Add as many names as you can think of - and we'll need something to indicate why this person is relevant and address. A name on its own is useful, but if that person is to receive a copy, someone will have to dig up an address.
Sorry for the silly question, but it's "ready" and it's "announced" and other things, but do any of these mean that it's what's being used today by google.com? If not, is there a date for when it will become the index used for google searches?
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that:-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:
If you read the wiki article, you'll see it's based on plenty of research.
They're called a non-practising entity by Patently-o. That's a generally patent-holder friendly site, and "non-practising entity" is the strictest possible definition of "troll".
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
> How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent?
Yes, that sort of information would be great. If you could explain here, I might see it and add it to the wiki page. Or even better, if you could add something yourself to he wiki page, even a rough draft, then it would be sure to get mentioned.
you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value
I said nothing of the sort. The replies I'm getting in this thread are surreal.
Your end paragraph suggests a dream, wherein each contributor to progress owns their contribution, and the value gets shared fairly among them. That's the promise of the patent lawyers, but it's not the reality. The reality is that a small number of patent holders jam up the system, demanding taxes, demanding licences which aren't compatible with free software, wasting everyone's time with legal messes... The country of origin of these aggressors isn't was makes them a nuisance.
Guess who agrees with this? The Australian government's Venturous Australia report! Now there's some useful public research that's publicly usable:
In this regard, particularly in new areas of patenting such as software and business methods, there is strong evidence that existing intellectual property arrangements are hampering innovation.
And Microsoft actually developed a file format. Do you think Microsoft should have a 20 year monopoly on each file format they invent? Or is the "actually develop" justification limited to CSIRO?
Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article. More welcome.
> why you feel that CSIRO isn't doing research
But this isn't my opinion. I'm sure they are still doing research. (But I sure how they don't develop any more patentable software ideas.)
CSIRO certainly falls outside of the "non-practising entity" category. "Troll" is broader - the border isn't clear, but Microsoft has been accused many times of being a troll. Sure the develop and distribute lots of software, but they also act like a troll that demands a toll to cross a generally useful bridge.
Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?
That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.
Everyone calls them trolls. I'm not sure what your question is. Why "troll"? Well, I guess it's a cultural reference to a bad monster that lives under bridges and demands payment for crossing said bridge.
One related worry I have is that now that they've shown their colours, I hope their future research does produce patentable software ideas that will in turn be used for further litigation. Society can get by just fine without that sort of research. Patent aggression is a nuisance, whether it comes from Microsoft, CSIRO, or Acacia Intellectual Ventures.
There's no comparison. The GPL is a copyright licence. It makes sense to go to court for copyright violation if someone breaches the GPL.
The situation here is that CSIRO signed contracts with tech companies (according to slashdot comments), and these contracts got broken, but now instead of going to court for breach of contract, CSIRO is going to court for patent infringement.
No troll has sued me, and no gunman has shot me, but both exist. By your standard, not only do patent trolls not exist, but patents don't exist since no one's attacked me with one.
They seem to take action only against people who make unlicensed use of the patents they own.
And, how does that differentiate them from any other patent troll?? MPEG-LA does the same, as does Acacia and Blackboard and all the other trolls.
Who would ever promise something like that and why?
Lots of patent holders make promises limiting who they will use their patents agressively against. They do it so that people will work with them and to avoid being branded a troll or a threat. Here's a list: Patent promises. Even Microsoft has made some (very limited) promises.
CSIRO does what patent law WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT FOR - funnel the money back into the research
Nope. Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit. Not to make money for researchers. Sometimes the two goals go together, sometimes they don't. In this case, we have an organisation claiming veto power on anyone wanting to implement wif. That monopoly's probably not in the public's interest.
Essentially, we have no way of ever finding out, unless one of the parties decides to come out and show the contracts to us
Exactly. So, if this is private inter-company horse trading, why is any outsider using these broken agreements to justify CSIRO's patent aggression? For all we know, there's nothing of substance in these agreements.
Usually contract is signed after weighing the patent and its usefulness - not the other way around as you seem to imply
If you read the story, or people's comments here, you'll see that CSIRO seems to have made deals with a bunch of tech companies, then the companies broke the agreement (according to unconfirmed slashdot comments), and *this* act is what justifies CSIRO suing people (again, according to the same slashdot comments).
* Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract?
They are doing this as we discuss the topic, and have been doing it for some time now.
Oh. You're the first to claim this and it's not mentioned in any of the news articles. Got any links to back up this scoop? Everyone else thinks CSIRO is taking people to court over software patent infringement, not breach of contract.
To software developers, CSIRO is an aggressive patent litigator. The karma they earn through their agricultural research doesn't change this.
