, nevermind the people that actually invented the technology.

Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate.

[mjwx]

Patent trolls do not license their patents.

Sure they do. How else do you think they make money? Even when they sue, the purpose of the suit is to force the defendant to take a license, either court-imposed or in settlement negotiations. In the case of a non-practicing entity, the purpose of an injunction is just to give the patentee leverage in the license negotiations. There are exceptions, such as a patentee that has an exclusive licensee and is suing to prevent others from using the technology, but ultimately that's about protecting the value of the original license.

You seem very confused on what a patent troll is.

You've described an ordinary patent holder, not a patent troll. Patent holders license out their patents, patent trolls hide their patents and sue for an exorbitant amount of money when a patent they've secreted away is violated. This avoids all the tedious negotiation that come with licensing patents from the outset and denying the defendant a chance to work around the patent.

Patent trolls do not look for reasonable fees, they look for people to sue for more then a license is worth.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

CSIRO actually does research. Patent trolls buy their patents.

Re:No

[bobby1234]

correct. And they allow others to use their invention if they pay an agreed royalty.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any incentive for them to invent new things. They spent time and money creating the new tech and they need to get a return. As they are not a product company then they rely upon royalties and such to keep inventing the next great thing!

Re:No

[cloricus]

Exactly.

Furthermore, CSIRO immediately reinvested almost all of this money into developing better wireless technology for rural communities in Australia and worldwide (as part of the NBN project). If patent trolls used their gains for research instead of lining pockets of the rich I imagine we'd all have a very different opinion of them.

Re:No

[thegarbz]

Exactly. This definition only allows commercial enterprises who do in house R&D to avoid being lumped in with the lowest of the low in the business world.

Medical research institute? Patent Troll
Any research organisation? Patent Troll
Universities? Patent Trolls.

There are many ways research institutes who patent inventions and then licence them out to companies. Some companies decided to copy the technology without licensing it, technology which the instituted invested money into creating. Just because it had to be settled in the courts they are now a patent troll?

Which idiot wrote this definition?

Re:No

[damienl451]

Absolutely not. They are a government body, which means that the incentive part has been fixed for them already. The basic argument for patents is indeed what you have stated: it is cheaper to copy than to innovate. Therefore, all companies have an incentive to wait for others to innovate, then copy what they have done. Therefore, there will be less innovation than socially optimal and we must have patents to give companies incentives. In others words, we allow inventors to internalize some of the positive externalities that innovations generate.

The main rationale for government-funding of research is exactly the same: innovation generates positive externalities and, by funding research, we also allow for the internalization of these externalities. In theory, there is no need for patents in that situation.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in this case the funding is from taxpayers of one country (Australia) and the benefits are being reaped by citizens of other nations. Thus, there is an additional externality. Patent-and-freely-license is the most obvious way to internalize those extra-territorial externalities.

Re:No

[mug funky]

in addition to that, they rarely get sufficient funds to actually commercialise the things they invent.

No

[Quick Reply]

No they are not patent trolls. They innovate as their primary purpose, and do not acquire patents from other organisations so they can collect royalties or litigate.

Would you call Stanford University a patent troll?

[level380]

Based on this any research University or Organisation around the world would become a patent troll unless they start to use the 'research' aka patents they created. Let me spell it out for you, CSIRO stands for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation..... Its a Research Organisation that is funded partly by the Australian Govement and partly by the income it gains from patents it created based on its research. This what a Research Organisation do.... it works on new ideas, gets them to a usable stage and sells them on to other companies to use the idea/tech to make money. In return they get a cut of this all done via the patent system. Would slashdot dare call Stanford University or Harvard University a patent troll? Hell no... Poor IT world. CSIRO asked for payment based on companies using there research when all the IT companies tried to steal the idea and play the mob card, ie if no one pays we don't have to! CSIRO is very easy going and licences the work they do at very cheap prices, its not like they asked a over the top amount. Any money they do gain is feed back into future research projects and isn't paid out to shareholders or fat CEO's!

