802.11n May Never Happen Due to Patent Concerns

afabbro writes "The Register is reporting that the 802.11n standard is imperiled because the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organization has refused to submit a Letter of Assurance, promising not to sue those who implement the standard. '...the realization that CSIRO holds essential patents, and has failed to provide a Letter of Assurance as required by the IEEE, could prevent the standard ever being finalized ... 802.11n promises to deliver a fivefold increase in speed, and double the range of 802.11g. Indeed in many cases it's already delivering something approximating that, as pre-standard kit has been available for almost a year. In May the Wi-Fi Alliance got so bored waiting for the IEEE to complete the standard that they started certifying kit as conforming to the draft, even though the final version isn't expected until 2008."

Lies and more lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean they've been lying to me all along? So much for patents promoting progress!

Fury...building...

[Xiroth]

Grabrabagelgra. What the hell are they thinking? Yes, extra income for the CSIRO is handy, but they do not put that ahead of the common good - otherwise, what the hells is the point of a publicly funded research organisation?

Grah. While I'm all in favour of having Liberal (Australian right-leaning major party) stints to keep the economy chugging, this country really has been governed by the right too long - all of our public services are becoming too money-obsessed.

Re:Fury...building...

[MichaelSmith]

been governed by the right too long

As far as the CSIRO is concerned it has never been any different under Labour.

Re:Fury...building...

[MichaelSmith]

Probably no worse off than in the States

Maybe. There is an old meme over here about clever research work which only gets commercialised when it leaves the country. The classic example is the black box flight recorder which was invented in Australia, but never earned much money for this country.

Because we are a small country we do tend to hold on to assets like this a little bit tighter. Or try to, anyway.

As far as living here goes, I know a few people from the USA who have migrated to Australia. They seem happy with the environment, but they lose a lot in the transition. It can be hard to buy a good house in Australia now if you sell up in the US and bring your money with you.

It is hard for me to give a better comparison than that, because I have only ever lived in one country.

Re:Fury...building...

[ozmanjusri]

Because we are a small country we do tend to hold on to assets like this a little bit tighter. Or try to, anyway.

"Try to" being the operative phrase.

CSIRO filed the patent on OFDM in 1992, and informed IEEE in 1997 that the method was patented and would attract royalties. American businesses including Lucent, Cisco and HP have ignored CSIRO's request for companies using the technology (which took 8 years to develop) to license IP rights.

Hypocrisy runs deep in big business.

Re:

[evanspw]

I believe Cisco did come to some licensing agreement with CSIRO, which is not surprising since the start-up they acquired in 2000-2001 to do .11a/g chip development (Radiata) was largely ex-CSIRO people (and also Macquarie University people, who did a lot of collab with CSIRO on OFDM research). Disclaimer: I was peripherally involved and know all the patent holders.

Re:Fury...building...

[CRC'99]

Because we are a small country we do tend to hold on to assets like this a little bit tighter. Or try to, anyway.

I think this is part of the problem, however the greater problem is that there are companies out there who are already violating patents by producing 802.11g equipment covered by CSIRO patents that STILL do not pay royalties. There was a big deal about this a while ago. Sadly, American companies seem to love to want to overlook this while screaming if somebody overseas violates their patent.

I believe that the people who make gear based on 802.11g & 802.11n should at least be honourable enough to give royalties to the people that invented the technology to enable their products (leading to their income) to exist should get something in return. That's the whole idea of patents, correct?

To boil this down, CSIRO invented the schemes to make 802.11n work. Companies want to use this technology to make money, but don't want to share any of it with the inventor. This sounds like perfect use of the patent system.

IEEE vs CSIRO

[thethibs]

To boil this down, CSIRO invented the schemes to make 802.11n work.

No. CSIRO invented the schemes. IEEE members developed 802.11N using the schemes, believing CSIRO would cooperate. If that had ever been in doubt, the standard would have been developed along different lines, avoiding CSIRO's patents.

