CSIRO Sues US Carriers Over Wi-Fi Patent 308
An anonymous reader notes that CSIRO has sued Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile in — wait for it — East Texas District Court. "Australia's peak science body stands to reap more than $1 billion from its lucrative Wi-Fi patent after already netting about $250 million from the world's biggest technology companies, an intellectual property lawyer says. The CSIRO has spent years battling 14 technology giants including Dell, HP, Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo, and Toshiba for royalties and made a major breakthrough in April last year when the companies opted to avoid a jury hearing and settle for an estimated $250 million. Now, the organization is bringing the fight to the top three US mobile carriers in a new suit targeting Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile. It argues they have been selling devices that infringe its patents."
CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Informative)
The CSIRO is an independent government-owned technology research body - a bit like (say) NASA is in the US.
The money isn't lining the pockets of some uber-squillionaire with a Lear jet, it will be funding a very worthwhile agency that can churn out even better research.
Yeah, I would like it to be free too, but at least it is going to one of the more worthy technological causes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you're adorable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they should have said "possibly marginally less corrupt quango". (Let's face it, you can't vote out a corporate board of directors but you can vote out a quango's paymaster.)
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the world sees their government and its subsidiaries as more answerable than a corporate or multinational.
You can vote out a government, but a corporate monopolist is here to stay - until they get bought out by another one.
I have heard of this organisation before. If it is a choice between corporate pirates or a Quango I will usually try and avoid the corporates. In the UK, we are just about to close a load of quangos that have outstayed their welcome. I imagine that there are many here on /. who would love to close down Microsoft. Too bad. They are not going anytime soon and they are just one of many.
Duverger's law (Score:4, Insightful)
You can vote out a government
Duverger's law is that a plurality election system will converge to two parties. If both parties support a measure, such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, how can one vote out that kind of government?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lucky for you, "parties" don't get elected. Individuals do. And you'll find plenty of politicians from both parties that disagree with their party on plenty of issues...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say it would happen something along the lines of the tea party movement. Get liked by one side of the MSM more than the existing party representing that media. In this case, FOX, tired of the Republicans hewing too close to the center, decided to throw in their lot with the tea party.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that has to be the silliest statement, The Tea Party was a fabrication of News Corp via Fox News. It was nothing more that a short term publicity show to create an illusion of a grass roots movement that was intended to be folded back into the lobbyist controlled Republican party. It was a Rupert Murdoch response to the power of the internet to alter the political status quo and to drive actual real publicly motivated policies.
The Tea Party is a mass media sham, well at least that was the intention,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose that's true. But a corporation is actually independent. Whereas a quango, like NASA, just does what they are told by their leash holders.
But it doesn't work like that in Australia. For a start the independent government-owned (but increasingly partially self-funding, for which see CSIROs patents), organisations are corporations (statutory corporations), and exhibit a large measure of independence from government. For instance the ABC (the public broadcaster) is the only news service that will
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...independent government-owned..
Oh, you're adorable.
Yes, independent and government owned, you find that difficult to grok? Is the simplistic ideology you use to filter reality getting in your way of your understanding? Time to drop it and develop a less B&W view of the role of government. It will only make you wiser.
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why are they in East Texas District Court of all places?
If you don't want to be labeled a troll, don't act like one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because an act is normally taken by a patent troll, doesn't mean that acting in that way makes you a patent troll. If you are undertaking legal action, the smart thing to do, regardless of the merits of the case, is to do whatever you can to maximise the likelihood of success.
For patent infringement cases in the US, that means filing in the East Texas District Court.
If you're looking to recoup a few billion dollars, and taking a particular action gives you an extra 10% (for example) chance of winning,
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Informative)
heya,
Mate, as an Australian, I have to say the CSIRO is one of the more respected bodies here. They're government funded (meaning we taxpayers fund them), but they are completely independent and they churn out some damn good research - sure, a lot of it's probably agriculture-oriented, but not all, as this shows.
To accuse them of being a patent troll is patently (pun intended :p) ridiculous.
