CSIRO Settles With Tech Giants Over WiFi Patent Spat 92
Combat Wombat brings news that the legal battle between the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO) and a host of major tech corporations has come to end, with a large settlement going to the CSIRO. The fight was over a patent on wireless LAN technology, which already earned the CSIRO a victory in court over Buffalo Technology and a settlement with Hewlett-Packard. The remaining 13 companies, which include Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Nintendo, have now chosen to settle as well. "[The CSIRO] will use the money won from a Wi-Fi technology patent battle to fund further research. ... It is unclear how much money has flowed to the CSIRO, but experts say the technology would be worth billions of dollars if royalties were paid on an ongoing basis."
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, if patent-holders are justified in doing anything with their holdings, except donating them to public domain — in your opinion...
Re:Just because... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder, if patent-holders are justified in doing anything with their holdings, except donating them to public domain -- in your opinion...
Well, they might be out of toilet paper...?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
CSIRO is funded by the Australian taxpayer and is fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries. Neil
So, Neil, is this the case ONLY for taxpayer funded organizations? Or are ANY organizations "fully entitled to recover money made by others from their patented discoveries"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the claim is valid and legal. I.E. so long as the company isn't an abusive monopoly, attempting to use the patent to wipe out a competitor or leverage it to get an unfair advantage in the market.
If the organisation or individual can prove beyond doubt that the patent is being knowingly and/or deliberately violated then yes, most
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the point: What discoveries?! The patent looks like it takes existing LAN and DSP technology and adds, "but do it wirelessly." This is shades of patents that added "but do it on the internet". Where a specific infringement is not obvious, I wonder if the vague and all-encompassing idea of using a wireless LAN in an office or home setting would allow them to attack any home wireless technology, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with their invention.
I was looking forward to the le
Re:Just because... (Score:5, Funny)
CISRO got a good deal with the settlement.
If it went to court, it probably would have been easy to fight. Since CISRO is south of the equator, the WiFi technology they developed is out of phase with what we use up here, so clearly different.
That's why Australian toilet manufacturers can't break into other big markets. The water spins the wrong way.
[OT] Re:Just because... (Score:3, Informative)
I know you were joking but for the benefit of everyone else who doesn't know this yet: Your location on the Earth has no effect on the direction that water rotates as it drains from your bath/toilet [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
my response to that myth is to replace it with an alternative so it sticks in their mind better:
".. but our sundials DO go in the wrong direction"
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a difference between a government organisation doing research and securing patents, and a private company doing the same thing. In the case of a government organisation, the benefits will actually trickle-down to everyone, whereas with a private company, they just hoard and profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, how so? In a private company they will ultimately serve only the shareholders. But in a govt research agency it will fund more research. Except that they seem to be in the business of making you pay for what they discover. Assuming it is just used to reinvest in the research agency, and assuming in the case of a company which doesn't pay dividends (which most tech companies don't), it looks pretty dead even. The final result is a general benefit in the technology of humanity, but neither appears to be
Oblig. Slashdot Response (Score:4, Funny)
I am going to patent the air that the radio waves travel through. That way they will owe me money.
1up (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to trademark the word "claim" as it relates to intellectual property.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
CSI-RO, huh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
because research cost money and they need to be paid for it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On a more calm note. I understand your point. But I feel that by allowing companies to patent technology they never implemented, or even pursued, we do more damage via patent trolls; than the damage we would do by disallowing companies to patent unused research.
Re:Patent Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I feel you pain. The point of having patent is to incite company to publicize their research. Worst, if those "research troll" would not patent their discoveries, their discoveries would be probably forgotten. Maybe the real problem is that patent are valid for such a long period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the real problem is that patent are valid for such a long period of time.
How long is that? Somewhere around 2 decades? Hardly "such a long period of time," say in comparison to copyright terms.
Re:Patent Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Then do something with the research! Any organization that has the power to do research for the sake of research, should be scientific and not have the power to patent to begin with.
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a question that should be asked of the Australian taxpayer. Perhaps research of this nature should not be publicly funded in that way.
Re:Patent Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If it's publicly funded information, shouldn't the public be entitled to use it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They do business in Australia so I assume they pay at least some taxes in Australia.
CSIRO is taxpayer funded, so there you go.
You're overlooking the main point though -- publicly funded information should be publicly available and made available for use by the public. If the Australian taxpayer funds research and a Ugandan person wishes to use it, why should he not be allowed to do so, just like an Australian could/should be able to use the fruits of publicly-funded Ugandan research.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldn't publicly funded research flow to the benefit of ALL of the public?
Sure, but allowing a bunch of multinationals to make billions of the fruits of public research? No.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Again, Dell et.al pay taxes in Australia, so where's the problem?