Whether this is a misunderstanding or a ploy by CSIRO will eventually be clear, but to suggest that the companies supporting the standard are trying to cheat CSIRO out of royalties it deserves is either naiv

Re:

[statusbar]

If CSIRO has pending issues with companies violating their existing patents on 802.11G, then why would IEEE believe that 802.11N would be any different?

--jeffk++

Re:Fury...building...

[Verte]

I hope the Australian government realizes that fact.

I had the opportunity to speak with Labor's second in command, Julia Gillard, a few weeks ago. Of course the main issues I bought up with her were government transparency and copyright reform. Somehow, it didn't surprise me that she had never heard any such issues discussed. Not one person had bought them up. People seem more bothered about that house they bought when interest rates were 2% [now floating around the 7-8% mark?]. I guess I can see where they are coming from, of course, but while they have been distracted, we've been losing the battle on other fronts.

So no, they don't realise this fact, because the Australian public don't seem to care, or those that do are scared of politics.

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I've always felt that Australia has fine government transparency. I saw a link in a Slashdot post that ranked the governmental transparency over 150 countries out of 10. I can't remember the exact site, but I remember we came 7th. Not too bad, huh? Especially so when you consider that government opacity only provides potential for abuse, rather than the abuse itself.

Basically, my question is: why are you concerned about government transparency in Australia?

Re:

[Verte]

You're right- Federal government transparency is quite good. The parties publish most policy on their websites, most government offices have a lot of information on how they work, etc. There are a few exceptions, often within specific departments. I just wanted to know about what initiatives the next government would be taking with regards to transparency. Actually, she did point out that government advertising will have to be approved by the AG under Labor, which is a win for transparency.

But it really sur

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But it really surprised me that she hadn't heard all of the noise we have made over the years about copyright and patent reform. We aren't speaking loud enough.

I may not be the best source for this, but out of all the non-geek people I've met and discussed politics with, and all the physical (read: not online) publications I've read, I never hear about copyright/patent reform. My experience isn't that broad, but I can certainly tell that the issue hasn't really penetrated the voter's psyche. I guess people

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes, and remember that New Zealand is third for government transparency.

No, actually it was triple-tied first. I know, I read it as third too at first.

Re:Fury...building...

[donaldm]

CSIRO is a government body and even if companies start paying royalties CSIRO will see very little of it since it will go into consolidated revenue which hopefully will go to bribing (damn I cant find the ^H key) the voter with tax breaks.

Australia (read Government of the day) has for many years believed in what is called the "level playing field" the problem was Australia was always at the bottom, now the "shoe is on the other foot" the Government is a little confused especially since they should be pushing for royalties. It must be noted that CSIRO does not set royalties that is up to the Australian Government.

Re:Fury...building...(reply to sig)

[HiThere]

I'll agree that standards must be open (and "free" [i.e., libre, not gratis], but not all non-free specifications are formats. It's just that they also aren't standards (no matter WHAT some people may name them).

Re:

[badfish99]

But it's a risky strategy for the CSIRO. If the standard never takes off, everyone will stick with 802.11g until some other, completely different, standard comes along. So perhaps the greedy people at CSIRO will get nothing, and will starve.

Re:

[deniable]

They hold patents on most of 802.11 and they're getting nothing now, so careful is the wrong option. They should get some pit-bull lawyers and sue the manufactures who are already violating their patents.

I'm one of the (~20 million) people who pays for the CSIRO, so don't be calling me greedy for wanting some payback.

Some Context

[mechsoph]

I'm one of the (~20 million) people who pays for the CSIRO, so don't be calling me greedy for wanting some payback.

As an American whose tax dollars fund (D)ARPA, I demand payback from all other nations using the Internet. Also, I think the good citizens of California whose tax dollars helped fund BSD would like some too.

Re:Some Context

[Poromenos1]

As a Greek, I'd like some remuneration for founding civilization please (democracy is a freebie). You guys have been mooching off us too long!

Re:

[mechsoph]

I think you might have some arguments from the Mesopotamians, Indians (both flavors), and Chinese on that one. Maybe you guys could start a licensing consortium. Let me know where to send the check.