Firstly, they're not a patent-house - they're a research institute, that does government-funded research. It'd be like accusing NASA, or DARPA, or say the NIH of being a patent troll. Here's a story of the NIH suing a pharmaceutical giant over missing royalties for an AIDS drug:
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html [nature.com]
I don't exactly see Slashdotters up in arms accusing the NIH of being a patent troll. Is this some kind of weird US-centric bias?
Secondly, they happened to pick a place that favours people litigating on patents - what's the big deal? You'd expect them to pick a place that disfavoured patent holders? Please, why would they intentionally sabotage their case like that, it makes absolutely no sense at all - you can take your pick of any of the 50 US states, and you happen to pick one that doesn't like patent holders? Don't be silly. They obviously have lawyers with half a brain, and they happened to pick the right state. I think
Cheers,
Victor
Why they're called a troll (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Why they're called a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
To software developers, CSIRO is an aggressive patent litigator.
I've never been sued by the CSIRO, have you?
They seem to take action only against people who make unlicensed use of the patents they own. No trolling there. Why should CSIRO not be paid for what they develop?
Re:Why they're called a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
how does that differentiate them from any other patent troll
If people actually develop new patentable technology how does enforcing their legal rights over that make them a patent troll? Even if they don't develop, but only acquire a valid patent, how does suing for that make them a troll?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's the entire business model of Acacia [swpat.org] and Intellectual Ventures [swpat.org]. 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.
Re:Why they're called a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the entire business model of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures. These are the quintessential patent trolls.
My understanding of a patent troll, which seems to be the definition being used in regard to a NPE on the page you cited above also, is someone who floats an idea and lodges a patent which is invalid by reason of their having not specified an actual method or design by which that idea is to be realised.
Remember what a patent actually is. It is an agreement to publish to the world a method for realising some original invention. If a third party cannot from the patent reproduce the invention, it's obviously not a patent, yes?
CSIRO developed actual working hardware. It specified the design to such an extent that 3rd parties have misappropriated their work and are illegally (facially) making money out of this misapproriation. You are perhaps using this design right now. It's real, it's an original invention, it is most certainly not a troll.
by defintio
As an Australian taxpayer, I find it objectionable that you think I should donate my money to foreign private corporations only to have to buy back what I paid to develop. We invested millions of dollars in this and we would like the return for our investment, thank you very much.
Oh and as far as patents existing, I definitely know they do, because I had a patent (which is was a troll by a looser definition) hanging over the work I did. We were told "you develop that and see what we do." We called their bluff. It was a bullshit patent. That might give some context to "I haven't been sued [or even threatened] by the CSIRO," which was in any case a quip leading into my actual point that they only sue on valid patents they rightfully own. Your logical analysis was supercilious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The conventional definition of patent troll is definitely a body who 'develops' some obvious piece of technology, but never commercializes or publicizes it, instead waiting and hoping for some other group to do the obvious thing, and then to have to pay them big money for having done nothing.
The key element of the trolling problem is that the invention is obvious, but got through the patenting process because the patent office is overwhelmed and incompetent. The supposed 'invention' is being invented over
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key element of the trolling problem is that the invention is obvious, but got through the patenting process because the patent office is overwhelmed and incompetent.
Yes "originality" as I expressed it is more correctly described as a "non-obvious improvement." In any case the patent would still be invalid (if tested in court) because it lacks the requisite originality/non-obviousness (how ever you want to put it). So I pretty much covered that.
It's not that the patent office is overwhelmed and incom
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I do believe this patent covers the hardware and software implemented in every 802.11 wireless device.
According to this article the patent was granted in 1996 and the IEEE 802.11a standard was ratified three years later.
http://www.csiro.au/news/CSIRO-honours-wireless-team.html [csiro.au]
The only reason the previous lawsuit settled instead of going to a jury trial is because the coalition of companies being sued knew the gig was up. If they thought they were in the right and were using their own technology then they wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Funny)
[I]f it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Patent trolls love to litigate, so these guys appear to like to litigate...
Ducks breathe. You breathe, therefore you are a duck. Nicely reasoned dude!
Re: (Score:2)
How about "weighs the same as a duck?"
