CSIRO Settles With Tech Giants Over WiFi Patent Spat

Combat Wombat brings news that the legal battle between the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO) and a host of major tech corporations has come to end, with a large settlement going to the CSIRO. The fight was over a patent on wireless LAN technology, which already earned the CSIRO a victory in court over Buffalo Technology and a settlement with Hewlett-Packard. The remaining 13 companies, which include Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Nintendo, have now chosen to settle as well. "[The CSIRO] will use the money won from a Wi-Fi technology patent battle to fund further research. ... It is unclear how much money has flowed to the CSIRO, but experts say the technology would be worth billions of dollars if royalties were paid on an ongoing basis."

Re:Just because...

[Option1]

CSIRO is funded by the Australian taxpayer and is fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries. Neil

Re:Patent Laws

[Idiot with a gun]

Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.

On a more calm note. I understand your point. But I feel that by allowing companies to patent technology they never implemented, or even pursued, we do more damage via patent trolls; than the damage we would do by disallowing companies to patent unused research.

Re:Patent Laws

[Alpha232]

Take this example: You come up with this fantastic way sending data through sewer pipes. You patent it because it's a really unique and inovative idea and since almost everyone has sewer pipes it means you have a huge potential market. Next you try to market it to Big Company[A-C], they turn you down because they see the market potential but think they can save money building their own then paying to license from you. You now have an idea that you have tried to market but can't. Finally Company A comes along with their own version of your idea using your process but you don't get a dime. All because they are big and took your idea and made it their own.

Re:Patent Laws

[YayaY]

I feel you pain. The point of having patent is to incite company to publicize their research. Worst, if those "research troll" would not patent their discoveries, their discoveries would be probably forgotten. Maybe the real problem is that patent are valid for such a long period of time.

Re:Patent Laws

[Burkin]

Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.

Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?

Re:Patent Laws

[Sockatume]

If they'd followed due dilligence and gone to the CSIRO and licenced the technology, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the CSIRO deserved patent royalties for this technology that they "never implemented". You feel that the CSIRO is not obliged to royalties for this discovery because of the mistaken perception that they've just dreamed up this patent dispute as a way of extracting cash from companies which happen to accidentally cross onto their IP turf. That's usually the case with patent trolls, but this isn't a patent troll. They invented it, at their expense, and they were ripped off.

Buffalo Tech

[DomNF15]

All kidding aside, I really wish they would improve the entire patent system/process. Anyone that's familiar with Buffalo's wireless routers knows their products got pulled from shelves for months due to patent litigation. Yes, it hurts Buffalo, but it also hurts their customers. Is it really necessary to pull products off shelves while the litigation is going on? In the end, if the company is found not to be infringing, then business continues as usual. If it is infringing, then it pays some royalty based on number of infringing units sold. That sounds like a good way to make everyone happy without pulling products off shelves and destroying free market competition.

Re:Patent Laws

[Jimmy_B]

If they'd followed due diligence...

Actually, the way the patent system works is kind of perverse. No one ever looks for patents they might infringe on, because if you find one, then it becomes "willful infringement" and you could end up owing triple damages. And patents are so badly written, that if you're doing anything interesting there's probably a dozen overbroad, ambiguous patents that you could be infringing, but can't tell without spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to find out, and which wouldn't hold up in court anyways.

Slashdot Hypocrisy

[QuantumFlux]

If this were a private, for-profit company that was fighting for IP rights, Slashdotters would be up in arms defending those wanting to use the tech with arguments of Free-as-in-Speech, good-of-humanity, etc. But when it's a non-profit research organization doing exactly the same thing, Slashdotters rush to defend them.

Are the ideals here really about freedom and liberty or just thinly-veiled anti-corporatism?

Re:Patent Laws

[Viridae]

Nope, we (Australian) taxpayers paid for it, and if it has a commercial benefit the CSIRO should get money from it to roll back into the research.

Re:Lesson To Learn

[CRC'99]

The money they make off the licensing goes into paying development costs and further research, otherwise it means that the australian tax payer is out of pocket for the benefit of the rest of the world (the CSIRO is a research institute supported by the Australian Government, not a private for-profit company).

Actually, it's more like the Australian tax payers paying for research that financially benefits US companies like Dell, Intel etc etc etc. After all, they are the ones making the money on this, not the rest of the world.

The patent sucks, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was valid. It was told before the process became the standard and the companies involved agreed to pay for the patent.

If they didn't want to pay and didn't think they had to because the patent sucks, why didn't they fight the patent application?

Because they have their own sucky patents and don't want any sucky patents fought because they'll lose theirs.