4 ms·

> potential patent troll I must be confused. How are they a patent troll if they actually do the the R&D part of the patent? A patent troll would buy the file

> potential patent troll I must be confused. How are they a patent troll if they actually do the the R&D part of the patent? A patent troll would buy the filed patent and just spend money enforcing it to collect cash... I am a bit biased because I'm Australian and fully support the CSIRO. They're a non-profit entity[0] - their mandate isn't to make money. The money they do collect from royalties is rolled back into their research. [0] In that they don't produce a profit for stakeholders. They're a government agency though, not a registered charity.

dbaupp 10y ago
I believe the contention in the WiFi case is whether CSIRO really did do the R&D actually used in WiFi, or if it just happened to get lucky with a patent. Of course, they presumably did vaguely do some sort of R&D in this space given they were awarded a patent themselves, rather than buying it off some other entity, like a patent troll would.
- shrewduser 10y ago
  They invented the technology used for WiFi for radio astronomy, it is as legitimate an invention as it gets.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Considering how messed up the patent system can get, it's really confusing how this one instance is where they decide to get worked up about. At least CSIRO seems to do legitimate research in the area, and it is not hunting down small scale players to make them pay up for questionable patents. This is the really abusive part of current patent law, not which research org or corporation gets "blessed" by the patent office.
spangry 10y ago
I'm a big fan of the CSIRO too. But I think it's fair to say that under the current government they've pushed towards a more commercialisation / applied science view of the world. For instance, NICTA (Australia's premier government funded Computer Science research... thingy) has been defunded and merged into CSIRO. They now operate as 'Data61' on a semi-commercial basis. Again, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing: I'm actually working with some of the NICTA/Data61 guys on one of their projects, and they are doing a number of these across the APS. If anything, it's been great to unleash these guys on the APS, where IT expertise is sorely lacking. They seem to be very good at what they do (and have a heavy focus on applying machine-learning to real-world problems). Their new CEO, Larry Marshall actually created a number of US startups centred on lasers/optics (sorry, don't know the proper term) and holds a number of patents in this area. I met the guy when he gave a presentation at my workplace, and this carbon-fibre work is very much in line with the strategy he outlined. He's a decent guy who, IMHO, has been given a pretty unfair run in the press (who have taken a number of his statements out of context and portrayed him as some kind of anti-science luddite). Incidentally, he reads PG's essays :) I don't really have a point here, just providing some background information in case you find it interesting (and apologies if I sound like a bit of a cheerleader). This shift in CSIRO's focus might have been the one and only thing our idiot government has gotten right over two terms of government (or, at least, the one thing they didn't totally screw up). EDIT: And just to concur, the assertion that CSIRO is a patent troll doesn't pass the laugh test.
- justin66 10y ago
  > EDIT: And just to concur, the assertion that CSIRO is a patent troll doesn't pass the laugh test. Most of the people everyone outside Australia who've heard of CSIRO at all know of them because of what is viewed as a shakedown of WiFi manufacturers. It seems more sad than funny.
  - spangry 10y ago
    It's a shame people have this view. They don't seem very interested in the actual facts of the matter either, judging by the reaction to the other post I made on this topic. Oh well...
    - justin66 10y ago
      You "balanced out" an Arstechnica article with a really mediocre one from The Register. You expected a positive reaction?
      - spangry 10y ago
        The Arstechnica article was actually a series of two: the first harshly criticising the CSIRO and the second 'clarifying' the first because of the outcry it caused. I thought the Register article was highly relevant because it directly addressed some of the assertions made in the Arstechnica article. I'm not asserting the Arstechnica article is wrong and the Register article is right. But it's an alternate view from what is, as far as I can tell, an unbiased observer. I'm sorry it doesn't line up with the views that you quite obviously hold, but that's just how life is sometimes. You might also wish to consider whether your dismissal of The Register's assertions is logical, as it basically amounts to: P: I don't like A. P: A is asserting X. C: Therefore X is wrong.
        justin66 10y ago
        I've read all these articles. The Register article didn't strike me as any less tabloidish than is standard for them.

dbaupp 10y ago

I believe the contention in the WiFi case is whether CSIRO really did do the R&D actually used in WiFi, or if it just happened to get lucky with a patent. Of course, they presumably did vaguely do some sort of R&D in this space given they were awarded a patent themselves, rather than buying it off some other entity, like a patent troll would.

shrewduser 10y ago
They invented the technology used for WiFi for radio astronomy, it is as legitimate an invention as it gets.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
Considering how messed up the patent system can get, it's really confusing how this one instance is where they decide to get worked up about. At least CSIRO seems to do legitimate research in the area, and it is not hunting down small scale players to make them pay up for questionable patents. This is the really abusive part of current patent law, not which research org or corporation gets "blessed" by the patent office.

spangry 10y ago

I'm a big fan of the CSIRO too. But I think it's fair to say that under the current government they've pushed towards a more commercialisation / applied science view of the world. For instance, NICTA (Australia's premier government funded Computer Science research... thingy) has been defunded and merged into CSIRO. They now operate as 'Data61' on a semi-commercial basis. Again, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing: I'm actually working with some of the NICTA/Data61 guys on one of their projects, and they are doing a number of these across the APS. If anything, it's been great to unleash these guys on the APS, where IT expertise is sorely lacking. They seem to be very good at what they do (and have a heavy focus on applying machine-learning to real-world problems). Their new CEO, Larry Marshall actually created a number of US startups centred on lasers/optics (sorry, don't know the proper term) and holds a number of patents in this area. I met the guy when he gave a presentation at my workplace, and this carbon-fibre work is very much in line with the strategy he outlined. He's a decent guy who, IMHO, has been given a pretty unfair run in the press (who have taken a number of his statements out of context and portrayed him as some kind of anti-science luddite). Incidentally, he reads PG's essays :) I don't really have a point here, just providing some background information in case you find it interesting (and apologies if I sound like a bit of a cheerleader). This shift in CSIRO's focus might have been the one and only thing our idiot government has gotten right over two terms of government (or, at least, the one thing they didn't totally screw up). EDIT: And just to concur, the assertion that CSIRO is a patent troll doesn't pass the laugh test.

justin66 10y ago
> EDIT: And just to concur, the assertion that CSIRO is a patent troll doesn't pass the laugh test. Most of the people everyone outside Australia who've heard of CSIRO at all know of them because of what is viewed as a shakedown of WiFi manufacturers. It seems more sad than funny.
- spangry 10y ago
  It's a shame people have this view. They don't seem very interested in the actual facts of the matter either, judging by the reaction to the other post I made on this topic. Oh well...
  - justin66 10y ago
    You "balanced out" an Arstechnica article with a really mediocre one from The Register. You expected a positive reaction?
    - spangry 10y ago
      The Arstechnica article was actually a series of two: the first harshly criticising the CSIRO and the second 'clarifying' the first because of the outcry it caused. I thought the Register article was highly relevant because it directly addressed some of the assertions made in the Arstechnica article. I'm not asserting the Arstechnica article is wrong and the Register article is right. But it's an alternate view from what is, as far as I can tell, an unbiased observer. I'm sorry it doesn't line up with the views that you quite obviously hold, but that's just how life is sometimes. You might also wish to consider whether your dismissal of The Register's assertions is logical, as it basically amounts to: P: I don't like A. P: A is asserting X. C: Therefore X is wrong.
      - justin66 10y ago
        I've read all these articles. The Register article didn't strike me as any less tabloidish than is standard for them.