They paid for that research, just the same as you did. In absolute dollar terms, they probably paid more for it than you did.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but allowing a bunch of multinationals to make billions of the fruits of public research?
Why not? Aren't they part of the public too?
You should have the same right to make billions off of the fruit of the same public research if you wish to.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, if it's that kind of research (stuff that's easily commercialized) then perhaps it shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer. Basic, "pure" research is a horse of a different colour than "let's build a better mousetrap".
Re: (Score:2)
That's a question that should be asked of the Australian taxpayer. Perhaps research of this nature should not be publicly funded in that way.
Thanks, but most of us would probably rather have wi-fi as a thing that has been invented rather than living in your libertarian fantasy world. Particularly down here in our socialist utopia, where we are not so simpleminded as to think that anything involving the government is inherently wrong and bad.
Of course, Dell, MS, Nintendo and co are welcome to go and develop their own, non-infringing wireless technologies.
Regards,
Australia
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the American public fund research that benefits the rest of the world?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because your Constitution says so that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
Conversely why should manufacturers pay money for the invention when they've had to do all the work and taken all the risk refining and setting up mass production.
I'm Australian by the way. I hope the settlement is a fair and equitable one where the CSIRO isn't left out in the cold but nor are the manufacturers now making a loss on all those previous sal
Why? Because there was a prior agreement. (Score:2)
Why? Why should the Australian public fund research that companies such as Dell, Microsoft, Apple, etc can then just take for free and make billions off of?
Conversely why should manufacturers pay money for the invention when they've had to do all the work and taken all the risk refining and setting up mass production.
Apologies if I get some of the details slightly wrong, but in a previous slashdot article discussion, someone pointed out that CSIRO agreed with the WIFI standards committee that the technology could be used for a licensee fee. The manufacturers using the standard must therefore pay for the right to use it.
IIRC something similar happens with manufacturers using the technology in MPEG/DVDs etc.
Re:Patent Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the way the patent system works is kind of perverse. No one ever looks for patents they might infringe on, because if you find one, then it becomes "willful infringement" and you could end up owing triple damages. And patents are so badly written, that if you're doing anything interesting there's probably a dozen overbroad, ambiguous patents that you could be infringing, but can't tell without spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to find out, and which wo
Australian Laws (Score:2)
"Actually, the way the patent system works is kind of perverse. No one ever looks for patents they might infringe on, because if you find one, then it becomes "willful infringement" and you could end up owing triple damages."
*Waits for someone to quote an American case an applies it to an Australian legal system*
"And patents are so badly written, that if you're doing anything interesting there's probably a dozen overbroad, ambiguous patents that you could be infringing, but can't tell without spending thous
Re: (Score:1)
Heh. When its' a case of a patent troll winning royalties slashdot is full of condemnation and arguments.
This is a case of a company that genuinely did put the effort in and was not recompensed for their efforts and involving a non-US company. Barely a peep from Slashdot in comparison. CSIRO has invented many many technologies in its' time, the Cochlear ear being the most well-known example and a decent portion of its' funding now comes from licencing due to the steady erosion of govt funding.
I'd expect mor
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Radiata Communications, an Australian wireless (Score:1)
first establish design, manufacturing, sales, marketing, and logistics channels to sell the retail product(s)
http://www.anu.edu.au/mail-archives/link/link0011/0366.html [anu.edu.au] for more info...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I should stop giving patent holders amnesia after "stealing" their designs, then.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they shouldn't be able to change the frequencies mentioned in the patent. Maybe they shouldn't be able to patent obvious things like multiplexing over different frequencies. Maybe they shouldn't bring the lawsuit up in a court district that is a known haven to patent trolls. Maybe they should go after the WIFI Alliance, who knowingly introduced the standard including the patented tech, but did not provision for licensing fees. On that subject, who should be responsible for those fees? The WIFI Allianc
The patent sucks, yes (Score:1, Interesting)
But it was valid. It was told before the process became the standard and the companies involved agreed to pay for the patent.
If they didn't want to pay and didn't think they had to because the patent sucks, why didn't they fight the patent application?
Because they have their own sucky patents and don't want any sucky patents fought because they'll lose theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
How long are you willing to wait, before confiscating someone's patent? It may take a while after getting a patent to "get going", for example.
Also, your approach completely destroys the concept of a purely research organization — one, that would concentrate on scientific discoveries, while leaving actual practical use of them to the highest bidder. Because if your logic is implemented, no one will bid
Re: (Score:2)
DO you know how hard it is to get to ther patenet stage to the manufacturing stage?
A large company could start manufacturing your device before you even got your first bit of money.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could quite comfortably argue the opposite.
