<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on 802.11n ratification in jeopardy due to Australian patents ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T14:41:57-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hardware Design / Engineering ?????????????????]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2370671]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sorry Brian, but where did you get your qualifications from? They obviously didn't explain to you that the CSIRO invented wireless!!If it was invented by HP,IBM or Intel what would have been the difference, or is this a case of aussie bashing!!As for outher idiotic comments, the fact that they employ researchers to do the job has nothing to do with it at all.Get your own legal people to explain it to you!Who cares about 802.11n, by the time this is sorted out they will have increased 10 fold!!See below,http://www.ict.csiro.au/page.php?did=52]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2370671]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ComputerCookie]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:52 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The whole patent system needs overhauled for reasons..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2370538]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you site here and many more. But congress does nothing every time it revisits the issue. Or at least nothing I can detect.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2370538]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:51:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[you wouldnt believe it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2327483]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[CISRO - My god, I missed it and I live just across town from their Geelong facility. I must be getting too old.So obviously the inventors have given the 'disposal' rights the CSIRO. That raises a further question: were they actually employed by the CSIRO at the time that they worked on the standard?Let's face it, in these issues there is always a commercial (money) side. I dont remember if you said anything in your comments about there being some sort of financial offering/agreement etc etc or not. I'll have to do a re-read.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2327483]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[goldenpirate@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:26:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Patents/Copywrite]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2327030]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The whole issue of patents and copyright law is a major problem.  Patents were designed to protect the inventor of a &quot;thing&quot; that was new and unique.  It denied patentability to &quot;prior art&quot; or something that is obvious to an ordinary individual.  Traditionally, ideas cannot be patented.  Copyright was designed to protect written works.  Now here comes a problem - since the source code is a written work it should be able to be copyrighted, but not patented. Hmmmm! Engineering standards are essentially ideas, not patentable, but the written documentation of them can be copyrighted.Somebody has to get us out of this mess of litigation in a way that is fair to the developer of a product, but which will not impair technological progress, and will promote the free flow of ideas.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2327030]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jon.h@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:30:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[CSIRO is not NTP]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326972]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Maybe Intel, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear shouldn't have tried to sue the CSIRO over the '069 patent in the first place?Maybe the research and resources the CSIRO has used should be duely recognised and the CSIRO compensated?The CSIRO is not NTP and has real claims to their patents.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326972]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jhuybers@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:25:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thank you]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326965]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I certainly appreciate your questioning my post, it seems my hands were working faster than my brain on that comment. Being somewhat embarrassed to admit it now, but I actually do realize what the CSIRO agency is and even linked their site in my blog post.  As for the patent holders, I did mention and link the most pertinent US Patent 5487069, if I understand your question correctly. The inventors were from Australia and the CSIRO is the patent assignee. Again, thank you for taking me to task on a poorly worded forum post.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326965]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Kassner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:19:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[CISRO is just a patent holding company]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326882]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Michael,you say that the CISRO is just a patent holding company. Are you actually aware of what the CISRO actually is?Secondly you state that 'They did not develop the patent at all.' but failed to indicate who did. Could you perhaps clarify your comments in this regard?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326882]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[goldenpirate@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:00:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good Points]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326805]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think that the analysts are more concerned about the fact that CSIRO is just a patent holding company.  They did not develop the patent, but are the assignees.  This is becoming big business and I wrote a post about a similar situation here in the US where NTP (a holding company) is trying to sue the major telco's.http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/wireless/?p=133Edit by Michael Kassner: Please refer to my next post as my reference to CSIRO as a patent holding company is in error and I apologize.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326805]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Kassner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:28:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree that CSIRO]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326708]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[should be pressurized somehow and made to see sense but the part about patents is what I can't agree with...Look at it this way...if the protocols and standards are open source that basically means that the theory/concept behind the patent is revealed...This means that anyone can get up and use the concept to build a machine that works just about as great or as great or better than yours...Now: a)You've probably worked a long time developing this device/machine/whatever and if you're a small time company, you're screwed because the bigger companies don't even have to buy you out to get your patent, they can just &quot;design&quot; their &quot;own&quot; version and market it better as well...b)allowing the protocols/standards which IMO comes down to theories/concepts to be opensource could set a precedent for other things as well...computer devices aren't dangerous but imagine if it were for a new kind of rocket propulsion system or whatever and anyone can make a design of the theory...I might be dead wrong in understanding what you're trying to say though...so...just in case...my bad AIT2 tape]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326708]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[links@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:31:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My 2 cents]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326522]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well if the CSIRO is not willing to give the letter, nor willing to drop their suits. For the betterment of all. Then the US should drop their patents altogether and deny future patents until they provide the letter. They could make more profits by releasing the patent and allowing the improvement of wireless technlogy for all. It has been my personal view point that protocols, and standards should be opensource, and only the hardware designs should be copyrighted. Not the standards that are used to make the design.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-238798-2326522]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BBPellet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:11:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

