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...
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Ideally, patents only give rights to an implementation of an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Where people are involved there's always room for development. The most important thing would be for patent offices to consist of much smarter and more educated staff, the kind that can actually understand the applications. Also, there are ways to effectively combat overly broad patents: prior art, used properly, could be one; pricing patents based on broadness could be another.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It is true that copyright and patents are different, but then so are cars and patents - and yet we still accept car analogies. Being different doesn't mean the analogy is flawed. So where exactly did the grandparent go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
By comparing copyright to patent. His analogy of his photographs and software is completely unrelated to patents. He doesn't own the ideas embodied by his pictures or code, he only owns the specific pictures and code, and he controls the right to copy them (thus the name copyright). Anyone can go take materially the same photo, or write a program to do that same things and it has no relationship to his copyright. They can even sell their photos and programs. That isn't true of patents. The attempt to compar
Re: (Score:2)
I still disagree. Just as someone else can take their own photographs of the same subject matter, so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided. For example, if you can make your own Wi-Fi standard and avoid having to use fast fourier transforms to cancel out the echo then you would not owe the CSIRO a cent.
But I think you are missing the point of the original poster. The AC was merely pointing out that the CSIRO invented the technology
Re: (Score:2)
...so to can other companies solve the multipath Wi-Fi problem using a technology other than the one the patent provided.
Which is exactly why a comparison to copyright is flawed. It's different (from his examples) because it IS different (rights).
No, I didn't miss the point of the OP. I addressed his statement. Him not commercializing his copyrighted material doesn't limit anyone else. If he had a patent and didn't commercialize it, he CAN prevent others from doing it. Different rules, invalid comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Different rules, invalid comparison.
This is never going to end, because we are going around in circles. My final comment would be to suggest that you look up the definition of the word analogy [thefreedictionary.com] and see that it describes a similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Copyright and patents do not need to be 100% agreement for an analogy to take place, especially when the differences do not alter the intent of the original statement.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you re-read the thread and try to understand what was actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to make it simple for you. The OP described how he deals with his own COPYRIGHTED material, using rules that apply to copyrights, not patents. Then, without making any attempt to apply that logic to patent rights, says "I don't see why patents ... are any different."
They're different because the rules are different, exactly as I described my in my reply to him. His analogy is based upon rules that are specific to copyright and it doesn't address patent rights at all. Therefore, the analogy is flawed. No
Re: (Score:2)
Oh dear. I made the mistake of having a peek to see if you had replied
Let me make it even simpler for you. Look at the subject line of this thread. "Their work, their say". It is a theme that is reflected in the last sentence (the take home message). "Creator gets the say". It appears that the topic the OP wished to discuss was that the patent holder has final say over who gets to use his patents. His main point was that it doesn't matter if you do not make commercial use of your patent or copyright, you st
Re: (Score:2)
A copyright does not prevent anyone from using the same idea, process, or technology, it only prevents copying a specific expression of it. Failure to commercialize copyright has ABSOLUTELY no impact on anyone other than the copyright holder.
Patents exclude anyone from using the patented material without a license for the duration of the patent. Failing to commercialize a patent affects EVERYONE who could benefit from that patent.
Copyright and patent are fundamentally different, the rules are different, the
Re: (Score:2)
NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS ARE DIFFERENT BEASTS!
Seriously, what is the point of continuing to keep posting virtually the same message no matter what is said to you? Do you just not read the messages or something? Do you just look for keywords like "copyright" in a story about patents and then post rants? Are you incapable of entertaining the idea that you misunderstood what the original poster said? If people use a car analogy, do you start arguments about gas vs diesel?
I am beginning t
Re: (Score:2)
I keep posting it because you don't seem to be getting the message. The OP's analogy is flawed beyond repair, yet you keep trying to defend it. Clearly I'm not trolling, my post is rated higher than the OP, I haven't attacked anyone, and I haven't replied with anything more than clarifications and additional details of my original post.
The question is why to you keep posting trying to make the OP/AC's point for him when clearly he's coming from a flawed premise?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of your statements in bold are false, but your conclusion is flawed for the reasons I've sited in several of my previous posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Assume that the taxpayers are paying you to take these pictures because it has been decided that it was important for art to be produced. Wouldn't it make sense to make these photographs available to all, without restrictions?
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?
Re:But they actually did the work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But they actually did the work (Score:5, Funny)
The answer is patently no.
