Slashdot Mirror
MIT Sues Sony over digital TV
dfinney wrote to us with a story from The Tech, concerning MIT suing Sony. Basically, MIT claims to have a number of patents, has worked with other folks in the industry, sez they've talked with Sony for a year, no headway, don't want to sue, but have key claims - etc etc.
when the economy is good all men and women are brothers and sisters...
when times are BAD.....
the Japanese economy just hit a two-decade (17 year to be more precise) low...
Japanese banks are being given lending capital from the Central Bank at ***ZERO*** percent interest, and there are few-to-NO takers....
at some point, the Intellectual Property War between the West and the East is really going to heat up
historically, MIT has been very much a "Good Citizen" on the issues of cross/conflicting patents...Sony, historically, has been so-so
could this be an early skirmish in the upcoming IP Wars????
Now, if we're going to do "Lawyers At Dawn", I officially suggest that we carpet bomb Tokyo with attorneys from B-52's and B-1B's in HUGE WAVES
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Well because it is an educational institution suing a multinational corportation then it is perfectly acceptable. We all know that sony is evil, so anyone trying to do something to harm them is perfectly justified. Fight those multinationals, along with governments they, are the ones that cause all the evil in the world.
IMHO, this has nothing to do with boosting ad revenue, but rather is intended for making frist psots more difficult. But on the other hand, is this really necessary with the new Slashcode which uses global (i.e. huge) article numbers?
And is it really efficient? Indeed, throwaway Slash accounts are a dime a dozen: all you need is a hotmail address (of which you can create as many as you want...). And forcing trolls to log in is actually counterproductive: now it takes two mod-points instead of one to mod down the trolls into oblivion.
looking like Al " I Invented the internet" Gore too...
you should never be lenient with these money hungry corporations. MIT should go for getting an injuction and get them to licence under their terms and make them pay big $$ or better still stop them from manufacturing (that'll hurt them really bad) cuz if they don't then they'll be setting a bad precedent and everyone will start taking the educational institutes for granted.
MIT has devoted time and money into this research.. no one should be allowed to use it for free just cuz they're big and rich.
They threatened the company I work for with a patent for sending audio down a network cable. They settled with a large sum of cash because it was too much hassle to fight in court.
Isn't MIT a federally funded University? I always thought that university research should go in public domain, no copyrights, no patents, no nothin' ... and here we have every week at least one case of some university suing whomever for patent violations... odd.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
To see how well Sony reacts to somthing like this. Almost every time you hear the words 'lawsuit' and 'Sony' together Sony is the one doing the suing. Also what happens if Sony looses? I'm sure the competiton would love loosing Big Brother in the HDTV wars....
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Sony should be careful here. While MIT doesn't want a conflict, their Jedi are more than capable of turning the Sony corporate offices into the world's largest VU Meter. And if that doesn't show them the light, how are they going to work without any offices.
Who knew that post was going to get modded up? Should'a used a real account. ;)
Seriously, though, the fact that two people have modded this up shows that it's not the trolls that are concerned about the state of Slashdot, it's people who not only have accounts, but who've been around enough, post enough, and have good enough karma to be moderators.
Are you listening Taco/Hemos/timothy/michael? If you drive away the real nerds, you'll be left with absolutely nothing.
Odd parallel: the US and Slashdot are creating more and more laws to try to deal with the cretins, and all they do is get in the way of 'law-abiding' folks.
If the roles were reversed, Sony would sue in a heartbeat & seek damages too.
On the other hand one wonders, whether Sony will readily hire MIT graduates in the future.
If certain colleges get labelled as sue happy will their graduates have a hard time getting hired by established corps?
sez they've talked with Sony for a year
U R IRCing 2 much when U think "sez" is OK. Drivz me nutz.
(Bonus points if you recognize the source of my subject line.)
From news.findlaw.com:
MIT claims in its lawsuit that the technology was contributed by MIT scientists to the so-called "Grand Alliance" set up by the Federal Communications Commission in 1993. Corporations and researchers collaborated to set a uniform U.S. standard for digital TV.
---
I don't know all the facts here, but it reminds me of the Rambus story. MIT helps build a digital TV standard and contributes with patented technology...?
This might be a Judge Judy case ;)
42 + 1 = 42
I believe that in comparison to other educational institutions, MIT is quite a bit more enlightened, giving inventors 1/3 of any licensing revenues (at least in some departments). Universities like USF (hint: a place probably best avoided by smart students) have their student inventors thrown in jail if they want the exclusive rights to a promising invention.
As for these specific patents, it would be interesting to know what they are for: do they really represent interesting inventions, or is it the kind of patent that claims "any television that uses a framebuffer and a CPU".
...then why should a large overseas megacorporation like Sony be able to walk away with a HUGE amount of research, essentially for free.
Intellectual property is important...and if MIT weren't allowed to file a patent on it, someone else who can, will.
Then everyone gets screwed.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
Newsflash:
While MIT is preoccupied with suing Sony for
allerged intellectual property disputes, MIT
itself got sued by those who originate the
concept of INSTITUTION - in which, the word
INSTITUTE is part of it.