Sigh...

[bertok]

If the article heading is a question, then the answer is automatically...

NO.

Submit articles with real reporting please, the type that presents facts, instead of asking questions.

Re:Sigh...

[ignavus]

Exactly. THEY invent the process. THEY license it. They do not buy up moribund (and often obvious) patents from other organisations and litigate as their main business.

An organisation that invents non-trivial things, and patents its own inventions, and only litigates against unlicensed use of its own patented inventions, is not a troll.

An organisation that buys up old patents for the purpose of litigating against alleged unlicensed users, without inventing the patented inventions itself, is a troll.

FFS - when will you jerks listen

[Anonymous Coward]

CSIRO have had this in the courts for years. All of these companies ignored the lawsuit and their own peril.
If you want to call a patent troll someone who says "This is a new invention. I'm taking you to court for taking my patent and using it without paying me, even though i've told you that you must pay for it", then yeah, they're a patent troll.

How about you suck my ball sack for repeating an argument you've already been slapped for.

CSIRO is anything but a patent troll. Period.

AC

Prior art vs Trolls?

[thogard]

They won only because none of the groups they sued in Taxas presented proper prior art like the stuff Wilcox or Motorola had. It was a nice win for a research group but it was based on a patent that should have never been issued and courts that didn't see that as the case. So this still comes down to the bad US patent system and the ability to troll that system.

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[crutchy]

many patents shouldn't have been issued, and if you did your homework you would realize that there is more in wifi tech than what wilcox and motorola have contributed. the difference between a lot of companies with patents and the csiro is that csiro actually invents things, rather that buying up patents like any commodity (hence they don't need to rip off motorola to make money from innovation).

CSIRO has been inventing things since before Motorola was even founded

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[thogard]

CSIRO's predecessor was only around for about two years before Motorola sold their first car radio. CSIRO's goals at the time was to explain how to improve farm yields while preserving food and were doing work like the US Dept of Agriculture did at the time which was mostly trying to keep a US dust bowl type situation from happening in Australia.

CSIRO's contribution to wifi is very minimal and happens to have been used by others before they patented it.

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can patent anything. The crunch time is having a big, unlimited war chest to defend things when big company comes along and steals / infringes . I am amazed a third world country like Australia, and CSIRO actually could cobble together the dollars to take on the rip-off artists. There are many other stolen ideas that CSIRO cant afford to prosecute - because get this - in the USA patents USA can claimthe patent is 'obscure' wiping out prior art from shithead countries like Japan and China, and even Australia, all designed to give home ground advantage to you know who.

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[Dantoo]

"third world country like Australia"

fug.......................

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free, and the home of the self-absorbed.

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[crutchy]

CSIRO's contribution to wifi is very minimal

minimal, but still greater than none. what company invents a completely new technology without standing on the shoulders of those that came before them? most innovation nowadays is incremental, but that doesn't mean that incremental innovation isn't patentable

happens to have been used by others before they patented it

got any examples you would like to share?

Re:Prior art vs Trolls?

[crutchy]

csiro is really full of kangaroos that invented a patented wifi technology, and everyone knows that you don't dare take on the kangaroos (they kick, hard). america can fire its nukes and tanks and delta force jarheads can swear and stream tough-guy abuse at them, but the kangaroos will just keep kicking. they are nuclear, tank and jarhead-proof don't you know

the real question is, what would a "third-world country" like Australia wan't with anything to do with wi-fi? don't they use didgeridoos for communication? do they even have computers in australia? how the hell could they even know what a patent is let alone successfully apply for one, and, in the UNITED STATES OF AWESOMENESS, no less! someone should lock up those convicts before they drag us all back to the stone age.