Re:

[Poromenos1]

Mmm, class action suit, baby!

Re:

[GaryPatterson]

I believe the Iraqis have prior art on 'civilisation' from their time between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Thanks for the democracy freebie though!

Re:

[BitZtream]

My history could be a little off, but as I recall civilization started in Mesopotamia (Iraq). Your countries abuse of our patents has sent my clients country into chaos and resulted in the need for a hostile takeover by America in order to uhm, set things right again.

So ... I move for a summary judgement against you for violating my clients patent, copyright, and trademarks on civilization. We request one million dollars per infringement in your country, an infringement is considered to be each person con

Re:

[Talez]

Are you smoking crack? Foreign countries have been paying the US to hook into the "Internet" since it began and we still do today.

Re:

[mechsoph]

Infrastructure is different from technology. Technology is free to share. Infrastructure costs money to maintain. Anyone is free to use the technology of the Internet without paying the US a dime (ignoring the problem of getting a copy of the BSD source code which is most easily available over the Internet). It is, however, expected and reasonable for companies in the US to charge something for use of their infrastructure. Whether the rates charged are reasonable, though, is another question.

<fla

Re:

[tdelaney]

You already get it. Australia (for example) has to pay for the traffic both coming out of the US and going into it, whilst the US gets off scott free. That's one of the reasons broadband is so expensive here for what we get.

So petition your government to ensure that the money that other countries are paying to the US gets spread around, and not just hoarded by some greedy US companies. And while you're at it, I think it would be fair if you suggested to them that they should share the load.

Re:

[mechsoph]

To repeat myself again, I don't claim to understand the intricate economics of peering agreements, but as I pointed out to another, less polite, poster, technology is different from infrastructure [slashdot.org].

Re:

[mechsoph]

I don't claim to understand the intricate economics of peering agreements, but as I pointed out to another, less polite, poster, technology is different from infrastructure [slashdot.org].

Re:

[JimDaGeek]

I'm one of the (~20 million) people who pays for the CSIRO, so don't be calling me greedy for wanting some payback.

But you are getting payback by getting affordable technology that came from the money you paid to the CSIRO. If the CSIRO started charging big royalties, then the prices of the technology that you paid for would go up, so it would be defeating the tax money you already spent.

A lot of similar things happen here in the USA. A good portion of the research that pharmaceutical companies use c

Re:

[DJCacophony]

CSIRO doesn't want to license the technology to the 'n people', they want them to use it without their permission so that CSIRO can later sue them for 100x more than licensing fees. That's why they're refusing to sign the document that forbids them from suing.

CSIRO Are Not To Blame

[EEPROMS]

The CSIRO I dare say want to make sure they don't lose the rights to the technology they developed and I dont blame them. Many large companies have already made it clear they will do anything to (even if its illegal) strip the CSIRO of its patent right to technologies that are part of WiFi because they want a "free ride". The real issue here is not the CSIRO but the companies trying to leverage the technology out of their hands. Im not surprised in the least that this loggerhead has been created by the "we dont want to pay for patents even though we force everyone else to do the same" multinationals.

Re:

[peragrin]

Wow how did you get modded insightful?

1)the CISRO is part of the Australian government. It is not a corporation.

2) the CISRO submitted it's work to an INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS BODY. par of submitting technology to a STANDARDS BODY is the release for ANYONE to duplicate the STANDARD free of charge. If you don't want your technology to be used by others unless they pay you then don't submitt it to a STANDARDS BODY it is your choice.

They had a choice have their technology used by others, or have them use an

Re:CSIRO Are Not To Blame

[mce]

Standards are not free-of-charge by definition. A standard is exactly what the word says: a specification that you can choose to adhere to or not. Each international standard body can define its own rules as to what technology an IP limitations they will consider. If you don't want to adhere to a particular standard because there's a patent involved, you simply don't. It's your choice.