Re: (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"
Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate. (Score:4, Funny)
Dingo dongers. Some companies are good at R&D, some at mass production. It's perfectly valid to specialise in one or the other.
Is an architect a troll if he doesn't dig his own foundations? Article's a bag of arse, mate.
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: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.
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:Strewth, the article's a bag of arse, mate. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an _additional_ trick that some troll have used (and plenty of producing patent-litigators as well), but it is not the primary mode of operation, just one of the more offensive ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls do not license their patents.
Sure they do. How else do you think they make money? Even when they sue, the purpose of the suit is to force the defendant to take a license, either court-imposed or in settlement negotiations. In the case of a non-practicing entity, the purpose of an injunction is just to give the patentee leverage in the license negotiations. There are exceptions, such as a patentee that has an exclusive licensee and is suing to prevent others from using the technology, but ultimately that's about protecting the value
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls do not license their patents.
Sure they do. How else do you think they make money? Even when they sue, the purpose of the suit is to force the defendant to take a license, either court-imposed or in settlement negotiations. In the case of a non-practicing entity, the purpose of an injunction is just to give the patentee leverage in the license negotiations. There are exceptions, such as a patentee that has an exclusive licensee and is suing to prevent others from using the technology, but ultimately that's about protecting the value of the original license.
You seem very confused on what a patent troll is.
You've described an ordinary patent holder, not a patent troll. Patent holders license out their patents, patent trolls hide their patents and sue for an exorbitant amount of money when a patent they've secreted away is violated. This avoids all the tedious negotiation that come with licensing patents from the outset and denying the defendant a chance to work around the patent.
Patent trolls do not look for reasonable fees, they look for people to sue fo
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls absolutely license their patents - they simply do so at absurd rates (e.g., $220M for some wireless patents of dubious quality).
Your argument rests on the idea that the patents are of dubious quality. What about them is dubious? They solved a problem that nobody else at the time could solve. Doesn't that mean that they were indeed a non-obvious invention?
The CSIRO did actually shop the technology around the place to get people to license it, long before it got used in a standard. This was not a submarine patent.
So it is more like saying that someone's not a thief because they spend their stolen money on really cool stuff.
Please use international units of measurement (Score:5, Funny)
1 "bag of arse" = How many "Library of Congresses" . . . ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1 "bag of arse" = How many "Library of Congresses" . . . ?
You've unintentionally crossed measurements sir, the international metrics are confusing. To clarify:
1 "bag of arse" = 0.25 "Member of Congress"
Hope that helps.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
CSIRO actually does research. Patent trolls buy their patents.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
Furthermore, CSIRO immediately reinvested almost all of this money into developing better wireless technology for rural communities in Australia and worldwide (as part of the NBN project). If patent trolls used their gains for research instead of lining pockets of the rich I imagine we'd all have a very different opinion of them.
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: (Score:2)
in addition to that, they rarely get sufficient funds to actually commercialise the things they invent.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
correct. And they allow others to use their invention if they pay an agreed royalty.
Otherwise there wouldn't be any incentive for them to invent new things. They spent time and money creating the new tech and they need to get a return. As they are not a product company then they rely upon royalties and such to keep inventing the next great thing!
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. They are a government body, which means that the incentive part has been fixed for them already. The basic argument for patents is indeed what you have stated: it is cheaper to copy than to innovate. Therefore, all companies have an incentive to wait for others to innovate, then copy what they have done. Therefore, there will be less innovation than socially optimal and we must have patents to give companies incentives. In others words, we allow inventors to internalize some of the positive
Would you call Stanford University a patent troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's really a shame that research organizations are now forced to fund themselves. They have no other choice other than to create commercially viable technologies in order to justify their existence.
Imagine a world where pure research organizations could pursue long term ideas, and give the results of their works for free to the public?
Re: (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: (Score:3)
The point is that it's difficult to predict the relevance of a given technology. If you have a mandate to only explore "commercially viable" science, that means only exploring stuff that boring suits think might generate a bottom line. But people are terrible at predicting what will be useful and what won't.
Ultimately, yes, I agree, pie-in-the-sky science projects can irritate me, but making all science "commercially viable" is inevitably going to reduce the amount of science that actually produces results
Re: (Score:2)
True but you still get side spin-offs. As in this case. The way of eliminating interference in WiFi was not discovered because they were trying to solve a WiFi problem, but rather trying to figure out visual problems in space telescope optics. Just because you chase one commercially viable target doesn't mean you can't hit another.