I thought it was just Australia's payola

[Anonymous Coward]

for ongoing support of the Intellectual Property regime.
It is a little too convenient, a little like Lady Di's death, that Australia gets this huge payment and associated publicity for a government owned institution. Without it the Australian public may have questioned whether Intellectual property was actually in the public interest.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

No

[theweatherelectric]

If CSIRO is a patent troll then so is every major university. Stanford University's Office of Technology Licensing, for example, exists to generate income through the licencing of Stanford developed technologies which they then invest back into research and education. CSIRO similarly invests its income back into research and the Science and Industry Endowment Fund. The idea that research organisations are patent trolls and shouldn't be allowed to licence their inventions to others in order to maintain their focus on research is both farcical and intellectually bankrupt. Joe Mullin's jingoistic and, frankly, pathetically insular article isn't worth a second reading.

Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the research they do to improve things without aiming for profit. They reinvest to develop further research. Not a commercial entity.

No.

[shione]

If they were truely patent trolls then they wouldn't do their own r&d, nor would they ask for a measly $220 million in total from a number of organisation. Considering how much these organisations make from using WLAN $220 million is a drop in the ocean.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't invent WLAN. They patented it. They have no right to expect money from others for something that a group of other companies created independently of CSIRO.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't patent WLAN either. They developed and patented the solution to a problem with a part of WLAN.

Stop blaming the CSIRO for terrible journalism.

Please use international units of measurement

[PolygamousRanchKid]

1 "bag of arse" = How many "Library of Congresses" . . . ?

Re:Please use international units of measurement

[alfoolio]

1 "bag of arse" = How many "Library of Congresses" . . . ?

You've unintentionally crossed measurements sir, the international metrics are confusing. To clarify:

1 "bag of arse" = 0.25 "Member of Congress"

Hope that helps.

Not this crap again...

[lendude]

This exact topic has already been extensively covered here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/05/2131233/the-story-behind-australias-csiro-wi-fi-claims

and here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/01/2011245/australian-wifi-inventors-win-us-legal-battle

and even here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/01/2258221/csiro-sues-us-carriers-over-wi-fi-patent

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[PolygamousRanchKid]

It's really a shame that research organizations are now forced to fund themselves. They have no other choice other than to create commercially viable technologies in order to justify their existence.

Imagine a world where pure research organizations could pursue long term ideas, and give the results of their works for free to the public?

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[martin-boundary]

Based on this any research University or Organisation around the world would become a patent troll unless they start to use the 'research' aka patents they created.

You're misrepresenting the *substantial* difference between research and patent seeking. 'research' is open, it is all about sharing knowledge and promoting the free reuse of discoveries with no strings attached. 'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.

The fact is that the CSIRO is skirting the line, and that can put them very close to patent trolls.

For any true research organisation, that is, if its purpose for existing is research, then patents aren't needed. It's not like the employees do nothing all day, and one day someone hears that patents are worth money, and suddenly everybody does research so they can get the patents. Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.

It's true that patents can supplement income for a research organisation, but again, that's just *one* way of supplementing income and certainly shouldn't be the *main* one. There's grant money, consulting, teaching/seminars etc, even bake sales ;-), all of which don't bring the nasty evilness of patents into the world.

An organisation which only does research and seeks patents from that research exclusively to sell them is IMHO a patent troll. It's a classic case of homesteading the space of ideas for rent money. Just because maybe a "good guy" does it doesn't make it right.

What said organisation ought to be doing if it is going to patent an idea is launching a startup which owns the patent. For example, when Stanford got the patent for PageRank it was used to found a small company to exploit the idea and run with it. If Stanford had just sat on the patent without launching any startups based on it, I would call that patent trolling behaviour. And yes, sometimes Stanford does that too.

The article is propaganda the submiter is trolling

[tg123]

I find this article annoying as the poster is using this article to promote his point of view which is biased and misleading.

The CSIRO is a scientific research organization and as such it can in no way commercialize the technology.

I agree that it was sad that CSIRO have to take companies to court to defend their patents but if these these companies would play by the rules and license the technology then CSIRO would not have to resort to the flawed legal system.

The fact that you do not like the way it uses patents to fund research is neither here nor their it as it is using patent law for it's intended purpose which is different from a person or organization that uses patents purely for litigation.