Now, arguably, a proposed standard stands a bigger chance of success if it is not subject to restrictive patents, but that in turn is the choice of the inventors of the technology. If the technology really is of outstanding quality, the developers may want to take that risk. Again, that is their choice, not yours.

Re:

[Obyron]

I would say a big, splashy network technology is even more cutthroat. If they want to try to make a windfall from 802.11n, then I'm sure there's a company out there right now working on a technology they'd like to submit as 802.11y or something, who aren't quite so greedy about it. I'm a capitalist, and I have no problem with people being paid for their work, but it's funny how when patents and royalties are involved the amount of pay they think they deserve suddenly becomes outlandish. File the stupid pape

Re:

[mce]

The problem in this particular case that the required formal statement that they will not sue companies making devices in accordance with the spec also sort of kills the whole patent for them. In order to succesfully "request a royalty per device from manufacturers, and go home" they have to be able to sue those manufacturers who don't pay. This is true even if they were to price that royalty in the micropayments range. It's even true if they were to just ask for a one-time 10$ fee per manufacturer. (Of co

Re:CSIRO Are Not To Blame

[ozmanjusri]

2) the CISRO submitted it's work to an INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS BODY. par of submitting technology to a STANDARDS BODY is the release for ANYONE to duplicate the STANDARD free of charge.

No that's not even vaguely true.

CSIRO disclosed the patent to the IEEE in 1997, and IEEE acknowledged that part of the technology used in the new 802.11 standards was covered under CSIRO's patents. The IEEE asked CSIRO, as it does all companies that hold patents on technology used in a standard, if it wanted to license the technology to the industry for free or if it wanted to charge a reasonable fee for the license. CSIRO indicated it wanted to charge a fee for the use of its technology.

Economic loss due to patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time and time again we hear that patents are an economic necessity. People and organizations won't invest in new technologies if they can't exploit them for a profit later on, and all that. But we rarely hear economists and businesspeople talk about the economic loss that patents bring.

This is just one example. Now the public may very well be deprived of this new technology just because of these patent concerns. So in a very resource-wasteful move, we may very well need to derive another technology that duplicates 802.11n, not for any technical reason, but just to satisfy the legal conditions of a mere document. That's clearly harmful for the economy as a whole. Those resources could have been put towards developing new technologies, rather than reimplementing what already existed.

Re:

[samkass]

I suspect it's more likely that you'll see "nonstandard" 802.11n devices, each of which now cost an extra $1 if this patent issue isn't resolved.

Re:

[MobyDisk]

You are "putting the cart before the horse."

It is not that we will be deprived of this technology because of patents. It is the other way around. This technology would not exist without patents. Organizations would not spend money designing and researching technology if they didn't have a guarantee that they could sell that technology.

Patents and the Global Public Good

[mechsoph]

Patents exist to pay the fixed cost of invention by granting a temporary monopoly. The other option to cover the fixed cost is subsidy. Publicly funded research organizations like the CSIRO work based on the subsidy method. The cost is paid by the public, so the public should have use of the invention. The only question here is whether Australia is going to act like other nations where public means WORLD (considering the actions of ARPA, UC Berkeley, and INRIA), or whether they're going to be dicks.

Re:

[HuguesT]

CSIRO is constantly being told by government to earn some of it income. As it was when I was working there, CSIRO only got about 70% of its income from government subsidies, the rest was through industrial contracts.

It is perfectly reasonable for CSIRO, in this context, to demand royalties. What's the point of patents otherwise ?

Re:

[mechsoph]

What's the point of patents otherwise ?

Quoth our James Madison "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." Specifically, to pay the fixed cost necessary to produce an invention by allowing the inventor to temporarily charge monopoly prices. Publicly funded research is a nice alternative when the patent approach is less than optimal at benefiting the public good. Subsidized research does not need patent protection because the subsidy has paid the fixed cost. Asking the CSIRO to support itsel

Re:

[Chandon Seldon]

It is not that we will be deprived of this technology because of patents. It is the other way around. This technology would not exist without patents. Organizations would not spend money designing and researching technology if they didn't have a guarantee that they could sell that technology.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim at all? Perhaps an example of a time where people were developing modern technology in a patent-free environment? Wait - that never happened so you can't *possibly* have a

Re:

[evilviper]

Wait - that never happened so you can't *possibly* have any evidence to support your point.

