Is Australia's CSIRO a Patent Troll? 175
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."
Their work, their say. (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
But they actually did the work (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
No (Score:5, Insightful)
CSIRO actually does research. Patent trolls buy their patents.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:But they actually did the work (Score:5, Insightful)
FFS - when will you jerks listen (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate. (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [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.
The article is propaganda the submiter is trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [reference.com]
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
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:No (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Would you call Stanford University a patent tro (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:But they actually did the work (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Their work, their say. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I have mod points... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but I couldn't see where I could mod the submission as "troll"?
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
everything seems simple in hindsight