You will not succeed. Thanks though.
Having put the squeeze on tech heavyweights like Intel, Dell, and Microsoft in defense of its ubiquitous WiFi patent, Australia's national science agency is preparing to wring out the rest of the electronics industry for royalties. The Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) says it's …
The US Patent Office is Destroying innovation and the progress of technology.
Firstly the patent is a load of crap, it should never have been granted.
Secondly, what moron decided to use pattented technology for an industry standard?
I suspect alot of bribes and backhanders are involved as this seem to be a repeating theme.
Alot of people need to be Fired, out of a cannon, into the sun!
Is it just me or did I just see an argument that Psystar could use? If Apple where to try and push the "prior art" route with the CSIRO, what is to stop Psystar from doing the same thing to Apple?
If I read the articles correctly, no judgement was officially made on the "piror art" argument and HP, Intel, etc rolled over so that would leave the question of "prior art" unanswered. I could honestly see Apple pushing it and of they where to lose, it's a couple of more mill for CSIRO but if they where to win, then wouldn't that open up the way for Psystar to use the same argument? "The hardware already exists on the market, it's just the way it's put together".
Food for thought but, then again, it's only my opinion.
In most patent cases, it's an automatic reflex to assume the patent-owner is nothing but a greedy troll.
But in this case, CSIRO aren't actually the "bad guys". They developed (and patented) some pioneering wireless techniques, then allowed them to be included in the 802.11 standards, with the caveat that they be allowed to charge reasonable licensing fees. Everyone agreed.
Then, companies started developing wireless products without licensing the technology. CSIRO sent them notices that they were infringing on their patents. The companies ignored them. CSIRO then tried negotiating with them, only to be rebuffed. This went on for years, with CSIRO having no luck at all.
So they finally bit the bullet and hired some lawyers to tackle some of the major infringing companies (a big move that took a massive chunk out of their budget). The companies then turned around and countersued.
After much legal wrangling, the companies realised they didn't have a legal leg to stand on and settled. CSIRO then pursued other companies who were infringing, resulting in more settlements.
CSIRO have been reasonable all the way. They tried negotiating, they only pursued legal action after all other avenues were extinguished, and their patents are perfectly valid and non-trivial. It's a shame that things ended up in court, both for the companies infringing the patents and for CSIRO (who had to cut back on research to pay the lawyers), but it truly was a last resort.
..and they aren't liking it are they? The big US corporations named in this article are the same ones that lobby the US govt. to pressure other countries into adopting overly strict Intellectual 'Property' laws. They are also the same companies that use land-grab tactics to amass huge amounts of frivolous patents to stifle competition
On the other hand we finally have a real scientific organisation (not a lawyer-ridden patent troll) which actually does invent things and innovate use the patent system for what it's intended and look what happens!
(disclaimer: I'm an Aussie)
why do people keep building standards around patented or proprietary systems/data/etc? Surely to have it become a proper "standard" it should be company-independant?
At the very worst, all of the IP for that standard should be owned by the standards body or the standards body should have a license set up that gives unrestricted use to people following their standard (though with no bearing on people not following their standard to the letter).
Csiro is an amazing 'think tank', I'd like to think that the Govt. would let them keep the settlement and continue with normal funding so that CSIRO get a lovely bonus to spend.
It won't happen of course, it'll either go to consolidated revenue (Govt.) direct, or, reduced funding until it's gone. Whichever way the Govt. will get the money.
It was ever thus.
You use patented/proprietary tech for standards when:
a) the tech is key to the procedure that you are trying to standardise
b) the 'rules' for the use of the tech are fairly agreed in advance of inclusion in the standard.
CSIRO have key patents for 802.11 functionality. Probably someone else could have come up with an equivalent, non-infringing solution, but they'd most likely patent that anyway.
CSIRO also set out the licensing requirements before the tech was included in the standard.
This is patents working the way they are intended:- you put in the work to create something, and are then rewarded for letting others use your creation.
In this case, the patent was known about in advance of setting the standard, and RAND terms agreed. After agreeing to the standard, various companies then refused to pay up.
RamBus was different. They sat round the discussion table and participated in setting the standard, knowing about their own patens, and saying nothing about it. Only after the standard was set and being used did they then demand licensing fees on their own terms. A patent ambush.
Patents on genuine inventions are a great way to fund applied research while keeping the output of a national research organisation out of the grubby hands of any one commercial firm.
All too often researchers at an organisation like the CSIRO have to divide their time between meaningful research that is not immediately revenue-generating, and purely commercial projects which are paid for by outside entities which end up holding the IP.
In this one (and perhaps only) case, device patents are truly beneficial to mankind.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021