Absolutely right. You've just proven that property rights should be abolished, since people are going to continue making things, even though they'll just be stolen.

Re:

[DRJlaw]

[This is just one example. Now the public may very well be deprived of this recreation center just because of these ownership concerns. So in a very resource-wasteful move, we may very well need to build another building that duplicates the existing building, not for any technical reason, but just to satisfy the legal conditions of a deed. That's clearly harmful for the economy as a whole. Those resources could have been put towards developing more jail cells, rather than reimplementing what already existe

Re:

[pohl]

substituting a physical object for a mens is cheap, intellectually dishonest slight-of-hand. Your counter-argument holds no water without that trick.

Re:

[pohl]

Substitute "meme" for "mens" -- the latter is what my iPhone's autocorrect thought I meant. :-/

Re:

[DRJlaw]

Substituting a physical object for a mens is cheap, intellectually dishonest slight-of-hand.

Whereas making conclusory statements without any support is not, I suppose.

The economic reasons for protecting intellectual property are the same as those for protecting tangible property. In the real world, substantial labor is invested into creating a marketable product, and that labor will only be systematically invested by those seeking a return on investment, i.e., a profit. Where is the incentive to invest in

Re:

[Breakfast Pants]

What's the difference? What underlying principle says you should be able to own physical objects? There is none. Just because Jane Brat was born to a rich man, she is automatically entitled to essentially anything she desires for the rest of her life?

Re:

[DRJlaw]

I never realized that 802.11 was the ultimate in wireless communications technology. Thank you for that insight.

"Mr. Westinghouse, Mr. Edison has already developed DC electric power transmission. Creating another power transmission technology with the same power capacity does not add economic value."

"Thank you Mr. Tesla. I'm off to buy railroad stock."

Re:

[DRJlaw]

Actually, I was directly addressing what you both said and implied. You clearly contended that one technology for wirelessly delivering data at a certain rate or capacity was enough, and that developing another one would be a waste. The argument is simply wrong. The very fact that a design-around technology has to be different will create some comparative strengths and weaknesses, as well potentially driving innovation in its own right.

"Still economically speaking the development of DC electric power tra

Re:

[evilviper]

Now the public may very well be deprived of this new technology just because of these patent concerns.

You're right. It IS always cheaper to steal. But we rarely hear economists and businesspeople talk about the economic loss that property laws bring.

what nonsense

[caitsith01]

This is a typical ./ rant which ignores important information:

So in a very resource-wasteful move, we may very well need to derive another technology that duplicates 802.11n, not for any technical reason, but just to satisfy the legal conditions of a mere document. That's clearly harmful for the economy as a whole. Those resources could have been put towards developing new technologies, rather than reimplementing what already existed.

Has it crossed your mind that the CSIRO developed this technology and dese

Re:Economic loss due to patents.

[vtcodger]

A patent is not private property. It is a transferable government issued license. Goverments can stop issuing them any time they choose to. AFAICS, historically patents have mostly enriched lawyers and opportunists, not inventors. Looks to me like they distort the marketplace, divert effort and resource into unproductive activity (e.g. lawsuits), and largely fail to generate the benefits they are claimed to engender.

If you ask me, we can, with a few adjustments, get by just fine without them.

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter]

A patent is not private property. It is a transferable government issued license.

QFT.

Re:

[vtcodger]

***Without the patent system, it would cause many companies to go secret squire and much technology would die with the inventor or company..***

Maybe in 1780 although I have some doubts about that. Today? The number of technologies that can't be reverse engineered if there is a need to do so is surely very small.

