WiFi Trouble Up Ahead

[Nurhisham Hussein]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/csiro-wins-landmark-wlan-lawsuit-against-buffalo-more-to-come/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/...o-more-to-come/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has won a landmark case against Buffalo Technology, 'under which it could receive royalties from every producer of WLAN products worldwide.' US patent 5487069 -- which 'encompasses elements of the 802.11a/g wireless technology that is now an industry standard' -- was granted to the body back in 1996, and has subsequently been utilized in seemingly every piece of wireless kit ever since."</i><br /><br />This is potentially huge - if <a href="http://www.csiro.au/csiro/channel/_ca_dch2t,,.html">CSIRO</a> wants to, they can now hold virtually any vendor or manufacturer of wifi equipment for ransom. A bunch of technology companies (a virtual who's who, including Microsoft and Intel) are currently suing to have that patent invalidated, but CSIRO have filed a counter-suit claiming patent infringement. Given the just concluded summary judgement against Buffalo Technology (and from my point of view, that judgement was delivered in record time), who'd lay odds against CSIRO winning out? While this doesn't have quite the immediate ramifications of the RIM-NTP tussle, it does mean that at the very least R&amp;D in wifi is going to slow down or be spent on alternative technologies until these cases are resolved. At worst, we'll have prices of wifi products go up as well when royalties are assessed. I can just imagine the reaction Wall Street is going to get from this. Despite CSIRO being a government agency, it looks like they're going to <a href="http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps2gw,,.html">take this as far as they can</a> - in the rather ominous words of their CEO, "CSIRO still has a long way to go.” You can read up the original article <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/wireless--broadband/csiro-wins-landmark-legal-battle/2006/11/15/1163266614119.html">here</a>.

[sundown]

Sorry, I didn't do much research on this case but are they only now coming out with this argument? Usually you can't pop out of the woodwork years after a technology has grown roots and claim it's your technology and you're owed royalties.

[x51vuser]

I wonder where they got idea to call patent on something anybody could invent - maybe from Microsoft ? ;-)

[applejosh]

Sorry, I didn't do much research on this case but are they only now coming out with this argument? Usually you can't pop out of the woodwork years after a technology has grown roots and claim it's your technology and you're owed royalties.

Unfortunately, that's the way things seem to have been going. Potential patent holders wait until a technology grows enough and/or becomes useful to wide assortment of people, and then they sue for past damages and new royalties. Since by this time the technology has become embedded in society, we as consumers are ultimately forced to pay for it. The US patent office is as much to blame as anyone. They'll issue patents for the most ambiguous, obvious things.

[inteller]

well, we invade iraq to protect our oil interests, I guess there is nothing stopping us from invading australia to protect our technology interests.

The Australian gov needs to reign in their dog.

[TOCA]

This is realy bad news for WiFi end users :!: :cry:

Looks like CSIRO has a firm grip of our b..ahemmm :oops: :roll:

Either 802.11g is getting obsolete in the nearest future, or it will get a lot more expensive :?

[hornetfig]

well, we invade iraq to protect our oil interests, I guess there is nothing stopping us from invading australia to protect our technology interests.

The Australian gov needs to reign in their dog.

:roll:

[haesslich]

Sweet - we'll all be adopting the new Chinese WiFi standard due to this lawsuit in the next few years then... ;) Thank you, NTP, for showing everyone that you can sue a successful company for a patent which isnt' really valid (I should've patented breathing and then sued the US government for rampantly allowing people to violate it), and that you can get away with it.

Goodbye, innovation - hello litigation.

[TOCA]

well, we invade iraq to protect our oil interests, I guess there is nothing stopping us from invading australia to protect our technology interests.

The Australian gov needs to reign in their dog.

:roll:

No vorries mate :wink:

Now that Bush is no longer king of the hill, it's not bloody likely to happen :lol:

[WyattEarp]

Unfortunately we live in a world that values money more than anything else. Companies and people alike seem to wait on purpose so they can get recognition and their 15 minutes of fame. It's really sad because not only has wifi grown roots it is rooted within our society and CSIRO is actually willing to risk stopping that. We all lose when companies are allowed to win such lawsuits after a product has matured and is part of society the way wifi is.

