Judge Ignores Supreme Court Patent Instructions While Making WiFi Devices A Lot More Expensive
from the we-are-marshall dept
Late last year, we wrote about how a judge in every patent hoarder's favorite court in Marshall, Texas had sided with a the Australian science agency CSIRO, which claims a patent on some of the core technology found in WiFi. CSIRO is interesting. It's a government agency, and therefore claims it can ignore lawsuits against its patents, but still makes full use of the U.S. courts in enforcing those patents. The judge in this case has apparently issued an injunction against Buffalo Technology, the defendant in the case. This seems to go against the Supreme Court's ruling last year about how patent injunctions often don't make sense. Most courts since have (reasonably) ruled that injunctions don't make sense if the patent holder doesn't have a product in the market. After all, the greater harm in that case is clearly to society, since no product is being offered. However, in this case, the judge decided to issue an injunction anyway -- making the bizarre decision that not offering an injunction present irreparable harm in the form of "lost opportunities." As has been explained repeatedly (though, apparently not to this judge) "lost opportunities" is not an actual loss. Buffalo Technology will hopefully appeal, as it has a pretty strong case, given the Supreme Court's MercExchange ruling. However, in the meantime, this could mean that basically anyone offering WiFi products may suddenly have to pay up to the Australian government if they want to keep selling those products.
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 ]
Funding research and development out of tax money and then turning right around and claiming "IP" to accrue royalty payments whose purpose in law is ostensibly to reimburse one for R&D costs seems to be double-dipping.
All work product of government should, if it's not actually secret classified stuff, be automatically public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Govt holding patent
In addition, what is an Australian agency doing with an American Patent. and if it is not an American Paten, who cares!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please learn to use your brain. It is a beautiful thing when used properly. The Australian government paid for the research with Australian tax payer money and took out a US patent. The Australian government can enforce its US patent and recover its investment through royalties paid by US and other non-Australian companies. What's wrong with that?
The US government owns many patents. They actively seek to license many of them to companies that will commercialize the technology. Nothing wrong with that, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is that the Australian government agency has a double standard rule. They can't be sued, but they can sue. You can't be in and out of the legal system at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other shoe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment number 2, way to read...
It would be like if we suddenly discovered a means to produce a solar panel that is 99% effective at converting the sun's energy, we wouldn't just igve that tech up to the austrians...
Hell no, we would be pattenting the hell out of it, mass producing the pannels, and selling gross supplies of energy to developing nations. We would line OUR pockets, and would actually show the American people that "HEY LOOK, we actually did something productive."
Nah what am i saying... we should be charitable prostitutes and take money from our bank to fund research (putting us in debt) then once we ahve something worth a fortune, just hand it out to the world so a few individuals can bank off of it... seriously man, before you post again... Think about what you are saying, re read the article... then just forget what you were going to say.
^^^Also that... would never happen... oil co's would likely have that kind of dicovery burried, or would just say "it takes resourse X to build this... lets buy all of resorce X"
Corruption and stupidity abound
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot Mike
Think about US research universities investing LOTS and LOTS of money and effort into basic research.
Are they to be compensated for their work ?
YES or NO ?
Just answer the question, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot Mike
Corporations get patents that they then use to sue each other. States and the US Gov't generally get patents, then license them back to the researcher or an industry council to help all businesses. Well, except maybe the 90% or so they keep under wraps or secretly license to military contractors for reasons of national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot Mike
Just think about what you wrote...
"To help all businesses" ???? Never heard this one before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot Mike
1. All research leads to valuable patents
Most patents sit on a shelf gathering dust. Invention is not innovation. Plenty of people invent things. It's getting that invention out to the market that is important.
2. All patents are easy to copy
If it takes someone 10 years to invent something, it's unlikely that someone else will be able to copy in days, weeks, let alone months. Besides, something that is easy to copy or is obvious, should have never received a patent in the first place.
3. All inventors are entitled to a revenue stream.
The US Constitution allows the government to grant a time-limited monopoly so that you have an OPPORTUNITY to recover your costs and earn a living.
If you are going to ask us questions, let me ask you a question: Which company had a positive impact on the global economy: RIM, the innovator with a line of products, or NTP, the patent hoarder, with not a single product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot Mike
I find it hilarious that you demand I answer your silly question when you refuse to respond to any of the questions I've asked you over the years.
Let's try again:
Angry dude, what patent do you hold, since you keep talking about it?
How come you told us you had a patent years ago, but last week you admitted you just got your first patent?
Just answer the questions, angry dude.
Now on to your question:
Think about US research universities investing LOTS and LOTS of money and effort into basic research.
Are they to be compensated for their work ?
YES or NO ?
Angry Dude, I'm coming to the conclusion that you don't actually bother to read anything we write. The way you phrased the question is quite misleading, so a simple yes or no doesn't make sense.
It's like saying, "a house wife works very hard, investing lots of her time at home, cooking meals and taking kids. Is she to be compensated for her work? Yes or No?"
Or, better yet, it's like saying, Joe down the street put a ton of effort, time and money into the restaurant he built. No one came to it. Shouldn't he be compensated?
The questions are the same. Somehow, I get the feeling you don't think the failed restaurant owner should be compensated. The way markets work is that everyone has the *opportunity* to enter a market and try to convince the market to compensate them.
I'm not so sure why this is so difficult for you to understand, but we have NEVER said that people shouldn't be compensated. What we've said (and which you continue to ignore) is that people should be compensated by the market... not through gov't monopolies. It's much more efficient for everyone.
So, please, angry dude, spend some time trying to understand what we've actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot Mike
I am specifically talking about RESEARCH universities doing basic research.
Are they supposed to manufacture each and every thing they invented to reap the "market" benefits ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiot Mike
Come on, dude, show us your patent. And tell us why you lied about holding a patent a few years ago.
I am specifically talking about RESEARCH universities doing basic research.
Who is funding the research?
Are they supposed to manufacture each and every thing they invented to reap the "market" benefits ?
Do you spend much time at research universities? You do realize that those who do really good research can get very lucrative consulting projects in or for industry as well. And they can do all that without holding back the innovation of companies.
So, again, angry dude, I'm answering your questions. Why won't you answer mine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot Mike
Why don't you understand that sometimes the answer is yes and other times the answer is no?
You say that universities spend a lot of money on research. Have you considered that their compensation is the grant money that the public is paying to have the research done?
Think about what CSIRO wants. They want the public to continue to pay them for something that they have already paid for. If that's what you call fair...you're a lost cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiot Mike
CSIRO did not use US taxpayer's money, cause it's Australian agency
A--u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a-n !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiot Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiot Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They already do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least, that's what they believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Makes Perfect Sense
Huh? The judge issued a summary judgment that a) the CSRIO patent was valid and b) Buffalo was infringing. Six months later Buffalo still hasn't negotiated terms with CSRIO so the judge issued an injunction barring them from selling infringing devices until they do reach terms with Buffalo.
What about this is so odd?
Also, you should note that although CSRIO claims it is immune from lawsuit, the judge in this case already rejected that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Makes Perfect Sense
The judge could have ordered a fine and allowed Buffalo to keep selling the product... Ordering an injunction to stop selling just isn't necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Angry Dude" AKA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]