Also, today's marketplace moves at a much faster pace than that of two centuries ago. Simply having a lead of a year or two by virtue of being the inventor conveys much of the advantage that a

Organisations don't get bored

[suv4x4]

"In May the Wi-Fi Alliance got so bored waiting for the IEEE to complete the standard"

I know it's harder to figure out anthromorphism doesn't apply to organisations, since they're made out of people, but can you honestly imagine the following in the documents: "Today we voted to start delivering draft-based wifi kits, because we were bored".

If you'll look for reasons, look for logistics, money, deadlines and contracts.

Re:

[ZachPruckowski]

Ok then. One company decided to start shipping faster routers, and not to be outdone, every other company followed suit. I guess the idea is that you can replace a/b/g routers with draft-n routers in a lot of situations, especially if the vendor assures compatibility with the final version of 802.11n. I think that "bored" describes the situation adequately. The companies didn't want to sit and wait on the IEEE in order to start making more money.

Wasted work

[Tom]

So, why are companies even allowed to submit a standard without such a letter? Seems like a recipe for wasting work that you allow a standardization process to even start without assurances from all stakeholders that they'll not interfere with it becoming a standard (i.e. that anyone can implement).

Re:

[rucs_hack]

not many companies will do that, in case it turns out that they can make billions from it by controlling it. Chances are they wouldn't be able to, but its likely easier to have that control first, assess the effect of controlling it, and release their hold if it turns out that's the route to making the most cash.

Re:

[TechyImmigrant]

>So, why are companies even allowed to submit a standard without such a letter? Seems like a recipe for wasting work that you allow a standardization process to even start without assurances from all stakeholders that they'll not interfere with it becoming a standard (i.e. that anyone can implement).

Strictly speaking, companies do not submit work to the IEEE, individuals do. IEEE 802 rules states clearly that people attend as individuals.

Entities with patents essential to standards are encouraged to subm

Fine by me...

[JackMeyhoff]

.. lets choose a different standard then and let them live in their own island :)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[aliquis]

You are free to develop your own not covered by any patents, gl hf.

Re:

[aliquis]

It seems noone seemed to mind that it was patented earlier either considering all the draft equipment out there.

Money will make it happen

[bl8n8r]

This is probably just a way for CSIRO to saying they don't hear enough ching in the bling.

Total FUD

[Xhris]

CSIRO owns patents on pretty much all common wireless technology deployed today. It owns these patents because it developed the technologies. Currently CSIRO is actively trying to get other companies to actually honor its legitimate patents not just for "n" but the existing 802.11x standards as well.

These are real patents that lay the mathematical/technological foundation for how pretty much all wireless networking works currently. Saying that CSIRO has no right to defend these patents would be like saying CISCO is morally obliged to give away all their routers because we all depend on the internet and we need routers for the internet to work.

Re:

[wes33]

but wasn't the VC money for CSIRO all from *taxpayers*?

CSIRO should hold patents to prevent corporations from patenting the tech for themselves, but not to make a profit.

All the engineers etc were paid to think this up. After that the invented tech is a public resource. A govt. agency should not behave like a corporation.

Re:

[Xhris]

CSIRO is required to be partially self funded via external revenue. How is it expected to develop new technologies if it cannot then raise revenue on exciting "stuff" it has developed? Given CSIRO is not in the business of mass production of widgets, selling its IP (ie patents) is really the only approach it has.

Re:

[Nazlfrag]

Are all those profiting from these wireless technologies taxpayers? If not, they should pay their dues too.

Re:Total FUD

[deniable]

*Australian taxpayers!*

The 'public' who want this resource are foreign companies that didn't pay for the research and whose only contribution to Australia is flogging us goods that violate our patents.

If the CSIRO was acting like a corporation they would have already patent-trolled 802.11 out of existence.

Re:

[TheRaven64]

You're right. Australian taxpayers paid for parts of 802.11 to be developed. American taxpayers paid for TCP/IP to be developed (ARPA / Berkeley). British taxpayers paid for the TFT display to be developed (DERA). Various European taxpayers paid for HTTP and HTML to be developed (CERN).