But I do get what you're saying.
Re: (Score:2)
that means only exploring stuff that boring suits think might generate a bottom line.
even worse, it means exploring stuff that suits think will generate the highest amount, leaving us with an intellectual monoculture.
i understand the csiro has already re-invested into further wireless research as a result of this, but i also hope they're able to spread it around the organisation, even some pie-in-the-sky stuff ( the original wifi patent came about as a result of some radiotelescope research... hows that for pie in the sky? :) )
Re: (Score:3)
You're misrepresenting the *substantial* difference between research and patent seeking. 'research' is open, it is all about sharing knowledge and promoting the free reuse of discoveries with no strings attached. 'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimenta
Re: (Score:2)
Most university departments are true research organisations, and they *don't* seek patents.
This may be true for your local community college, but it's not true for any university with an engineering or science program. Harvard, MIT, USC, Standford, Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech, Cornell, etc. I know, because I'm a patent attorney and have dealt with many of them and seen patents from the others.
Re: (Score:2)
'patent seeking' is about closing off ideas and generating rent by artificially restricting the rest of the world's experimentation with similar ideas.
Right. IIRC CISRO had done some basic research on wireless networks a while ago, and that didn't get commercialized. When other companies did seek to commercialize wireless, they re-invented the same things and CISRO came after them, getting injunctions and such.
That's not the purpose of the patent system (theoretically, once upon a time, etc.).
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: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.
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
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.
Not this crap again... (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/05/2131233/the-story-behind-australias-csiro-wi-fi-claims [slashdot.org]
and here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/01/2011245/australian-wifi-inventors-win-us-legal-battle [slashdot.org]
and even here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/06/01/2258221/csiro-sues-us-carriers-over-wi-fi-patent [slashdot.org]
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: (Score:2)
Article is a shill piece (Score:3)
Anyone who quotes Florian Mueller as if he were anything other than a shill at this stage of the game is full of it.
ITnews troll about trolls (Score:2)
If a "news" organisation makes up their own definition in order to provoke argument, or justify their own opinion they are definetly a troll.
CSIRO may or may not be a patentent troll but ITnews definetly posts troll stories.
But they do commercialise it (Score:2)
But they do commercialise it. They aren't a "build it"organisation, they're an "invent it" organisation. They commercialise their inventions by licensing them to others who have the ability / desire to build it. That's a valid option.
Just because you've invented something it may only be one piece of the puzzle. The wifi thing they did was a bit like that. It makes the current state of the art much better / useful, but it isn't a stand alone thing.
From a societal point of view, having groups do researc
Re: (Score:2)
Licensing to others is nice BUT there are still big problems with allowing a non-practicing entity to sue.
1. A non-practicing entity cannot be counter-sued. This distorts the legal system in favor of the party doing the suing. This is the primary evil associated with patent trolling.
Even worse is the case where it is a governmental entity that is doing the suing. If I were the host nation for such a suit I'd be pissed at the country engaging in such extraterritorial behavior by the government of another nat
CSIRO attempted to license its wifi patent (Score:5, Informative)
Prior to the CSIRO lawsuit, CSIRO actively attempted to license its wifi patents. See http://www.ipo.org/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4600
When the big multinationals refused to pay patent fees, CSIRO opted to defend its intellectual property rights. That's what the patent system is for. If defending intellectual property rights is considered trolling, then why have IP rights?
psychologists call it projection (Score:2)
no, they're not trolls. but this story is.
It was commercialised (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hello John,
Thanks for this. I do remember the Radiata days, even though I was not involved myself. I was at CSIRO Maths & Stats at the time, later CMIS, at MU. it was big news when CISCO bought it. I'm surprised that CSIRO retained the IP rights over that design.
I'm not surprised that CSIRO sued and I'm happy they won, but long term I really don' t know whether this will be good or not for the organization. How much time and effort was spent in that litigation ? will the money return to basic science ?
I have mod points... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but I couldn't see where I could mod the submission as "troll"?
sour grapes (Score:2)
they have contributed by developing a technology, the details of which are given in a patent and which people can licence. It saves others time and effort to achieve the same result.
