CSIRO Wins Wi-Fi Settlement From HP 125
suolumark writes "The CSIRO has won what could be a landmark settlement from Hewlett Packard over the use of patented wireless technology. The settlement ended HP's involvement in a four-year lawsuit brought by the CSIRO on a group of technology companies, in which the organisation was seeking royalties for wi-fi technology that is used extensively on laptops and computers worldwide. CSIRO spokesman Luw Morgan earlier said legal action was continuing against 13 companies: Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Asus, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3-Com, Buffalo, Microsoft and Nintendo."
What we need (Score:1, Insightful)
The clever country indeed.
Re:These guys aren't your normal patent trolls. (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember folks that this is a government funded and sponsored organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO [wikipedia.org]
The research is largely paid for by the Australian tax payer, and the ownership of the fruits of their labor should also rest there, rather than beinb plowed back into building an ivory tower that suffers from out of control growth in the face of shrinking budgets,
In the US we are a little suspect of agencies like this, (although we do have some).
We tend to prefer the NASA, DARPA, TVA model of publicly funded organizations, where thousands of ideas are released to the general public and find their way quickly onto the market.
If the Shoe fits ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no. The question is how did these patents get into the 802.11 standard. And is this a legitimate patent or a blatantly obvious one?
To say well its OK for a government funded body to base their business model on licensing patents But its not OK for a private company to do so is a double standard. Basically saying the motive justifies the act.
To my mind the motive does not excuse the act. If patent trolling, especially on standards, is wrong then it is wrong on all cases.
The only mitigating factor I could think of is if the patented technology was knowingly included in the standard. And that the relevant commitee did this on the expectation that the CSIRO would not enforce their patent. In which case their would be a clear intent to commit IP theft.
what, no fruit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel, Dell, Toshiba, Asus, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, 3-Com, Buffalo, Microsoft and Nintendo."
Notice one missing? What happened there? (did they actually license rather than "borrow without permission"?)
Actually I suppose I don't see Compaq anywhere in there either. Any other big names I'm overlooking?
Re:These guys aren't your normal patent trolls. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, gee, unlike America we don't have untold billions to 'waste' on research, so we went a different route. To think that American corporations would ignore patents because American law might allow you to do so in these circumstances is disgusting; your corporations expect everyone else to acknowledge their IP and now they would blatantly disregard someone else's? Hypocrisy and greed, not that I've come to expect anything else from American companies.
Re:What we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should the Australian Government fund research that benefits US, japanese and Korean companies?
These guys are not patent trolls. they are set up to do research and solve problems.
Re:What we need (Score:1, Insightful)
Utterly spot on.
Mark my words, what will actually happen is that the government funding for CSIRO will actually *decrease* in proportion to the cash value of this (and any other) settlements for this case.
Re:What we need (Score:2, Insightful)
Solve problems... like "How do we prevent the wireless revolution by patent-trolling the standards committees"?
Gee, that's a useful skill. They should probably get with the DRAM committees and see if they can extend their work to the innovation of preventing new memory technologies, or partner with Intel on the prevention of higher resolution lithography. You know, for the social good that would arise from bringing a screaming halt to technological progress.
Re:How the fuck is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
The CSIRO has been chasing the hardware companies for years. The paper trail is a mile long. The CSIRO should be complimented for only pressing the SUE button as a last resort.
The hardware companies, on the other hand, deserve a swift kick to the nuts. But a payout will have to do.
Re:What we need (Score:5, Insightful)
(Not a troll but with a majority American audience I'll bet I'll have the +5 troll achievement in no time with this opinion.)
Re:What we need (Score:5, Insightful)
So you'd prefer it to be the other way? CSIRO getting screwed by big companies, like it has in the past.
I say good on them, they need the funding. I know a few CSIRO scientists and they are always getting dicked with pay and contracts because the organisation keeps getting dicked out of funds.
If it was patent trolling they'd have just submitted the patent rather than showing proof of concept and actually developing the technology.
Learn what patent-trolling is before you troll yourself.
Re:What we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Do patent trolls:
-disclose their patents ahead of time in the working group
-agree to let their patents be used in the standard as long as compensation is paid
-contact the infringing companies immediatly after the standard was formed, continuing for 10 years, getting the cold shoulder, before FINALLY suing them
Oh.. wait... you mean you couldn't even RTFA, let alone do 2 minutes of googling about the situation?
Re:What we need (Score:2, Insightful)
This patent trolling crap is bitched about more here than Microsoft is.