U.S. Firms Take on Australia's CSIRO Over Patents 426
dingram17 writes "ABC News is reporting that six U.S. computer companies (Apple, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Microsoft and Netgear) are taking legal action to try to break a U.S. patent that the CSIRO holds on wireless networking.
The CSIRO has patents on OFDM technology, as used in 802.11a and 802.11g. It has been alleged that the CSIRO demands $4 per chipset for the use of this technology. It appears that the patent in question is U.S. Patent 5,487,069 'Wireless LAN.' From a quick look, this appears to be a wide ranging patent."
Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypocrites (Score:1, Insightful)
Go aussie go.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Turnabout is fair play... (Score:5, Insightful)
At any rate, I've given up hope that the patent system will actually be fixed...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:1, Insightful)
Intellectual property (Score:4, Insightful)
How hypocritical are Microsoft appearing?
On one hand they're trying to teach kids flawed views on intellectual property to ensure that future generations won't pirate as much, and on the other hand they're doing exactly what they're trying to prevent, the theft of intellectual property.
Such sad, sad, little people.
"Free Trade" my arse (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US would then similarly like to not honour Australian patents, they're welcome -- given that's what they appear to want anyway.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:5, Insightful)
If the companies in question want to reap the benefits of the patent system, they have to pay the price of the patent system. But since most three-year-old children show greater maturity than most of these corporations, it's no surprise that these corporations want to reap the benefits without paying the price.
They're just lucky that the organization in question (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a research arm of the Australian government) isn't a competitor. Although I suppose in this case it could use this patent to give Australian companies an advantage over their American competition.
It's about damned time the U.S. corporations got a black eye from the bullshit patent situation over here. After all, they're the ones who have been abusing it. I just wish it happened far more often.
Kinda hypocritical but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:1, Insightful)
no relevance but cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Any government funded organization that is built in to a mountain protected by a gaping chasm is not going to worry to much about anything.
Our scientists thought it up we should keep the $4 per chip not like they can't charge an extra $4 for a notebook computer
Good!... (Score:3, Insightful)
I like that inventors get a chance to make a buck off their inventions, that's the productive and creative part that congress orig. talked about when they granted patents.
I'm strongly displeased at the use/mis-use of patents today. They're used as stragic weapons against competetors. They're used to block new technology. They're used to destroy governments and individual rights (think Africa and South America with AIDS drugs). The current patent crap (for instance, patenting of genetic material found in natural foods and herbs) is simply a means to give multinational corps. final fascist control over the world economy. All work will have to be for them, because you'll need their protection and cross-licensing to do anything. You will not be able to wipe your ass with leaves grown in your own back yard if Bayer finds some "cooling gell" in that species that they want to patent. Software patents are making it illegal to work or create for yourself, as without the protection of MS/HP/DELL, your thoughts will have been patented by someone else and you will be breaking the law by using a wheel of your own creation (even if you didn't copy anything).
But in this case, I'll settle for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." MS/HP/DELL/Netgear/etc. want it their way when it helps them and call for invalidation/threats/whatever/manuvering/spin when they have to pay.... Time for you suckers to pay....I hope they ream you raw too, as I'll happily know that you are eating part of that $4 just to keep the sales numbers up. Better yet, I'd love to see you buy 10M of those chips, only to have them sitting in your fab plants because nobody wants to buy your product at the inflated price.
If they want real reform, they should help to change patent law away from the mess it's in now, otherwise these industry blow-hards should just shut up and keep paying! You know, you can't win all the time..
They don't really want reform though, they simply want control and they're mad at the fact that they DON'T have the patent. They'd do just the same thing roles reversed.
Re:"Free Trade" my arse (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing inherently virtuous about Australian companies, there is nothing inherently evil about US companies. Large companies that have the resources to impose their wishes on others will attempt to do so when it suits their needs. This is true whether the company is US, British, German, Japanese or yes, even Australian. This has been true since the beginning of commerce, it will be true until the end.
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If by patenting it they can allocate more grant money in "THEIR" own country instead of the country were the patent was registered it will be better for "THEIR PEOPLE".
I guest it all depend of weither you talk about poeple in the global state (in which case this is bad but people in america lose jobs to people in India is good because it raises the average standard of living globaly) or in the regional state (then losing jobs to another country is bad but this is good)
Also how about another scenario, by patenting technology governments can increase the amount of money they can give out from Grants without increasing taxes. This would result in more technology (Grants generally focus on long term research whereas companys generally forcus on ROI - short term) with less of a burden on the general population and would only affect people who used the new technology.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:1, Insightful)
They're actually screwing with the AU government (Score:5, Insightful)
CSIRO is a not-for-profit Australian Government organisation. Do all these companies really want to screw around with what is likely to be their biggest customer in Australia ?
Invalidate the patent by all means if it shouldn't have been granted. However, if it is legitimate, then just pay the licensing fees.
Remember, a patent is a government granted monopoly for a time period to allow the patent holder to both recoup their costs and to make a profit out of inventing the idea that has been patented. If these companies don't like that, then they should have all their patents revoked immediately, or they should sue the US government for incopetence because the US government granted the patent in the first place.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. And both are not mutually exclusive.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the research was paid for by Australian taxpayers. So why should American companies be able to freeload on the technology?