The danger with a company "making things" is that the patent is used to enforce a monopoly.
With a research organisation at least they have motivation to get the patent used as widely as possible, albeit for a fee.
Re: (Score:1)
Buffalo Tech (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is who should be responsible for paying the license? I'm pretty sure Buffalo(among others) does not currently design its own chips. They are designed by companies like Broadcom and Atheros. Since Broadcom and Atheros are designing chips that use the patents, shouldn't they bear the cost of licensing? The parts of the products that are designed by Buffalo shouldn't really infringe on the patents directly, as they just use the chips that themselves use the patented technology. If I buy a compu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't quite understand how CSIRO patented a technology that has been around as long as CD
Re: (Score:2)
The injunction is terrible in that it was not lifted during appeals. That paints a scary picture for manufacturers as they cannot even keep their business going during appeals. If it weren't for their lucrative storage products, Buffalo Tech likely would have had to close the US office.
The funny thing is that the CSIRO patent in question specifically speaks of using frequencies above 10 GHz. Since 802.11G uses 2.4 Ghz and A uses 5 GHz, how is this covered by the patent?
My question was rhetorical in that I w
Patent modified to all frequencies (Score:1)
Lesson To Learn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
@VernonNemitz
The thing is though, they actually did declare the standard as patent encumbered, along with a small bulk licensing fee for the use of the patent, the American companies just ignored it. That's the issue, and this is why they are justfied in filing a lawsuit.
The harmonisation of IP laws (something I personally dont think is in Australia's best interest) goes both ways.
The money they make off the licensing goes into paying development costs and further research, otherwise it means that the austr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The money they make off the licensing goes into paying development costs and further research, otherwise it means that the australian tax payer is out of pocket for the benefit of the rest of the world (the CSIRO is a research institute supported by the Australian Government, not a private for-profit company).
Actually, it's more like the Australian tax payers paying for research that financially benefits US companies like Dell, Intel etc etc etc. After all, they are the ones making the money on this, not the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
except that in this case the CSIRO made it clear they had a patent on the tech when they allowed it's use the IEEE standard for wireless networking products in exchange for royalties. to which all the companies said "yes we'll happily pay you the royalties". a decade later and the main companies are finally paying up.
Re:Lesson To Learn (Score:5, Informative)
What part of this was secret?
CSIRO was after the companies from the word go, they knowingly and deliberately infringed on a development made by CSIRO and CSIRO made not secret of the fact that they held the patent and wanted to be compensated for their development work if it was to be used in a commercial application.
CSIRO tried to deal with the companies, when the chipset manufacturers told CSIRO to sod off. Several companies including Apple, Microsoft (add Sony and we have the holy trinity of evil) and Dell are suing CSIRO in order to renege on paying CSIRO for their patent. The only news here is that CSIRO's patent has been upheld, which is nice because it means the patent system is being used for good (as in the way it was meant to work). What part of this was hidden exactly.
CSIRO [wikipedia.org] is a Commonwealth government (Australia) science and technology development organisation, which means that my taxes paid for this (I'm Australian and have no problem with taxes being used for increasing Australia's knowledge and abilities) but they also hold patents and collect license fee's which go towards reducing the amount of tax dollars CSIRO requires to keep research going.
All rants aside, I agree with you, suing another company by using a secret patent should result in the companies directors being drawn and quartered and the lawyers involved being put against a wall outside the courthouse and shot immediately. But more realistically should cause the immediate and irreversible revocation of the patent in question placing the technology into the public domain.
Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:1, Interesting)
If this were a private, for-profit company that was fighting for IP rights, Slashdotters would be up in arms defending those wanting to use the tech with arguments of Free-as-in-Speech, good-of-humanity, etc. But when it's a non-profit research organization doing exactly the same thing, Slashdotters rush to defend them.
Are the ideals here really about freedom and liberty or just thinly-veiled anti-corporatism?
Re:Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
That statement implies the concepts you contrast are incompatiable, they are not. An organization that exisits only to maximize its own profit would willingly sacrifice people's freedoms and liberty, if that seemed to be the most convenient way to pursue this goal. Once upon a time, it was required to demonstrate how a corporation would provide a net benefit to society before a corporate charter could be issued (it would, in theory, be revoked if that benefit never materialized). However, that was a long time ago and the standards are far lower and few seem to remember that corporations were originally allowed to exisit by society, rather than having some intrinsic right to exisit. Therefore IMHO, anyone who values freedom and liberty should at least be suspicious of corporations in their modern form.
Re: (Score:2)
Are the ideals here really about freedom and liberty or just thinly-veiled anti-corporatism?
... or are Slashdotters just against the abuse of patents by certain corporations?
You missed one option.