Maybe we should always specify that "CSIRO's *software department*" acts like a patent troll, but given that the software context is pretty clear here, that doesn't seem necessary.
>/Are you suggesting that the only way someone can legitimately enforce a patent is with a party that has been forewarned?/
No, I'm not suggesting that. However, if CSIRO is going to be painted as a good guy while suing software developers, I'd like to know what narrow limits they're placing on their aggression/retaliation in order to deserve that.
Am I safe? Is Red Hat safe? Are small businesses safe? Are other research institutes safe?
And the question I posted below: if CSIRO's law suits are justified because their business partners broke signed deals (as the original reply claims), why don't they sue for breach of contract instead of software patent infringement?
If they're genuinely good guys, I'll document that too. Do you have any links to back up your story?
Your story could be a true example of software patents being used to prevent mega-corps from abusing their power, but it's exactly the sort of story a PR department would come up with regardless of the truth.
So it comes down to numbers and proofs. Can anyone help me look for documents to answer: * Has CSIRO promised to only sue companies that broke deals with CSIRO? * Does CSIRO has massive royalties to pay? (their law suits are estimated to be worth more than a billion USD, so the royalties owed would have to be of this magnitude to justify continued enforcement) * Where are the agreements that these companies signed with CSIRO? * Which companies signed the contracts? * Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract??
That sort of info would be great to document. Thanks.
Are you saying they're only suing people with whom they previously signed a contract?
If that's true, then you have a good point. Can you pass me any links so that I can update the swpat.org page?
Otherwise, it looks like a research group, that indeed makes stuff, but has now realised that suing people is a better business than research. That might fail the "non-practising entity" definition that you quoted, but I don't think it fails the broader "troll" definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's some articles swpat.org has on these topics - but only on the software patent aspects:
Discussion over whether X company is right to defend their revenue stream etc. etc. would be outside the scope.
Someone's suggested mailing copies of Patent Absurdity to patent policy setters in NZ. They've started building a list here:
Add as many names as you can think of - and we'll need something to indicate why this person is relevant and address. A name on its own is useful, but if that person is to receive a copy, someone will have to dig up an address.
Sorry for the silly question, but it's "ready" and it's "announced" and other things, but do any of these mean that it's what's being used today by google.com? If not, is there a date for when it will become the index used for google searches?
Ok, but waiting (and working) years for a single patent to be reviewed, and then only a portion gets invalidated?
I know it's better than nothing, but crumbs are crumbs.
Carp. That should read "useless". My subconscious is just so positive.
If this gets granted, the 1-click example shows that even if it's invalid, the review process is sometimes completely useful because takes so many years and often just results in narrowing the patent.
Heh, "we". Who are you? A top executive in the MPAA? Major share holder in Big Pharma?
Otherwise, you're not in the "we". Whether you're in the USA or not, you're at the other end of the stick.
They focus on medicine, which is indeed a subject of massive importance, but I hope they'll also fix the DRM and software patent problems. Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO, but I don't have info on that :-/ I do have info on ACTA and software patents:
FWIW
If you read the wiki article, you'll see it's based on plenty of research.
They're called a non-practising entity by Patently-o. That's a generally patent-holder friendly site, and "non-practising entity" is the strictest possible definition of "troll".
In this thread, I'm getting a whole load of baseless accusations, and a tonne of "Oh no they're not", but I'm just looking for the reason why *this* non-practising entity is a "good guy" when other non-practising entities are trolls?
Can anyone help draw that line?
Thanks for the links, I've added them all to the article.
> All the research CSIRO does is for the public's benefit.
Ah, yeh, so that's why anyone using that research has to ask permission, negotiate terms, and pay (if permission is granted)?
Contrast: the world wide web. No patents, massive advance, no one complaining about not getting their fair share. That's public benefit.
> How about the knowledge that this is not a software patent?
Yes, that sort of information would be great. If you could explain here, I might see it and add it to the wiki page. Or even better, if you could add something yourself to he wiki page, even a rough draft, then it would be sure to get mentioned.
I said nothing of the sort. The replies I'm getting in this thread are surreal.
Your end paragraph suggests a dream, wherein each contributor to progress owns their contribution, and the value gets shared fairly among them. That's the promise of the patent lawyers, but it's not the reality. The reality is that a small number of patent holders jam up the system, demanding taxes, demanding licences which aren't compatible with free software, wasting everyone's time with legal messes... The country of origin of these aggressors isn't was makes them a nuisance.