I would ask the poster that if he is going to submit propaganda that at least he should be truthful and honest about what he is doing.

propaganda [prop-uh-gan-duh] Show IPA noun 1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. .... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

blah

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's bullshit. It's a stupid definition.

CSIRO does the basic R&D, and they license the product of that R&D work (e.g., patents). That is very much the way to "commercialise" the output of this R&D work. This is precisely one of the cases the patent system was designed for, and exactly how they're supposed to work. Whoever made that definition from iTnews has no idea what they're talking about.

A patent troll is typically a shell company with few assets (to help protect them from counter action) and that does nothing except sue. They often prefer to keep their intentions secret and keep patents hidden, and use FUD and threats, and sue weaker companies who don't have the resources to defend it, rather than try to negotiate licensing terms in good faith.

Article is a shill piece

[David Gerard]

Anyone who quotes Florian Mueller as if he were anything other than a shill at this stage of the game is full of it.

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[thegarbz]

Fail to see the point. If the result of research is not commercially viable then what is the point of the research? Only commercially viable research is passed onto consumers within products. Then it entirely depends on the licensing fees to insure it doesn't make something commercially unviable.

Note that CSIRO is not forced to fund itself. But at the same token why should the Australian taxpayer be out of pocket for something which benefits the bottom line of the likes of IBM, Cisco, Netgear etc?

ITnews troll about trolls

[bug1]

If a "news" organisation makes up their own definition in order to provoke argument, or justify their own opinion they are definetly a troll.

CSIRO may or may not be a patentent troll but ITnews definetly posts troll stories.

Re:ITnews troll about trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

No, CSIRO may not be a "patentent troll", nor even a patent troll.

But they do commercialise it

[baileydau]

But they do commercialise it. They aren't a "build it"organisation, they're an "invent it" organisation. They commercialise their inventions by licensing them to others who have the ability / desire to build it. That's a valid option.

Just because you've invented something it may only be one piece of the puzzle. The wifi thing they did was a bit like that. It makes the current state of the art much better / useful, but it isn't a stand alone thing.

From a societal point of view, having groups do research like this is a 'Good Thing' (TM). Solve a niggling problem and license it at a reasonable rate.

A troll on the other hand would buy some patents from the real inventor and hunt around for something that looks vaguely similar that had been going on for years and shake them down.

If you're genuine about your patent you'd try to license it ASAP, not wait till they are painted into a corner and can't change technology.

Re:But they do commercialise it

[the eric conspiracy]

Licensing to others is nice BUT there are still big problems with allowing a non-practicing entity to sue.

1. A non-practicing entity cannot be counter-sued. This distorts the legal system in favor of the party doing the suing. This is the primary evil associated with patent trolling.

Even worse is the case where it is a governmental entity that is doing the suing. If I were the host nation for such a suit I'd be pissed at the country engaging in such extraterritorial behavior by the government of another nation. If the US were going around and suing people for violating patents on the internet you can bet we'd be hearing screams of bloody murder about it.

2. How can you award damages to a party that doesn't practice the invention? It seems to me any reasonable logic would dictate such damages to be $0.00. This is one of the legal issues that makes it difficult for non practicing entities to get injunctive relief. The fiction of large monetary damages awarded to a non-practicing entity is a distortion of justice.

It is these two points that patent trolls depend on to make their money. You may argue whether organizations like CSIRO should be called patent trolls, but the fact is that they are using the same legal inequities that enable patent trolls to generate questionable profits.

Perhaps if it walks like a duck we should consider calling it a duck.

 

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Patents are needed to fund them. Research universities guard their IP as if their lives depended on it. That's not patent trolling, you moron, it's using patents as they were meant to be used, i.e., to fund R&D.

Australia-bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

... research organization CSIRO could come under that definition.

As will other research organisations around the world. This is the rich excusing Australia-bashing, in a supposedly Australian magazine.

CSIRO attempted to license its wifi patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to the CSIRO lawsuit, CSIRO actively attempted to license its wifi patents. See http://www.ipo.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4600

When the big multinationals refused to pay patent fees, CSIRO opted to defend its intellectual property rights. That's what the patent system is for. If defending intellectual property rights is considered trolling, then why have IP rights?