Re:umm (Score:5, Interesting)
what csiro does with patents in the commercial world is called "business".
i say good on csiro for working for their major shareholder - the aussie taxpayer.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that this overlooks one of the major problems with the current drive to patent all that can be patented, even when it was found as part of a government research project. As soon as there is a possibility to directly profit from research findings, it becomes more likely that research will be directed toward what will maximize the likelihood that something patentable will be found. This reduces the difference between what government and what the industry will focus on, which undermines the rati
Re: (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 compan
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't invent wifi
i didn't claim they did invent wifi, but there are a lot of patents covering the technology that makes up wifi. no single company or organisation invented wifi. they did invent something that refined wifi, regardless of where it come from. all current invention is standing on the shoulders of those that came before them. most patents cover a relatively small level of innovation that is based on previous innovation. there are very few major breakthrough innovations nowadays (like invention of the light bulb
Re: (Score:2)
"Is CSIRO returning any monies to the Aussie Taxpayer?" - Yes, half the monies collected in this case went straight back to the government. That is the mandate that CSIRO operates under.
So the answer is no then, and Aussie wifi users STILL had to pay for development, and pay again when they buy a router.
Giving money to the government doesn't get any back into taxpayers pockets.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except it was trivial. They simply moved techniques long know in the radar industry to low-power routers to prevent them being swamped by reflection of their own signals. So, by your own definition: Trolling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
everything seems simple in hindsight
Re: (Score:2)
These radar techniques were also pioneered by the CSIRO in their radar division. They clearly weren't trivial, since they took a decade of development.
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: (Score:2)
Using this argument, government run trains shouldn't charge passengers, since the tax payer has already paid for the infrastructure.
I don't see why the Australian government can't reclaim some of its initial investment by charging the consumer of the product, especially when most of the consumers are overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, if there's anything we can count on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there isn't a problem with this 'free riding.' In fact, the ability to 'free ride' is undeniably far more important than the patent system.
Why would inventing something worth patenting necessarily give you a better understanding of macroeconomics? The answer is that it doesn't, but assholes like yourself pretend that it does. The reality is that the people
Re: (Score:2)
And again, you and I and every human on the planet 'blatantly rip off people who can actually invent things' all the time. Even that worthless asshole Isaac Newton blatantly admitted to such
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't. But you can't in the patent system either. You have to realize that regardless of what system you have, small innovators are going to get screwed over most of the time. T
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that because, on average, both inventors and society as a whole a harmed by patents, the treatment is worse than the disease, meaning that doing nothing is better than 'protection'. Perhaps you should learn to read before calling other people dipshits.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that patents are ineffective at accomplishing their goal, and are in general a net harm to that goal and to the welfare of inventors. It's like if your doctor still prescribed blood letting for
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps government agencies should leave "business" to businesses.
Perhaps business lobbies should leave "government" to governments.
pun aside, the csiro is a research organisation, funded by the commonwealth, and providing a return on the investment through patenting the outcomes of its research. another former public asset was the commonweath serum laboratory ( CSL ), which was sold at a price some years ago, and no longer returns its profits to the previous owner ( the australian government ).
we've been down this path with telcos, water authorities and power distributor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, privately held for profit electrical companies were a very bad idea. The same goes for water companies and other utilities. Telecoms are pretty much the most awful businesses that are still around, and are in an area that really should be either run by municipalities or a membership corporation. These are all areas where being run like a conventional business is idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, Australian citizens are still having to pay the same fees. If you have data that Australian companies don't have to pay CSIRO or that sales in Australia are exempt from that royalty, please provide it. Otherwise, the cost is passed on to companies, and shit rolls downhill, so consumers are still paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wouldn't. Governments have to focus on what is best for citizens, not what is best for the treasury department. Running government your way would eliminate policies that aren't profitable to the government, even if they provide a major benefit to the public. Here's a newflash for you: that would eliminate CSIRO entirely. CSIRO is not profitable. Licensing patents has reduced their costs, but not in a huge way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is only true if the revenue stays the same. Of course, what we are debating here is specifically a revenue model. CSIRO's research practices won't change much, other than perhaps avoiding non-patentable research, which is likely to decrease the social welfare
Short Answer (Score:2)
Yes!
Re: (Score:2)
CSIRO has been inventing things since before Motorola was even founded
Re: (Score:3)
CSIRO's predecessor was only around for about two years before Motorola sold their first car radio. CSIRO's goals at the time was to explain how to improve farm yields while preserving food and were doing work like the US Dept of Agriculture did at the time which was mostly trying to keep a US dust bowl type situation from happening in Australia.
CSIRO's contribution to wifi is very minimal and happens to have been used by others before they patented it.