CSIRO Reinvests Patent Earnings 86
ozmanjusri writes with an update to a story we discussed a few days ago about a $200 million patent victory by CSIRO, Australia's governmental science research body. The organization has now turned around and reinvested $150 million of the proceeds into the science and industry endowment fund, which has already established three grants: "$12 million for two wireless research projects and $7.5 million for up to 120 fellowships and scholarships." CSIRO boss Megan Clark said, "It's very important that when you have a success like this, you reinvest it back into the wellspring. It's really about supporting areas that might need a helping hand in some of the frontier areas and research that actually tackles the national challenges."
and here in USA... (Score:5, Insightful)
When a patent victory comes, it goes straight out as executive pay bonus.
Re:Just another tax (Score:4, Insightful)
If by government you mean "research organisation" and by "tax" you mean "earn money on" and "industry" you mean "use of their inventions", then yes, absolutely.
Re:too bad the proceeds came from stifling progres (Score:5, Insightful)
How does a $200m settlement, for several years of use of the technology, spread over an industry which earns billions per year, stifle progress? The wireless industry's probably been hit harder by the increase in the price of ketchup for the staff canteen.
Re:too bad the proceeds came from stifling progres (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the companies shouldn't have tried to weasel out of paying royalties then.
What were the alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
What else were they supposed to do with the money? It's not like they have shareholders to support.
Re:too bad the proceeds came from stifling progres (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just ridiculous - you clearly have no idea about this particular case.
The research for which this patent was granted was THE thing that made modern wireless networking possible. It took radio data transfer from kilobits per second (where it had languished for some time) to a hundred megabits per second. At a time when you were using a 14k modem if you were lucky.
And secondly, while software patents in the USA may be commonly used to stifle innovation, this technology was the thing that enabled the wifi industry to get started and IN NO WAY stifled anything. They haven't limited what it is used for. Or who uses it. Multiple standards have emerged based on it, all in the full foreknowledge that this was the basis technology. This is no submarine patent - the devices and the standards were based on this - and $200M total is pocket change spread among the multibillion giants of the world technology industry.
Third, it is a patent granted for a short time for technology that will be in use for an extremely long time to come.
This is exactly the kind of technological progress that the patent system was designed to encourage - this is the patent system WORKING the way it was intended.
It is amazing that you can be so grossly wrong in so many ways in such a short comment. I have no idea how that got modded 'insightful'.
Re:and here in USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too bad the proceeds came from stifling progres (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just "THE thing that made modern wireless networking possible", it is modern wireless networking. The patent abstract:
Shit like Ask Geeves was valued at two billion dollars and people are quibbling that fourteen multi-billion-dollar companies have to spend $200m between them? Seriously?
Only 0.31% state-funded (Score:5, Insightful)
a state-funded organisation
An organization funded by the government of Australia doesn't take any tax dollars from US citizens or any tax euros from EU-member citizens. So CSIRO is "a state-funded organization" to only 0.31 percent of the world population.
Re:and here in USA... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not to speak for others, but I for one value opportunities over outcomes. It's none of the government's business what "the pay of top executives and already wealthy" is. The freedom to do as one chooses with one's own wealth is so much more important than the equitable distribution of wealth.
Re:Research, patent, troll; repeat as desired (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting royalties on a patent does not make you a patent troll. Buying up patents you didn't invent just to make money off them IS. (There is NO "research, patent, troll" cycle, only a "buy/write trivial patent, wait, troll" one.)
The CSIRO spent money developing the technology in the patents. They're reinvesting the royalties (which are a fucking PITTANCE) back into new research. That's the very opposite of being a patent troll.
Re:and here in USA... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't normally reply to ACs, but this one demands it.
It's one thing to say it's no business of the government to say how much someone in the private sector gets paid. It's quite another thing when those same private businesses are being propped up by taxpayer monies because those executives making millions of dollars in pay and bonuses all but bankrupted those businesses.
Then it becomes the government's business because they're the one footing the bill to keep those businesses afloat.
Once those businesses pay back all the money they got, then the executives can resume getting their big bucks. Until then, their pay should be restricted.
If the executives don't like having their pay scrutinized, then they shouldn't have come hat-in-hand begging to be bailed out.
Re:What were the alternatives? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bureaucrat doesn't have constituents, they just work for a government department. Essentially they just suck up to their bosses in the same way as we do in the private sector.
Re:and here in USA... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about put it in the friggin' bank so we don't have to use taxpayer money to bail you out when there's a bust in the market that you're gambling in?
Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)
All I can say is good for them. They developed a core piece of technology and have re-invested for the future. As another poster already mentioned, this is the way the patent system should work. Now, if only the damn patent trolls would wake up, stop their frivolous lawsuits and coercion tactics and actually invent something instead of profiteering off of other companies investments by buying up patents, we would be getting somewhere. Unfortunately, the current patent environment in the US won't let this happen.
Re:and here in USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's one thing to say it's no business of the government to say how much someone in the private sector gets paid. It's quite another thing when those same private businesses are being propped up by taxpayer monies because those executives making millions of dollars in pay and bonuses all but bankrupted those businesses.
I still think it's no business of government. The key problem is that it's easy to taint any private endeavor with public funds. Just make it so that you are required to accept them as part of the provision for doing the activity that you desire (nuclear power, banking, employing people, etc). Once government has that "in", then by your logic, they can screw with the business as much as desired in the name of protecting the "investment" of public funds.
A better solution is simply to treat the federal government as you would any other party. That means, if the money doesn't go the way the government claims to have wanted (but didn't bother to stipulate), then the government is out of that money, without recourse, but fair just like everyone else. Sure, it's tough luck for the taxpayers. Maybe they'll keep that in mind next time they vote.
Finally, I'm just mystified what people thought was going to happen? Ever hear of the phrase throwing good money after bad money? Ever wonder what that means?
Re:and here in USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too bad the proceeds came from stifling progres (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why you think that is inherently better?
Given that we're looking at a case where a fresh approach taken by an independent research organisation arrived at an impressive solution that the people "actually designing and making" the devices weren't even beginning to think about I think it's fairly obvious that there is value in external research.
I remember the bad old days of wireless networking where you could eke out a bit more speed by choosing equipment from a single manufacturer that used their own particular proprietary, patented technology to get a speed boost. Personally I'd prefer an external organisation willing to licence that technology to everyone.
Indeed the reason's for CSIRO's existence is to benefit Australians. As an institution funded by Australians that is reasonable. What they are doing is in the interest of Australians.