Does research VS. Applying for patent

[Anonymous Coward]

So yes, CSIRO propably does some really hard non-trivial research, I wouldn't know...

But where is the line between doing actual non-trival research (not troll), and just applying for as many trivial patents as possible (obvious troll).

can you blame them

[Anonymous Coward]

with the dubious patents that make it through the office and charge all kinds of money for incredibly simple design ideas one (yes government funded) research centre says "YOU WANT FUCKING FIRE."

psychologists call it projection

[nadaou]

no, they're not trolls. but this story is.

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[Dr_Barnowl]

The point is that it's difficult to predict the relevance of a given technology. If you have a mandate to only explore "commercially viable" science, that means only exploring stuff that boring suits think might generate a bottom line. But people are terrible at predicting what will be useful and what won't.

Ultimately, yes, I agree, pie-in-the-sky science projects can irritate me, but making all science "commercially viable" is inevitably going to reduce the amount of science that actually produces results useful in the technical arts.

It was commercialised

[femto]

By a company called Radiata, bought by Cisco in 2000. Radiata was a spin off from a Macquarie University/CSIRO research collaboration, founded by the research leaders at Macquarie University (Skellern and Weste). Here's a picture of the MU/CSIRO protype, taken around 1996. I know this because I (and 3 others) designed and built the pictured prototype.

Re:It was commercialised

[HuguesT]

Hello John,

Thanks for this. I do remember the Radiata days, even though I was not involved myself. I was at CSIRO Maths & Stats at the time, later CMIS, at MU. it was big news when CISCO bought it. I'm surprised that CSIRO retained the IP rights over that design.

I'm not surprised that CSIRO sued and I'm happy they won, but long term I really don' t know whether this will be good or not for the organization. How much time and effort was spent in that litigation ? will the money return to basic science ? Will this means even less appropriation down the track ?

I have mod points...

[dontclapthrowmoney]

...but I couldn't see where I could mod the submission as "troll"?

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[Anonymous Coward]

You're misrepresenting the *substantial* difference between research and patent seeking. 'research' is open, it is all about sharing knowledge and promoting the free reuse of discoveries with no strings attached. 'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.

I have disagree with you there: Patents are extremely open. To be granted one (and have it remain valid through all the court cases) you have to publish the detail of what your invention does and how it does it, to the point were anyone else skilled in the art could go and implement your invention. It doesn't have to be commercially viable -- infact most patents aren't viable.

Patents doesn't even stop other people extending your work.

This is in contrast to a Trade Secret which is ... well .... secret. Trade Secrets can involve all the same information that a patent does (among other things) but by definition are not published and probably won't be made public at anytime.

Patents guarentee that the knowledge documented in them will eventualy move into the public domain.

The fact is that the CSIRO is skirting the line, and that can put them very close to patent trolls.

How so? CSIRO did some research, got a patent. They even span off a company to try and commercialise it. A standards body asked to use the patent for free -- CSIRO said 'no'. The standards body then asked if they could use it for a small fee and CSIRO said 'yes'. After the standard had been ratified and people started making money from CSIRO's invention they came back and said "about that money you said you'd pay us .... where is it?"

That is in no way troll-ish. They were open and up-front that they had the patent and they even agreed to license it.

For any true research organisation, that is, if its purpose for existing is research, then patents aren't needed. It's not like the employees do nothing all day, and one day someone hears that patents are worth money, and suddenly everybody does research so they can get the patents. Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.

They do if they see a worthwhile idea. Infact I'd say any University that didn't file for patents would be doing a massive disservice to their students.

....

What said organisation ought to be doing if it is going to patent an idea is launching a startup which owns the patent.
For example, when Stanford got the patent for PageRank it was used to found a small company to exploit the idea and run with it. If Stanford had just sat on the patent without launching any startups based on it, I would call that patent trolling behaviour. And yes, sometimes Stanford does that too.

