Australian Government Wins Patent Claim On WiFi; Demands Everyone Pay Up
from the thanks,-Australia! dept
How better to kill an emerging disruptive technology that to bog it down with damaging patent claims? We've noted over the past few years that a bunch of companies are all jumping on the bandwagon to claim patents concerning WiFi. However, perhaps the most worrisome is the one claimed by the Australian tech research agency CSIRO covering a fairly broad spectrum of basic wireless local area network technology. Last year, a bunch of tech companies, including Microsoft, Dell, HP, Intel, Apple and Netgear teamed up to attack the validity of the patent, but CSIRO continued to focus on suing a smaller firm to get royalties first. Not surprisingly, the firm filed the suit in every patent holder's favorite court in Eastern Texas. So, it should come as no surprise that the court decided earlier this week that the patent is valid and the company, Buffalo, needs to pay up. CSIRO says it now plans to seek royalties from, well, everyone -- and they might not just limit it to WiFi either, potentially targeting companies building or offering WiMax or Bluetooth solutions as well. As for the other lawsuit from all those big companies? Glenn Fleishman at WiFi Networking News (the link above) notes that CSIRO claims that they don't need to pay attention to that lawsuit since, as a foreign government body, they can't be sued -- yet, they seem to have absolutely no problem at all suing others and demanding royalties. Funny how that works.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
immunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: immunity
No I think you can imply from his comment that he thinks the patents are NOT valid. Most of the broader wireless patents out there aren't valid if you look for any prior art. It seems awfully suspicious that CSIRO made sure to go after one of the smaller players in the market first. If their patents are valid and not too broad or obvious, why didn't they go after one of the bigger players? Sounds like patent troll behavior.
If you act like a patent troll, people are going to assume that you are one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: immunity
Just because they defeated the smaller player does not prevent other parties from claiming in a court that the patent is invalid. If you read the article, you will find that Buffalo Tech unilaterally pulled out of license negotiations. Maybe that is why they were sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: immunity@4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge T John Ward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge T John Ward
we follow your laws...why do you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the validity of a foreign organization suing a US company in US court though? Wasn't there recently the thing with the spam black lister in the UK getting sued or something and they ignored the case because it was in US courts... Ofcourse, it caused a crapload of problems with ICANN.
How can a patent as broad as to include Bluetooth and WiFi be valid anyway? They'd need something like, all forms of wireless data transfer to cover that, and common use dates for that would have been in prob the 70s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: haha
w00t double standards are a bitch huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: haha (cleft)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: haha (cleft)
soon will have super hornets, cruise missiles, jsf.
we have c17, abrams tanks and all the goodies.
There is a reason there are laws. But hay,who wouldnt want American Military Technologhy....
Do you see the problem with making you laws debunked.
by all means go ahead....but do come crying to us when it happens to you.....hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WIFI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
So, CSIRO owns WiFi, so why has it taken them so long to come out and say it? I know the process isn't an overnight thing, but it sounds like they let WiFi brew until they knew they could get a large chunk of cash out of a lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
If they wait that long allowing it to grow (like wireless has) before claiming infringement, they shouldn't be allowed to persue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Something akin to the 'due diligence' required to obtain the patent to begin with, no? From where I sit, silence is concurrence. So if you're going to stand by for years while entities (public or private) publicly use the technology you create without speaking up about it in a reasonable amount of time, looks to me like you miss out on the payments. Otherwise, that makes you a dishonest asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CSIRO is not a company or firm
The CSIRO is a highly respected and high quality government funded research organisation in Australia. If they own the IP to aspects of basic wireless technology, that's because they actually did the underlying research.
As for the "foreign" organisation comment up this thread, that is the most idiotic statement I have read in a while. The US expects its IP to be upheld wordwide, whether the country is part of the WTO or not. The same is true in reverse. All other nations expect THEIR IP to be respected in the United States.
The fact that the CSIRO went to the US to play by the US rules (rather than having the claim easily sorted out in Australia) and won should be an indicator to the validity of their claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, Yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, Yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are they going to do?
Invade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Settle down there...
Does anyone really care anyway if Microsoft or Dell and etc have to pay a little bit of cash to use a technology that they didn't develop themselves?
What is wrong with the CSIRO getting a little bit in return for something they developed in the first place anyway?
And of course they're going to go after a smaller company first, why would they shoot themselves in the foot?
Rick - you're another shining example of US stupidity/naivety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you should check into that. I think you will find they did develop the technology and hence have a very valid claim to the patent.
Not many of the articles seem to have the full details but this on e in particular:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73014/us-tech-companies-bid-to-annul-wireless-patent.html
suggests that wireless hardware manufacturers already purchase licenses from the CSIRO to use their technology in the devices that they sell. It looks like Buffalo decided not to apply for this hence not pay royalties even though everyone else was, so CSIRO sued them. Now all the other manufacturers are ganging up to invalidate the patent so they don't have to pay for the licence anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WE recently signed a free trade agreement with the US, thats why its valid fools. Rather than a cross boundary dispute they are persuing these claims because it is now worth their effort and money as our patent or more readily recognized in your country, a completely valid and original patent.
THEY developed the technology, and they didnt stifle its beggining and let it become a commertial product. Now they wish to capitalise on the things based on the technology THEY INVENTED AND HOLD PATENTS ON.
The patent system is screwed, but this is an example where its acctually valid for once!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G'day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha!
Lollers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Haha!
Asian countries, just like you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big laptop manufacturers are already paying license fees to the CSIRO for the wireless standard and have been doing so since the CSIRO technology was became the industry standard. They are suing the CSIRO to try and avoid paying these fees on the off chance they can save a bit of money. This is big greedy corporations trying to weasel out of license payments to a loss making government organization that tries to develop technology for social good. I don't see Intel spending any money on research on immunization and environment recovery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway, it's anything in excess of 10ghz range, so a/b/g/ networks should be safe.
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&qt=pat&reel=&frame=&pat=5 487069&pub=&asnr=&asnri=&asne=&asnei=&asns=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]