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Because even if you're right you'd be a fool not to sue in the easiest possible court.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "forum shopping", and all litigants with a clue take advantage of it.
Whether your case is morally right or wrong, attempting to stack the case in your own favour is a rational action; nobody attempts to lose a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Texas judges have the most patent experience and won't have the wool pulled over their eyes so easily by slick corporate lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is this: Supposing you have a legitimate patent infringement case, where are you going to take your case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
True. However, I wonder whether the Australian taxpayers like the idea of paying an incrementally higher cost on all the wireless devices that depend upon the technology invented by CSIRO? Buy a cell phone? Pay more. Buy a wireless access point? Pay more. And so on. We know that if AT&T, Verizon, Dell, or whatever Australian equivalent lose the case and pay licensing fees they'll just pass the costs on to consumers. So, for their multi-million (billion?) investment in CSIRO, the Australian taxpayer gets to: A) pay more for products, B) fund a whole lot of lawyers for years and years.
Win!
As far as I'm concerned the only reason a government institution should be able to patent something is so that it can be royalty-free and someone else can't patent it. Making money off it seems ultimately self-defeating.
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Informative)
CSIRO is responsible for research and development,
the money from royalties is funneled back into research and development.
CSIRO invests heavily in developing alternative fuel sources including Biodiesel and environmental protection weed erratication in australia, advices government of sustainable business practices and improve farming practices.
most importantly the more money they take from greedy International companies
the less they drain from Australian Taxpayers
Increasing the price of WIFI instruments may add a bill to 30 million Australians, but this is far outwieghed by 5 billion people world wide which will now pay extra on WIFI devices and that money will make its way into Australia
Who could CSIRO give the money to? (Score:2)
Personally I think they should keep it as it helps maintain their independance from government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if CSIRO hadn't come up with the technology and some corporation had, we'd be paying the corporate R&D costs not to mention the royalties they imposed on other companies, which would be likely higher than what CSIRO are asking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NASAs technology isn't open to all why should CSIROs?
http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/working/patent.html
As an Australian i'm happy that the government has a research arm. I'm also happy to see we make an effort to get other coutries to pay their share for the products of this research.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer that universities make research results free, but the treand has been going in the opposit direction. Universities patent whatever they can in hopes of making some money off it.
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
heya,
Oh please....
As somebody insightfully pointed out above, the money CSIRO makes from these royalties will be used to fund more research - recouping the government's investment in R&D, so to speak. We may pay more for Wifi devices, if the manufacturers try to pass it on (although I suspect the highly-competitive nature of the market may mitigate that somewhat), but ultimately they'll be a net inflow back to the Australian people.
From your statement, I'm going to assume you're US - see here, your NIH sues a pharmaceutical giant over missing drug royalties:
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html [nature.com]
And NASA's been embroiled on the receiving side with patent litigation with Boeing.
Thing is, at the end of the day, this is the real world, and people like to protect the R&D they make. And as an Australian citizen, who's taxes fund this research, I would like to see the CSIRO being smart, as opposed to being dumb, and getting walked over by big manufacturers.
Cheers,
Victor
being smart (Score:3, Interesting)
Being smart is taking your innovation and actually doing something with it, in this case, manufacturing. This is called "value added" in economics. Ya, they might get a quarter to a full billion from a settlement, but the people who *use* that tech and build with it make umpteen billions, over and over again.
That's smart(er).
Mideast oil producing nations sell their raw resources..then did nothing with it beyond splurging and blowing it mostly. They failed to develop any heavy industry of note, or any sort o
Get your fucking head out of your ass. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you realize how much money research and development costs? Do you realize that the only way it makes sense to pursue research and development is if it can support you financially? Do you realize why patents are a _good_ thing (not software patents). No? Well then you, sir, are a fucking moron. This is the real world not some hippie commune. Grow the fuck up. If you can't realize why CSIRO getting money it deserves is a good thing, then fuck you. If you can't realize why NASA getting royalties for
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally I'm cynical about government, but the CSIRO do good work.
They're a bunch of scientists who get left alone by the government because the Australian Government doesn't understand them well enough to interfere with them. Previously underfunded, this 'lazy billion' might actually cause the government to sit up and try and to pay attention.