CSIRO did spin off a company to commercialise the patent. They company didn't do as well as they'd hoped though.

Re:The article is propaganda the submiter is troll

[whitesea]

You don't understand. The submitter hit on a genius formula to get published on Slashdot. 1. Make up a bogus definition. 2. Use this definition to make an outrageous statement. 3. Profit!

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[thegarbz]

True but you still get side spin-offs. As in this case. The way of eliminating interference in WiFi was not discovered because they were trying to solve a WiFi problem, but rather trying to figure out visual problems in space telescope optics. Just because you chase one commercially viable target doesn't mean you can't hit another.

But I do get what you're saying.

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[doktorjayd]

that means only exploring stuff that boring suits think might generate a bottom line.

even worse, it means exploring stuff that suits think will generate the highest amount, leaving us with an intellectual monoculture.

i understand the csiro has already re-invested into further wireless research as a result of this, but i also hope they're able to spread it around the organisation, even some pie-in-the-sky stuff ( the original wifi patent came about as a result of some radiotelescope research... hows that for pie in the sky? :) )

Patent or copyright?

[k(wi)r(kipedia)]

Are copyrights really that different from patents? What about copyright that involves adaptations of, among other things, literary works. A Hollywood studio might spend millions to buy the "rights" to a successful novel, and yet the movie version will have only the basic plot in common with the novel. So is the plot of a story covered by a patent, since after all, it's a mere "idea" that finds its "specific implementation" either as the movie or as the novel on which the movie is supposedly based on?

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[Theaetetus]

Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.

This may be true for your local community college, but it's not true for any university with an engineering or science program. Harvard, MIT, USC, Standford, Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech, Cornell, etc. I know, because I'm a patent attorney and have dealt with many of them and seen patents from the others.

Short Answer

[Nom du Keyboard]

Yes!

Next Step...

[pubwvj]

First step, identify the problem: Trolls
Second step, kill the trolls!

sour grapes

[pbjones]

they have contributed by developing a technology, the details of which are given in a patent and which people can licence. It saves others time and effort to achieve the same result.

CSIRO a patent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the money went to where it was meant to go doesnt mean the patent has to be used. So stop sooking.

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that CSIRO is not forced to fund itself.

Where do you get that idea? 60% of the staff in my area at CSIRO are externally funded. Including me.

fail

[Anonymous Coward]

came back to slashdot after long sojourn, thinking it must have improved. found this post. absolute fail. csiro is not a troll, so obvious to anyone with half a brain. fail slashdot... i wont be commign back again.

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[bill_mcgonigle]

'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.

Right. IIRC CISRO had done some basic research on wireless networks a while ago, and that didn't get commercialized. When other companies did seek to commercialize wireless, they re-invented the same things and CISRO came after them, getting injunctions and such.

That's not the purpose of the patent system (theoretically, once upon a time, etc.).

How is this different from Stanford University...

[Snorbert Xangox]

...holding patents on:
- FM Synthesis (John Chowning at CCRMA)
- PageRank (a certain Larry Page and Sergei Brin)

Yamaha licensed the FM synthesis patents, and later waveguide synthesis patents, that stemmed from work at CCRMA, part of Stanford.
Google holds an exclusive license to the PageRank patent.

Stanford certainly doesn't sell musical instruments or search engine services, so does that make them patent trolls? Maybe Stanford hasn't ever had to sue any other companies to enforce their rights on these patents, but that could simply be down to people knowing not to mess with an institution backed by that kind of intellectual and financial firepower. Having made considerable profit from these patents, do you think it likely that Stanford would lie down and let some company use these patents without licensing them?

Re:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro

[demonrob]

could you be more wrong?

patent troll dilemma

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I recognize the inefficiency problem that the patent troll business model creates within the economy, nevertheless the NPE model is profitable, effective, and a legal exercise of IP rights. The problem is a systemic one; when NPEs win, on average, two to three times the damage awards that practicing entities reap from patent litigation, you can't blame them for suing as much as possible.