3 ms·

They are about as far from patent troll as you can get. They're basically a modern-day, government-funded Bell labs in that their mandate is to carry out fundam

by NamTaf 10y ago

They are about as far from patent troll as you can get. They're basically a modern-day, government-funded Bell labs in that their mandate is to carry out fundamental scientific research. Their research spans a mind-bogglingly large number of fields including fundamental climate science, agriculture, technology, biology, astronomy, etc. - the list goes on. As one of the other sibling comments suggests, just because their interests overlap with patent trolls doesn't make them one. The very large differences between CSIRO and other patent trolls have been outlined. Having said that, I'd liked to have seen them handle the wifi case(s) better - I'm not sure I could say how, however. That said, I also believe that they're warranted in their attempts to get some compensation out of the contributions they made that were eventually adopted wholesale across the industry - you'd expect a private organisation to see financial benefit from it and I don't think that's much different if it's government-funded either. In both that case and this, whether their specific contributions to a developing technology warrant being patentable or not will differ from person to person. I'm sure I don't agree with Stallman on this, for example. I'm not going to try to say it should be one way or another definitively but to paint the CSIRO as a patent troll is a tremendous leap of illogic that requires a fundamental ignorance to what they do. At best, you could claim that their aggressive use of patent litigation doesn't align with how you feel about patents - and I could certainly see why some would feel that way. That's more a question of the role of patents themselves and their scope than a question of the validity of the CSIRO as an organisation, though. NB: I am Aussie, to the extent that may make me biased given my tax funds this org. Edit: it's also worth noting that the guy you cited on Reddit is claiming they 'feel like' a patent troll because their website looks similar to Intellectual Ventures' one. He openly admits to being wholly ignorant to who they are and hsvinfno knowledge of their history or purpose.

staticautomatic 10y ago
CSIRO is not a troll, per se, but in court they walk like a troll and talk like a troll. Among other things, they seek royalty payments so big you would think that they had actually invented the whole of 802.11, and they do, in fact, claim that WiFi would not "work" without their inventions. Let's not forget that the standard prescribes a functionality and not an implementation. I say this as someone who has been personally involved in some of the patent litigation being discussed here.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  Of course a patent lawyer is going to talk up their claims as much as possible to get a good deal. And patent law is tilted towards the plaintiff to such an extent that it encourages a shotgun approach in order to get something through that will allow them to seek damages. This is why it's hard for courts to sort out legitimate claimants from non-producing entities that are trying to just make a buck from real companies. The main difference is NPEs target smaller companies and then talk up their claims in the initial phases, then try to settle out of court as quickly as possible so they don't incur alot of expense and can avoid discovery, which is where their patents may get knocked out completely.
  - staticautomatic 10y ago
    Trolls who target small players in the hopes of raking in small settlements all over the place are a real evil, to be sure. But from my perspective working on this sort of litigation for a living, the real threat is actually damages in cases involving standard-essential patents, and that's where the troll line starts to blur. Plaintiffs like CSIRO may not be trolls, per se, but they use the same hired gun damages experts that the trolls do (like Ocean Tomo). The amount of money they seek is completely untenable in the context of standard essential patents, if only because our phones and computers would cost astronomically more money if everyone holding one of the thousands of allegedly standard-essential patents got the kind of money plaintiffs like CSIRO ask for in these cases. As an aside, patents don't really get "knocked out" in discovery. They get knocked out by defendants filing IPRs, seeking re-exam by the PTO, and occasionally at trial. It's unbelievably rare for a judge to invalidate a patent on summary judgment (which happens post-discovery).

by NamTaf 10y ago

staticautomatic 10y ago

CSIRO is not a troll, per se, but in court they walk like a troll and talk like a troll. Among other things, they seek royalty payments so big you would think that they had actually invented the whole of 802.11, and they do, in fact, claim that WiFi would not "work" without their inventions. Let's not forget that the standard prescribes a functionality and not an implementation. I say this as someone who has been personally involved in some of the patent litigation being discussed here.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
Of course a patent lawyer is going to talk up their claims as much as possible to get a good deal. And patent law is tilted towards the plaintiff to such an extent that it encourages a shotgun approach in order to get something through that will allow them to seek damages. This is why it's hard for courts to sort out legitimate claimants from non-producing entities that are trying to just make a buck from real companies. The main difference is NPEs target smaller companies and then talk up their claims in the initial phases, then try to settle out of court as quickly as possible so they don't incur alot of expense and can avoid discovery, which is where their patents may get knocked out completely.
- staticautomatic 10y ago
  Trolls who target small players in the hopes of raking in small settlements all over the place are a real evil, to be sure. But from my perspective working on this sort of litigation for a living, the real threat is actually damages in cases involving standard-essential patents, and that's where the troll line starts to blur. Plaintiffs like CSIRO may not be trolls, per se, but they use the same hired gun damages experts that the trolls do (like Ocean Tomo). The amount of money they seek is completely untenable in the context of standard essential patents, if only because our phones and computers would cost astronomically more money if everyone holding one of the thousands of allegedly standard-essential patents got the kind of money plaintiffs like CSIRO ask for in these cases. As an aside, patents don't really get "knocked out" in discovery. They get knocked out by defendants filing IPRs, seeking re-exam by the PTO, and occasionally at trial. It's unbelievably rare for a judge to invalidate a patent on summary judgment (which happens post-discovery).