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Insightful)
heya,
Err, yes it does, you silly twit.
And it's not just an "idea", it's an investment that they invested a bucketload of money in perfecting, probably more money than you and I have seen in our lives, and took them several years.
It's only naturally that after say, publishing a paper on it, they don't want to see other people come and read the paper, take those years of research, and make money off stupid consumers like you and I, without the original brains behind the invention getting a cent.
And they're a research institute. They're interested in creating good quality research, not in offshoring US jobs to China. It seems a bit ridiculous that you expect them to be a manufacturing house as well, in order to "keep" their inventment/research. That seems completely unfair.
The NIH does cancer research, AIDS research etc. You don't see Americans cry bloody murder when the NIH then goes to sue pharmaceutical giants that refuse to pay royalties do you? (I've already pasted the link to that above - but here it is again http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1302a.html [nature.com]).
Cheers,
Victor
Re:CSIRO are still good guys (Score:5, Informative)
The carriers are doing something with this technology and simply inventing it does not entitle CSIRO to an automatic right to be paid money, or worse to deny its use for the benefit of everyone.
Perhaps you're not familiar with how patents work. That's exactly what they're there for.
For once... (Score:5, Funny)
... I think I might actually be rooting for a patent lawsuit to succeed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this unusual circumstance, the assertion that "At some level, this will mostly harm end users." isn't really correct at all.
Without the invention of these technologies, the telco's wouldn't have a product to sell. These technologies were funded by the Australian taxpayer. A patent was placed to ensure the invested cost of research could be recovered. US industry saw the technology, liked it, and used it without permission.
Should the CSIRO win the case, they will use the money to develop more useful te
In before the "Patent Troll" cries. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I recall, these companies had an agreement with the CSIRO to implement their technology into the wifi standard in return for royalties. Everyone was happy with this, it was duly noted, etc.
Which mysteriously turned into a big collective "Fuck You" when the CSIRO asked for their royalties a few years later on.
So, as an Australian, I send a cheery "Fuck You" to those companies now, and I hope the CSIRO gets what they're owed, plus punitive damages.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you expect to happen? Companies never pay royalties unless there's a bigger thug than them leaning on them. Of course, this means the Australian Government has now p4ned those bits of the US economy not bought up by China.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The real question is "Does the current AT&T have access to the old Bell Labs IP?" in which case this patent it dead if enough research is done.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Bell Labs is now Alcatel-Lucent, so I doubt AT&T has access to its IP.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because they have thousands of patents, rejected patents and prior art that cover all parts of this patent. The predecessor of the AT&T Pixel machine was making use of some of those techniques and that was at least 3 years before this patent. I'm guessing the developers of some of the radar gear in the AWACS might also have prior art. I know of one person who claimed to have prior art and since he has related patents I suspect he might be right. I've helped break about 20 patents so far but I'm not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the patents they are suing over are the core signal filtering tech used by 802.11N wireless. Basically if you make anything that is compatible with 802.11N, you should be sending these guys a few $$$ (as prior settlements have shown).
Pretty much the whole industry said "cor struth, that's a nifty signal filter you have shown implemented in hardware, we will make that a part of the standard and pay you a small amount to use it", however when it came time to write the cheques the bits "pay you a small
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you have to own the patents to be protected by prior art
True, defensive publication is an accepted way to put an invention into the prior art. But owning patents does allow a countersuit against anyone but a pure-play NPE.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're saying is that there has been a violation of agreement between the companies and CSIRO. Why sue for patent infringement when that in itself is sufficient?
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then why is this a patent violation suit and not a breach-of-contract suit?
Sorry, I'm not sure I buy it. As an Australian, do you have a cite to back up your claim?
Patenting Math? (Score:3, Insightful)
CSIRO, which is also now targeting Lenovo, Sony and Acer in new cases, says mathematical equations in its patents form the basis of Wi-Fi technology...
Re:Patenting Math? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patenting Math? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the relevant US patent is this (5487069). [uspto.gov]
It appears to describe an special antenna setup as well as how to use the radio/antenna to get a data rate/ghz of bandwith ratio much better than previously practical.
