Australian Government Wins Patent Claim On WiFi; Demands Everyone Pay Up

from the thanks,-Australia! dept

Thu, Nov 16th 2006 1:20pm — Mike Masnick

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

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Matt Bennett, 16 Nov 2006 @ 1:41pm

Wow, that's some bull crap. Anyone figure out what's the deal with that one judge? It almost sounds like grounds for impeachment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2006 @ 1:55pm

Someone shoot em :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous-chan, 16 Nov 2006 @ 1:57pm

WiFi's closed, it's full of patents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MOJOPAGODA, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:03pm

immunity
CSIRO is not immune from lawsuits - at least under Australian law - but it's a matter for US law (assuming the suit was brought there) as to whether CSIRO is considered the Australian government. Section 8(3) of CSIRO's legislation (Science and Industry Research Act 1949) provides that it can be sued (again, under Australian law). CSIRO has developed over the years some of the best research science in the world but frequently lacks sufficient funding to commercialise its research and usually sells it off, so it's refreshing to see that it is prosecuting its IP which was created with taxpayer-funded research. Do we imply from your comment an assertion that somehow CSIRO does not deserve to have any protection for its product simply because alot of companies (hyper-wealthy companies at that) have used the inventions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DittoBox, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:06pm

Re:
What a craptacular idea! Let's declare war on one of the only allies we have left...

Or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DittoBox, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:07pm

Re:
It's not closed. I can crack your WEP key...really fast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whargoul, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:22pm

Judge T John Ward
I wonder if there is any way to call for the removal of this judge. What grounds could he be removed for? Incompetence? Favoritism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:27pm

Re: immunity
"Do we imply from your comment an assertion that somehow CSIRO does not deserve to have any protection for its product simply because alot of companies (hyper-wealthy companies at that) have used the inventions?"

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 thread ]
spoon?!?!, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:34pm

Re: immunity@4
As long as protection is "Hey, we have a legitimate claim in the creation of this technology, send some of that cash our way", and not "ZOMG THIS IT ALL OURS SEND MONIES OR WE BRAKE YOURE LEGS!!!!!1!". You can't ignore the rash of claims abuse seen today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Moulder, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:37pm

hmmm, how much are they worth. I'm sure Microsoft would be glad to just buy them out...maybe the whole Australian gvnt...they can't be worth too much more, lol.

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 thread ]
William, 16 Nov 2006 @ 2:51pm

haha
All your WI-FI are belong to us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh Keefer, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:02pm

WIFI
No need to fear, Microsoft and its infinite money and powerful lawyers is here! Just like land from the Native Americans,what was once thiers is now in the ownership of bigger more powerful peoples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cl3ft, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:06pm

Re: haha
Australia capitulates to a huge number of oppressive stupid American IP laws in the name of fair trade etc. but as soon as an Australian has it's own claim it's all suddenly a bad idea!

w00t double standards are a bitch huh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:08pm

WTF?
Someone set them up the bomb...

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 thread ]
whargoul, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: haha (cleft)
It wouldn't matter what country this was coming from - Australia, US, Antarctica...whatever. Everyone would still be crying foul because it's a BS claim that got hurried through by a BS judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whargoul, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:22pm

Re: WTF?
I've been noticing that alot too. A company will come up with a product, service, way of doing things (wireless) and sit on it for years watching it grow into a megalithic industry standard (802.11) and then claim "patent infringement".

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 thread ]
krached, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:34pm

Re: immunity
"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?"

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 thread ]
Al DePansieu, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:37pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Michael Tam, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:39pm

CSIRO is not a company or firm
It would be helpful if you people at least get some basic facts straight. The CSIRO is not a company or a "firm". It is not one of those corporations that does nothing except buy patents and then sue other companies.

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 thread ]
Scott, 16 Nov 2006 @ 3:51pm

Oh, Yeah?
Well, Fuck'em! Let that small ass funny talking country come over here and try to take my fucking wifi!!!! There is an old saying that comes to mind....BLOWME!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smacky Mouse, 16 Nov 2006 @ 4:06pm

Re: Oh, Yeah?
Congratulations, Scott, its people like you who keep the average North American IQ rating in the double digits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 16 Nov 2006 @ 4:29pm

Well, technically if they can't be sued due to being a foreign government, then why should they need to be paid? If Australia sent me a tax bill for whatever reason, I doubt I'd pay it.

What are they going to do?

Invade?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 16 Nov 2006 @ 5:12pm

Settle down there...
Some of the above comments are acting out as if or when this patent get validated that Australia is going to come knocking on end-users' doors for royalties...

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 thread ]
hellacoolperson, 16 Nov 2006 @ 5:42pm

Wake up Michael, yes you the 23rd commenter! CSIRO did not develop this technology! They bought the patent and waited until it became mainstream to get their greedy little hands on it. Yes, there is nothing wrong with getting a little money for something that is rightfully yours, but for something you did not even put any effort into developing?! Well they can eat shit and die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Smith, 16 Nov 2006 @ 7:07pm

a day late & a dollar short. next
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sohrab, 16 Nov 2006 @ 8:17pm

wow....So can I pattent the automobile and fuck everybody over?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Az, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:00am

THey developed it, they didnt do anything about it. CSIRO having the funding to even sue ANYONE the way the Australian Government behaves is amazing.

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 thread ]
EdB, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:17am

Australia should focus on what it does best, which is being very south of everything.

G'day!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt_, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:49am

As an Auastralian I for once appluad the Australian Govornment for singing the Free Trade Agreement between the US and Austrlia and recognising the draconian the US Intellecual Property Laws .....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
z0idberg, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:57am

Re:
>Wake up Michael, yes you the 23rd commenter! CSIRO >did not develop this technology! They bought the >patent and waited until it became mainstream to get >their greedy little hands on it.

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 thread ]
Louis, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:00am

Haha!
You lose America!

Lollers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
America, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:10am

Re: Haha!
And from who do you buy your WiFi devices?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Smacky Mouse, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:27am

Re: Re: Haha!
>And from who do you buy your WiFi devices?

Asian countries, just like you do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent, 19 Nov 2006 @ 4:58pm

Let's get a couple things straight. Buffalo didn't think they could get sued by the CSIRO so they stole the technology without paying license fees. This changed with the Australian-US free trade agreement signed in 2004. The FTA gives additional legal rights, it gives increased powers for Disney and Universal to sue foreign pirates, it gives the CSIRO additional rights to sue companies like Buffalo. Buffalo deserved to lose.

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 thread ]
Holly, 20 Nov 2006 @ 4:23pm

Re:
Get your facts right. CSIRO did not buy the patent, their scientists invented the core technology in the current wi-fi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwin, 15 Jan 2007 @ 6:31pm

Thats right, CSIRO had already developed and patented the ambiguous wifi in 1999. Way before the first router came out.

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 thread ]
Brian, 28 May 2007 @ 1:49am

Anything over 10 ghz? well, that rules out just about everythinbg to do with both WiFi and Wimax!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2009 @ 3:45pm

Re: Judge T John Ward
does tat mean its a free for all on American tech and pats.
we follow your laws...why do you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2009 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: haha (cleft)
haha we have american military tech.
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 thread ]