more on re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <[email protected]>
Date: November 28, 2006 6:29:07 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <[email protected]>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
Reply-To: [email protected]

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Mark Laubach.  DLH]

From: Mark Laubach <[email protected]>
Date: November 28, 2006 10:11:23 AM PST
To: [email protected], "Dewayne-Net Technology List" <dewayne- 
[email protected]>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Wi-Fi standards face patent threat

I did a little checking through and old grapevine.  CSIRO and/or
Radiata apparently did the right notifications with the IEEE standards
group at the proper time back then.  Which is, filing a statement
with the IEEE which commits to licensing on a "non discriminatory
basis" and for "reasonable terms".  This is required practice with
the IEEE for moving a draft to standard status.  (This could be the
evidence that was mentioned....[?])

Having said that.  My own personal guess is that companies here
in the U.S. decided to try to ignore the Auzzie patent holder with
respect to obtaining a license for a reasonable fee.

Therefore nothing sinister or a "threat".  This is just normal business
of a known patent holder with known licensing terms whacking someone
else to pay attention.

Mark

> At 12:50 AM -0800 11/21/06, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
> [Note:  This comment comes from reader Robert Berger.  DLH]
>
> From: "Robert J. Berger" <[email protected]>
> Date: November 20, 2006 9:38:54 PM PST
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Wi-Fi standards face patent threat
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
>
> The judge in the case issued a summary judgment, which indicates  
> the court is wholly convinced by the evidence, to the point where  
> there are no questions of fact. In general, a summary judgment is  
> rare in patent disputes.
>
> it would be nice to know why the Judge said that. It seems very  
> rare for this to happen. Does anyone know if this Judge is  
> particularly cluefull or not? According to the article its for some  
> basic OFDM tech, but that's all that mentions. Couldn't we get  
> CSIRO and WiLan to fight each other to their mutual death over OFDM?
>
> By the way, I believe that CSIRO (the entity that is claiming  
> infringement) was the entity that spun out  the early 802.11a  
> chipmaker Radiata which was purchased by Cisco in 2002 or so. WiLan  
> has been going around suing people over OFDM since at least that  
> long ago.
>
> Also like the following line in the original article not in the  
> snippet:
>
> Furniss said he doesn't expect CSIRO to sue everyone using the  
> 802.11a, 802.11g and eventually the 802.11n technology. In fact,  
> CSIRO is focusing only on obtaining licensing fees from equipment  
> makers, such as Netgear and Microsoft, and not chipmakers, such as  
> Broadcom, Intel or Atheros. He claims the chips themselves don't  
> infringe on the patents; it's only when the technology is used in a  
> specific device.
> How could it not infringe in the chip but it does in devices that  
> use the chip if the "infringing" tech is baked into the chip only?  
> Sounds like a patent troll's approach to me...
>
> Patents need significant regrooving. They have become so not what  
> the founding fathers had in mind when they hardwired them into the  
> constitution....