So its not a math patent, or a pure software patent (although part of the implementation is software). It looks like something the patent system was designed to protect.
What's a CSIRO? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation [wikipedia.org]
Would this not be a case of double dipping... (Score:5, Interesting)
As I understand it, chipset makers license the technology. Those chipsets are then incorporated into whatever product is being made, be that phones, pda's, laptops, etc etc.
So in effect, the CSIRO wants to be be paid by the chipset makers, and then by the companies that use those chipsets, seems greedy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in effect, the CSIRO wants to be be paid by the chipset makers, and then by the companies that use those chipsets, seems greedy
I agree. I have no problem with the organisation receiving royalties from the companies who misuse their IP, but going after their customers is just not on. While I have no love for telecommunications companies, in principle they should only sue the companies who directly use their technology.
What's next? Sue all the customers of Verizon too?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the way the system is supposed to work (Score:5, Interesting)
For once the patent system is actually working as intended.
I for one applaud the CSIRO, and I look forward to seeing the freeloading corporations that have made billions on the back of the CSIRO's research get fucked in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. These companies aren't the ones implementing 802.11 tech, they're reselling it. They should only be able to go after the actual infringing implementers, not every step along the way. In general, that means companies like Broadcom, Marvell, and Intel, not the companies that use their chips in their products or the companies that resell them.
Next thing you know, they'll be going after the consumers for buying infringing products.
Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't aware of any carriers manufacturing their own wireless chips. Which ones are?
I Can't Wait (Score:2)
wait for it -- East Texas District Court.
That court is popular with IP plaintiffs. Reasons cited: sympathetic jurors, lots of judges who don't need to brush up on IP law, low backlogs. We've actually been here before:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/24/1236255/Patent-Trolls-Target-Small-East-Texas-Companies?from=rss [slashdot.org]
Top three? Nope (Score:2)
>"Now, the organization is bringing the fight to the top three US mobile carriers in a new suit targeting Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile."
Um, sorry, but the top three US mobile carriers are Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. T-Mobile is a distant fourth.
This is where the money is going (Score:2)
The Science and Industry Endowment Fund: http://www.sief.org.au/ [sief.org.au]
"The Fund will make strategic investments in scientific research that addresses issues of national priority for Australia."
I wonder if east texas district courts know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... just as soon as Hogwarts becomes a real-life tourist attraction and I can step through a stargate to go on holiday.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... just as soon as Hogwarts becomes a real-life tourist attraction and I can step through a stargate to go on holiday.
Well, Hogwarts [wizardingw...potter.com] will be available in about two weeks. With a little luck, the stargate will follow soon afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
The first may happen, but we're keeping the Stargate program under wraps. It's a bit too much for the average citizen to understand. How exactly do you explain "We've been doing interstellar travel for a few decades, and you've been watching the scifi disinformation about it."
err, I mean, I don't know what this star-thing you're talking about is.
Stargate (Score:2)
stargate
Star meaning celebrity and gate meaning scandal [wikipedia.org]? Just turn the TV to HLN or E! and see Stargate happen everyday.
Re: Bracing for impact (Score:3, Insightful)
How about a law that prohibits these companies from passing on their "mistakes" to the consumers?
How about a Congress that isn't owned by companies who want to pass their mistakes on to the consumers?
Oh, and I'd like a pony to go along with that.
So you don't want to use WiFi after all, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a law that prohibits these companies from passing on their "mistakes" to the consumers?
When they don't make money from a product or service they don't provide it. (Even if you force them to provide it, do that to enough products/services and the company as a whole dries up and blows away - unless you "bail them out" by - guess what - giving them still more money, which comes from - guess where - the consumers' pocket by way of taxes or inflation.)
It's just another form of price control. Set it t
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Informative)
But they're not a patent troll. They:
-developed technology to fix an (at the time) unfixable problem using scientific research they'd be doing in signal analysis (funny enough related to astronomy!) for decades
-signed agreements with everyone stating that royalties would be owed
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-asked for those agreements to be honored
-got "the bird" from the companies implementing the technologies
-sued
In what way is that patent trolling?