As I sit here, reading Slashdot on my laptop's TFT via 802.11g, I sit and think how none of this would be possible without exploiting the Australian taxpayer.

Re:

[HuguesT]

If you are an Australian taxpayer, you may argue that you have already paid for access to the technology. Somehow I don't think Apple, CISCO, IBM, HP et al. have contributed in any way.

Re:

[hey!]

Well as an American taxpayer, I want my royalties on the Internet.

The government (and government sponsored entities) has no business acting like a private enterprise. The pursuit of exclusive wealth should be left to business.

The government should develop technologies and applied research which is to big or too risky or too long term to interest private investors, and be happy when private enterprises find ways of making money from the fruits of that research.

I say this as a dyed in the wool, lifetime libe

No difference between USA and Australia

[xixax]

The government (and government sponsored entities) has no business acting like a private enterprise. The pursuit of exclusive wealth should be left to business.

Unlike DARPA, the CSIRO does not have an endless pipe of defense cash. They research a range of fundamental and applied areas and there's an expectation that profits from industry partnerships and commercialisation (like patents) will be used to multiply research contributions. Why should a country's taxpayers fund government research agencies devel

Re:

[xigxag]

I'm sure if these networking companies, some of which are extremely wealthy, wanted to be clear of patent concerns, they could form an association to buy out the patent at a fair price and declare it to be free of royalties. Instead, they'd rather do without the tech. Who's greedy?

Familiar story

[jc42]

So is this yet another example of using patents to retard the "progress of science and the useful arts"?

Re:

[darkmeridian]

No. It's an example of a useful patent created by an actual inventor being exerted to get manufacturers to pay them what the invention is worth. Products would be cheaper without paying for patent rights, but that would prevent invention, wouldn't it?

This is the patent system actually doing something useful. CSIRO created the standard in expectation of being able to sell it. Now patent rights are preventing others from stealing it. That's promoting the useful arts.

Re:

[Raenex]

Products would be cheaper without paying for patent rights, but that would prevent invention, wouldn't it?

On the whole, I'd say no. You can look at the software industry before there were software patents, and invention happened on a booming scale. Lots of inventors made money from a first-mover advantage. Some just did it for the sheer pleasure and shared their work with others.

CSIRO created the standard in expectation of being able to sell it.

Since they are tax-payer funded, they really shouldn't. And if they didn't invent it, somebody else would have, even without patents.

Where's the strong evidence that people won't invent without patents? Even for expensive stuff l

Re:

[cmat]

I'd like to point out something about patents that I think people "misunderstand". This line of "obstructing the sciences/arts/progress" is all fine and dandy until you really look at it. What science is being obstructed? What scientist is not allowed to review the patent details (at least in the US)? The answer is none. They are, of course, not allowed to use the patented technology directly, but it sure can be used to generate new ideas, different/better implementations, etc of that tech. This is of

Another misleading lead in...

[stewbacca]

Yet another misleading lead in on a slashdot story...does it ever end?

This is a story about the very weak possibility that 802.11n may never be 'standardized' NOT that it will never "happen". It's already happened. I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.

Re:

[jawtheshark]

I've been using 802.11n on all my home computers for months now.

No, you haven't... You are using an implementation of a not yet approved standard that could become 802.11n. The "standard" may still change and you may be able to upgrade your hardware with a firmware upgrade if that happens. However, the manufacturer of your gear is in no way obliged to do so, after all, it couldn't sell it as 802.11n gear, since the 802.11n standard isn't yet accepted.

A standard, by definition, does not change....New r

Re:

[stewbacca]

Yes, but again, you are just playing around with terminology. The fact is that my network uses what will eventually be called the 802.11n speeds and architecture NOW, so the headline is misleading, inferring that 802.11n speeds might not ever become reality, when it already IS a reality.

Re:

[stewbacca]

Well I too read the article. That's why I said the lead-in was misleading. The lead-in..the part that the slashdot contributor writes. As for patent infringing hardware, why hasn't Apple been sued yet then?