[Fuego]

Sorry, I didn't do much research on this case but are they only now coming out with this argument? Usually you can't pop out of the woodwork years after a technology has grown roots and claim it's your technology and you're owed royalties.
Yes you can. They have patent and one which looks valid too, judging from the fact that they have already won their case against Buffalo. That's the whole point of a patent - to protect an original and innovative idea.

Unfortunately, patent offices (in Europe, the USA and elsewhere) hand out patents at the drop of a hat, without much research and then it is left to the legal system to prove the patent invalid, on the grounds of obviousness, or "prior art".

Easy to do, you might think, but with lawyers all champing at the bit and their propensity to inject doubt, uncertainty and fear (along with their huge costs and those of courts), not to mention the complication and cost of assembling evidence, experts and witnesses from ten+ years ago; it is a bold man that stands their ground when the costs start spiralling into seven figures and the courts are calling for bonds of the same - not to mention any injunctions that they may impose on your business - and you are ultimately at the mercy of the patent judge's decision.

There is no certainty in the whole process. Best assurance you'll get from the legal profession is a 80-90% chance of winning. If you lose and your business and personal life go belly-up - well it's not worth thinking about.

I wonder where they got idea to call patent on something anybody could invent - maybe from Microsoft ? ;-)
I've been on the butt-end of this process and have no love for "offensive patenting" of obvious or prior art inventions and particularly methods - it kills innovation and progress - but I have to call your post out as being based on assumption. The evidence so far indicates that the patent holds at least some "key claims" that are not "obvious to a person skilled in the art".

well, we invade iraq to protect our oil interests, I guess there is nothing stopping us from invading australia to protect our technology interests.

The Australian gov needs to reign in their dog.
And who issued the patent? Let me see, ahh, yes, the freakin US patent office. Your technology? Sheesh. Is that ownership based on invention, or repossession? I am reminded of the school playground bully. Check your atlas - there is more to global technology than the north american continent.

[Stephen Beesley]

I see a lot of negitive comment about CSIRO here, but lets just stop and think what they are really doing.

CSIRO developed and patented a range of technologies for a peer-to-peer wireless LAN, including:

"...three ways to get high speed transmission despite the hostile conditions in an office: transmitting over a relatively large number of parallel sub-channels within the available bandwidth so that each channel has a low bit rate; transmitting data in small packets with forward error correction (FEC); and using interleaving." [ source (http://www.techworld.com/mobility/news/index.cfm?NewsID=3695)]

It seems CSIRO then spent several years attempting to get companies to license its technology without success. Instead the companies just ignored the patent. It was at that stage that CSIRO decided to take the legal path.

Who are you going to support the "developers of intellectual property" or the big corporations who want to exploit that property without paying for it?

Just my .02c (Australian :D ) on the subject.

[Nurhisham Hussein]

It's really sad because not only has wifi grown roots it is rooted within our society and CSIRO is actually willing to risk stopping that. We all lose when companies are allowed to win such lawsuits after a product has matured and is part of society the way wifi is.

I agree - though the odd part to my mind is that CSIRO is a government agency, not a for-profit company. To be fair, as Stephen said, they did make a considerable effort in getting companies to agree to licensing deals.

[inteller]

[quote=sundown] Check your atlas - there is more to global technology than the north american continent.

The US Gov greated the internet so you can credit much of todays technology to the north american continent....just be thankful the US gov doesnt demand royalties on everything created as a result of the Internet. :lol:

[Fuego]

[quote=sundown] Check your atlas - there is more to global technology than the north american continent.

The US Gov greated the internet so you can credit much of todays technology to the north american continent....just be thankful the US gov doesnt demand royalties on everything created as a result of the Internet. :lol:

And be thankful that those Brits responsible for the WWW don't either! :P

When you look objectively at the history of the development of "the Internet", you will see that in actual fact it was a global collaboration effort with ARPANET, CERN and other networks combining via a collection of jointly agreed standards, over a period of time.

I don't believe that the US government had much to do with it. US educational and research institutions, yes, along with other non-US research organisations.

The evolution of the Internet was fortuitiously driven by non-profit idealistic bodies, otherwise there would most likely not be an Internet today to survive the ravages of more mercenary types looking to milk it at every level.

Claiming ownership of what is and should be a global medium for the expression of free communication is kind of self-defeating to the original ideal. Unfortunately, every day that passes, we seem to surrender a little of that ideal - often without attaching much significance to it.

And technology patents that are based on obviousness and prior-art are barriers to the spread and advancement of knowledge.