From the link you posted:
"an entity that does not have the capabilities to design, manufacture, or distribute products that have features protected by the patent"
Re:Got links for that? (Score:5, Insightful)
> /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?
Compare to GPL violation (Score:2)
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?
For the same reason that a GPL violation is prosecuted as a copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realise that the CSIRO is a government organisation, therefore, is the Australian Government, and you are accusing the Australian Government of being unable to produce anything of value?
I suppose that you can argue that they don't (see: Senator Conroy, Internet Villian of the Year 2009).
On the flipside I don't believe governments really fit into the narrow scope of a patent troll. How about, Australian taxpayers invested in researching technology that may otherwise never be developed. US corporatio
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re:info from http://en.swpat.org (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I have on their previous trolling:
How can you possibly arrive at the idea that CSIRO are engaging in patent trolling? They were the ones who actually developed the technology, their patents hadn't been submarined in any way, and the only reason they're fighting now is because they still haven't been paid the royalties the companies originally agreed to give them when they first implemented the technology. This is an unusual case of patent law, not because of any supposed trolling, but because it's a superb example of how patent law was always meant to be used.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is an unusual case of patent law, not because of any supposed trolling, but because it's a superb example of how patent law was always meant to be used.
It...it...it can't be!
Got links for that? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Got links for that? (Score:5, Informative)
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/public-file/07/11-07-2619-00-0000-802-11-wg-chairs-received-email-letter-response-from-csiro-regarding-loa-requests.doc
www.ieee802.org/CSIRO-Patent-Memo-19JUL2007.pdf
here the CSIRO got sued first:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/CSIRO-hit-with-wifi-patent-suit/2005/05/19/1116361656580.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/australian-government-defends-wireless-patent-139192549.htm
and with a timeline here :
http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/No-backdown-from-CSIRO-over-Wi-Fi-patents/0,339028227,339282521,00.htm
Look, that's all I can be bothered to find now, but just google LOA, 802.11a,g,n CSIRO and the patent number in various combinations, and you'll find loads of crap.
What's happened is that :
1. CSIRO File and get a patent for WiFi
2.CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
3. It sues Buffalo Tech and wins (this essentially upholds their claims)
4.CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
5. CSIRO gets sued by MS, Intel, Netgear etc to overturn the patent.
6. They fail.
7. CSIRO is willing to license under RAND. Everyone says fuck off.
8. CSIRO sues 7 colors of shit out of everyone and everyone in that case settles.
9. CSIRO sues teh remainder of people not paying royalities.
It is noteworthy that the CSIRO has repeatedly said it was willing to license technology, and even sold to CISCO the startup the created for developing this (for 295 mil) which is why CISCO isn't in any suits (I think..).
The IEEE asked them for a exemption and the CSIRO explicitly said no.
The companies in question went ahead and implemented it, then sued to overturn the patent they knew they were infringing on.
Fuck them, the CSIRO deserves every penny they get out of these fuckers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why all that is wrong (Score:2)
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 [swpat.org]. Even Microsoft has made some (very limited) promises.
Nope. Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit. Not to make m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Patents exist to progress technology for the public benefit.
All the research CSIRO does is for the public's benefit. That doesn't mean they have to give it away free to the entire world, after Australian taxpayers funded it.
Nor are CSIRO "vetoing" anyone from implementing wifi - they're simply asking for a reasonable royalty for the work they did. The lawsuits only started after companies knowingly used CSIRO's technology over other, inferior alternatives, and refused for years to licence it. I doubt many of these companies actually signed contracts with CSIRO, but
Re: (Score:2)
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 trol
Re:That's one huge shrimp on the barbie (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always believed that the "shrimp" term was an ironic statement referring to an extremely large, or "Australian-sized," steak. Is this not correct?
If it's under 16oz, it isn't even American sized. :p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
pr0nz (Score:2)
Too right that mate, and we don't bloody call 'em shrimp - they're fucking PRAWNS
PRAWNS sounds more like pictures of naked women [urbandictionary.com].