Looks like it is time for 802.11o

[earthforce_1]

This time, everybody on the committee should be required to wave all patent rights to anything that makes it into such an important standard, lest we wind up with another Rambus debacle. If there are a few unavoidable patent issues, then we will just have to wait a few years until they expire.

Can't we just be like China?

[Overzeetop]

Just ignore the patents. It's not like Australia is going to invade the rest of the world to assert their IP. In fact, that would be true for just about everybody.

This is like one of those silly games you play in igh school psych. If everybody simply ignored international IP, there would be more reason to scrap the current system.

Re:

[a.ameri]

It's not that simple. The WTO takes IP very seriously and holds it dear in his heart; and it does have the power (and the precedence) to put heavy fines or sanctions (not that we are going to put US on embargo anytime soon) in cases of non conformance with its rules. You can't just ignor international IP, unless you want to ignore international trade all together

Besides, why should you want to ignore the issue here? This is not a patent-mongering Eolas-like VC-funded private company or a 1-click patent w

Patent law is supposed to ENCOURAGE progress

[sdkee]

According to the constitution, patents are only alowed in order to encourage "science and the useful arts". How granting corporations the right to fuck over other coproprations who came up with rather ordinary improvements on the "art" at nearly the same time helps improve the "uesful arts" is someting for head-up-their-ass lawyers to ponder. Because in the end of the day it doesn't matter in the USA anymore if you're right. IT doesn't matter if you have actually come up with womething new. If'you've bo

Re:

[arth1]

According to the constitution, patents are only alowed in order to encourage "science and the useful arts".

And Australia signed the US constitution when?

Patience young padawans....

[mark-t]

I'm not convinced that 802.11n's popularity is seriously jeopardized by patents, but even if it is, I have little doubt that its speeds will be greatly surpassed by another wireless technology that we just have to wait a little bit longer for that will not have these restrictions on it.

well, ...

[hxnwix]

802.11n May Never Happen Due to Patent Concerns

Well then, I for one hope that 802.11n happens because it is a good standard. Things that happen because of patents or that do not happen because of not-patents generally fail to please me!

why?

[Kristoph]

Why does the IEEE not ask for these letters before they permit an organization to participate in the standards process? Does it make sense to have standards held for ransom by essentially any participant at the 11th hour?

I mean, honestly, this standard has been in draft for years and has been delayed repeatedly and now this? You would imagine the bureaucrats could at least manage the bureaucracy but I guess not.

]{

Does it matter?

[crhylove]

Intel already stated that wimax was definitely a go for next year. Isn't wimax better? Would some uber nerd explain the different road maps and the likelihood of which one we'll be following? kthnxbye

Re:

[cnettel]

WiMax is slower, generally even slower than 802.11g in good conditions. (But with far greater range.) The range is also related to the issues of what licenses will be required (in different territories). WiMax is no replacement for FastEthernet, 802.11n is closer to be that.

Re:Go Aussie!

[donaldm]

Err no that's New Zealand. :-)

Re:

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Depends on who you ask. Ask an Australian and they say it's the folks from New Zealand. Ask the folks from New Zealand and they say it's the Australians.

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

Ask an Australian and they say it's the folks from New Zealand. Ask the folks from New Zealand and they say it's the Australians.

The Kiwis have about 43.1 million sheep, or roughly 12 sheep for every person in New Zealand.

Australia has about 110 million sheep, or about 5 sheep per person. Additionally, more Welsh migrants settled in New Zealand than Australia.

With all due respect to our south-sea pom mates, I think it's pretty clear which nation leads the world in sheep-shagging...

Re:

[rdean400]

The argument isn't about whether or not the patents are valid or whether they advance or retard scientific progress. The argument is about whether or not patent encumbered standards should be allowed.

But, to answer your question, the extra cash from royalties/lawsuits would help CSIRO, but not the scientific community at large. It is the community at large that helps progression...to assume that progress would be helped by paying royalties to a single inventor, the question is: is that vendor *uniquely* p