VNU reports that the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has won a US District Court patent case concerning WiFi. The court ruled that the Japanese company, Buffalo Technology’s, WiFi devices infringed CSIRO’s patent concerning the the 802.11a/g standard, a Wi-Fi interface that is used by most notebook and desktop wireless Lan devices. However, the validity of the patent is being challenged by Intel, Dell, HP, Microsoft, Apple and Netgear in separate litigation. If this action is successful then the affect of the decision in the case against Buffalo will be ameliorated.

The IPKat says that while patents over industry standards may be inconvenient, this fact alone does not render them invalid.

Recommended reading

The IPKat alerts his readers that the contents of an online symposium on the US Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2006 are available freely online from FirstImpressions, a companion to the Michigan Law Review. Participants include Profs Graeme Dinwoodie, Mark Janis and Stacey Dogan.


IPKat co-blogmeister Ilanah [who hates writing about herself in the third person] was awarded her PhD on Monday for research into dilution by blurring in the US and EU. Anyone interested in discussing the subject is welcome to get in touch.
WIFI, DILUTION AND DOCTORS WIFI, DILUTION AND DOCTORS Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.