Guess who agrees with this? The Australian government's Venturous Australia report! Now there's some useful public research that's publicly usable:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Venturous_Australia
And Microsoft actually developed a file format. Do you think Microsoft should have a 20 year monopoly on each file format they invent? Or is the "actually develop" justification limited to CSIRO?
Thanks for the link. I've added it to the article. More welcome.
> why you feel that CSIRO isn't doing research
But this isn't my opinion. I'm sure they are still doing research. (But I sure how they don't develop any more patentable software ideas.)
CSIRO certainly falls outside of the "non-practising entity" category. "Troll" is broader - the border isn't clear, but Microsoft has been accused many times of being a troll. Sure the develop and distribute lots of software, but they also act like a troll that demands a toll to cross a generally useful bridge.
That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.
Everyone calls them trolls. I'm not sure what your question is. Why "troll"? Well, I guess it's a cultural reference to a bad monster that lives under bridges and demands payment for crossing said bridge.
> So you think they have stopped doing research?
Nope. I'm sure they'll continue with research.
One related worry I have is that now that they've shown their colours, I hope their future research does produce patentable software ideas that will in turn be used for further litigation. Society can get by just fine without that sort of research. Patent aggression is a nuisance, whether it comes from Microsoft, CSIRO, or Acacia Intellectual Ventures.
There's no comparison. The GPL is a copyright licence. It makes sense to go to court for copyright violation if someone breaches the GPL.
The situation here is that CSIRO signed contracts with tech companies (according to slashdot comments), and these contracts got broken, but now instead of going to court for breach of contract, CSIRO is going to court for patent infringement.
No troll has sued me, and no gunman has shot me, but both exist. By your standard, not only do patent trolls not exist, but patents don't exist since no one's attacked me with one.
And, how does that differentiate them from any other patent troll?? MPEG-LA does the same, as does Acacia and Blackboard and all the other trolls.
I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Lots of patent holders make promises limiting who they will use their patents agressively against. They do it so that people will work with them and to avoid being branded a troll or a threat. Here's a list: Patent promises. Even Microsoft has made some (very limited) promises.
Nope. Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit. Not to make money for researchers. Sometimes the two goals go together, sometimes they don't. In this case, we have an organisation claiming veto power on anyone wanting to implement wif. That monopoly's probably not in the public's interest.
Exactly. So, if this is private inter-company horse trading, why is any outsider using these broken agreements to justify CSIRO's patent aggression? For all we know, there's nothing of substance in these agreements.
If you read the story, or people's comments here, you'll see that CSIRO seems to have made deals with a bunch of tech companies, then the companies broke the agreement (according to unconfirmed slashdot comments), and *this* act is what justifies CSIRO suing people (again, according to the same slashdot comments).
Oh. You're the first to claim this and it's not mentioned in any of the news articles. Got any links to back up this scoop? Everyone else thinks CSIRO is taking people to court over software patent infringement, not breach of contract.
To software developers, CSIRO is an aggressive patent litigator. The karma they earn through their agricultural research doesn't change this.
Maybe we should always specify that "CSIRO's *software department*" acts like a patent troll, but given that the software context is pretty clear here, that doesn't seem necessary.
> /Are you suggesting that the only way someone can legitimately enforce a patent is with a party that has been forewarned?/
No, I'm not suggesting that. However, if CSIRO is going to be painted as a good guy while suing software developers, I'd like to know what narrow limits they're placing on their aggression/retaliation in order to deserve that.
Am I safe? Is Red Hat safe? Are small businesses safe? Are other research institutes safe?
And the question I posted below: if CSIRO's law suits are justified because their business partners broke signed deals (as the original reply claims), why don't they sue for breach of contract instead of software patent infringement?
If they're genuinely good guys, I'll document that too. Do you have any links to back up your story?
Your story could be a true example of software patents being used to prevent mega-corps from abusing their power, but it's exactly the sort of story a PR department would come up with regardless of the truth.
So it comes down to numbers and proofs. Can anyone help me look for documents to answer:
* Has CSIRO promised to only sue companies that broke deals with CSIRO?
* Does CSIRO has massive royalties to pay? (their law suits are estimated to be worth more than a billion USD, so the royalties owed would have to be of this magnitude to justify continued enforcement)
* Where are the agreements that these companies signed with CSIRO?
* Which companies signed the contracts?
* Why can't CSIRO take them to court for breach of contract??
That sort of info would be great to document. Thanks.
Are you saying they're only suing people with whom they previously signed a contract?
If that's true, then you have a good point. Can you pass me any links so that I can update the swpat.org page?
Otherwise, it looks like a research group, that indeed makes stuff, but has now realised that suing people is a better business than research. That might fail the "non-practising entity" definition that you quoted, but I don't think it fails the broader "troll" definition.