Interesting thing here for me (Score:4, Insightful)
To me this seems purer than a company patenting something and then using that patent as a means to create an artificial monopoly and lock out competitors.
$4 does sound like quite a lot per unit but I wonder if they can do that because they are only on one end of the patent equation.
I'm sure MS, IBM etc would like to charge obscene amounts for a patent they own too but as they are on both the selling and buying end of such deals they maybe cautious about inflating the accepted price of patent licencing?
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So what was this major thing they invented? (btw, I am sure you meant last century)
Re:Wow.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel obligated to point out that if the government didn't get involved at all it would save even more money in taxes
Yeah, but how much research do you think would get done? Remember, it's not just dedicated scientific organizations like CSIRO that get funding, it's also several public universities doing research too. (chances are private unis are also getting public funds, but I'm not actually sure)
Re:Wow.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Too bad the past and current management of CSIRO are ethical people with a history of being outstanding innovaters and inventers of technology.
Interesting how the people suing them usually hide behind a fuzzy dollars scheme of inventing new technologies based on passing marketing dollars to each other and calling that research funds. Like when BillG promised through his foundation $80 million for aids research, but in real life it was $80 over 1000 years or something as silly as that...
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then all the IP would be owned by large multi-national corporations that would take the profits out of Australia and their R&D dollars as well.
How many multi-nationals do you think would give a shit about Australia's unique problems, such as the Cane Toad? http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=faq&id=CaneToa
Shitdrummer
Using patents offensively is JUST WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
If patents have some uses it should be used to prevent wholesale copying of complete designs, which is as impossible to accidentally reinvent as it is to write a novel only to find that someone has already written essentially the same thing. The broad patents are better struck down, and I oppose anyone who wants to use them offensively, whether it is big-company-to-small-company, small-company-to-big-company, or government-entity-to-big-company.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Turnabout is fair play... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:1, Insightful)
As others have now pointed out, the Government in question is the Australian Government, therefore it was the Australian Tax payers money! And as the story heading states, it is American companies that do NOT want to pay!
So, in other words, they want Australian's to pay for the R&D and then use the resulting technology for free??? I can see how that is fair (said in a sarcastic voice).
And also pointed out:
Profits from CSIRO patents are reinvested into research. This in turn lowers the required government funding thus saving Aussie taxpayers quite a bit of money.
Re:Using patents offensively is JUST WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You reckon this Aussie patent is bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As an Aussie (Score:4, Insightful)
On the snide remark regarding australias armed forces, lets just remember that in the latest american adventure, it was australian special forces doing a lot of the ground work before the invasion even started. You guys couldn't even stop the looters from robbing the local banks
Re:SCrew the CSIRO (Score:1, Insightful)
I learnt quickly at Uni you don't open your door unless you letting in your own people.
If they did copy your technology then your development logs et al would clearly show your prior work.
The only thing that will come of this is that at some point Mark Vale will stomp all over the CSIRO to protect the sanctity of the FTA and protect the US companies as he was voted in to do.
No technology is Australian, it is all just unowned until US/Global corporate interests want it. Then it was never AU tech to begin with.
Re:Is that your campaign slogan ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ciao
Re:Using patents offensively is JUST WRONG (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite simply, it's that here is a textbook case of a well-meaning organisation developing a genuine technology, and simply asking for their fair and reasonable compensation for it. That's why I, and presumably most others here, support it.
Re:Using patents offensively is JUST WRONG (Score:3, Insightful)
Poetic justice (Score:5, Insightful)
"...the ideas there such as OFDM and FEC, etc. are actually not all that ingenious." - CSIRO developed and patented the idea a decade ago, hindsight is always 20/20. As you say, anyone with a "deep understanding" could have thought of the idea but the fact remains that nobody did.
"I oppose anyone who wants to use them offensively" - The corporations that are now whinning about paying $4 per chip are the same ones that pushed hard for US IP laws to be adopted under the recently signed free trade agreement. To me, (an Aussie), it is poetic justice when a "non-profit" can screw a cartel of the largest "for-profits" with thier own rules. Before the 1980's corporations used to buy CSIRO patents for a pitance and the Australian public would watch as Agri-corps and Drug-pushing-corps turned govt funded research into a private cash cow. The use of licenses to make "for-profits" pay for basic research is one of CSIRO's greatest innovations.
Some examples of IP idiocy in Australia, patent for the wheel [newscientist.com], Ugg boots. [boingboing.net]
What have they got to lose? How about OS hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
What these companies should do to get around the patent is to pool their money and develop a *better* Open Source alternative to the patent in question.
If they did that, that 4.00 in savings still probably wouldn't make it down to the consumer level, but maybe some developing country could use the OS tech to make some free chipsets where it would benefit someone in those countries through lower prices to the consumer.
Yeah, I ain't going to hold my breath, but that's what these compaines should be doing.
Usurper_ii
70% of chipset cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:70% of chipset cost (Score:3, Insightful)