Great and dead Greek philosophers from ancient
time, such as Socrates are among those who
are trying to get back the INSTITUTION idea
from MIT.
If MIT lost the suit, MIT will have to drop
the word "INSTITUTE" from its namesake.
Therefore, it *IS* a possibility that we may
see MT to replace MIT. Or perhaps, MUT -
Massachusette *UNIVERSITY* of Technology.
But then.... the intellectual concept of
UNIVERSITY was not orginated from the campus
of MIT either.
Ah
Stay tuned for the result !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:bqpjsY89h2A:t he-tech.mit.edu/V121/N39/39sony.39n.html+&hl=en
2) Just because you sometimes get more than you pay for, doesn't mean you should expect it.
Especially on /.
Try walking around in the sunshine a little. (my excuse: it's night)
Ah... so that was what happened when I tried to check some stories from the past from the Search function (while logged in).
Not enough people commenting on the not-front-page story, so we can never see it again because of this? Hmm.....
And here I was thinking it was just a generic script error message.
Slashdot: Everything in Moderation, including Moderation itself.
Sony is a Japanese company. Does the US Legal system really have much right to tell a Japanese company what technologies it can and cannot develop?
The only reasons I can think of for Sony to comply are Japanese surrender terms from World War 2, or trade agreements that would get Sony to recognize US patents. In that case, it would be the Japanese Govt who should be enforcing this, not the US courts.
END COMMUNICATION
Google Cached Page
The post above has a space in it that shouldn't be there.
The server appears to be down(/.tted?) The google cache of the page can be found here or in geocities.
you sound bitter.
...when I put the finishing touches to the library I developed for my Masters' degree, I wanted to make it freely available. I'm not so keen on the GPL, so I decided to use a... get this... "MIT style" license.
These are the same people who brought us the X-window system, released under what is probably the least restrictive public license of them all, right? So why the sudden change of heart?
OK, so there's a lot more money to be made out of digital TVs than there was out of a network-transparent client-server windowing system for UNIX. But YKWIM.
Sony is a major sponsor of the Media Lab, and I believe they have what amounts to a right of first-refusal to licence any technology that trickles out. I couldn't find any reference on the web to this though, but I've been in several meetings where this right was discussed, though hardware was never mentioned... Always algorithms. I wonder how this will affect relations, and what will come of some of technologies I've seen from the lab if they don't get pushed by Sony Megacorp...
Anyone here remember the windshield wiper delay circuit case? Some EE comes up with a design for delaying windshield wipers (consisting of a rheostat, a capacitor, and a relay). Because it was so obvious, other automotive companies thought of it, too. However, since he patented his first, in obscurity, he got to sue the various automakers for patent infringement.
Just as some software practices are so obvious, some hardware practices are also obvious. Two of the MIT patents listed I would classify as overly vague/broad.
It also smells of the Rambus fiasco, in that MIT "scientists" were involved in setting the digital TV standards almost a decade ago. Set a standard that conforms to your patents?
Evil, plain evil.
Another reason to want people to license to avoid a court battle is that you think you're gonna lose. I bet this is some undefensible patent or two, like Rambus's BS.
Give em hell.
I'm glad I didn't get accepted to MIT. They've been officially declared 'evil' by the Slashbot collective.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I'll be back.
Offtopic: While I was looking for the MIT patents on this digital TV stuff I ran across this:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft95&s1=Massachusetts&s2=Tec hnology&OS=Massachusetts+AND+Technology&RS=Massach usetts+AND+Technology
Apparently Apple holds a patent on Icons.
Maybe I can find some that are relevent to the story now.
What good is a used up world, and how could it be worth having? --Sting
A four of those companies started as grad student projects
(routers were a computer staff project).
Stanford pretty much ignored them when they started
companies. This is documented in Revenge of the
Nerds, series II. And I used the the prototypes
of the first three during my years at Stanford.
In fact, the name SUN originally stood for Stanford
University Network.
On the other hand for each of these mega-successes,
there are ten failures. Todays NY Times has a
story about a Stanford student dropping out to
start an unsuccessful dot.com, then returning
to finish the degree. He says that his frathouse
had eight dot.coms running on Stanford servers
during the peak- none of them succeeding.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Naw...even at terminal velocity, they don't do much more than go *splat*. Air raid sirens would warn innocent civilians to hide under indoors under tables and away from skylights and the like.
As God is my witness, I thought lawyers could fly.
Hemos topped himself yet again. That is by far the laziest write-up of a story on slashdot yet.
... here's some, more info.
Will we eventually see something like:
Headline Goes Here
Posted by Hemos on 02:16 AM September 5th, 2001
from the etc-etc dept.
Apparently something, took place... yada yada yada
( Read More... | 0 of 1 comments )
The hell they arent in it for the money.
Just because a patent is alledgedly infringed doesnt mean they actively used that patent or resulting research in their development... there's always a good chance in any patent infringement that it was indepently developed, not that it matters one way or the other.
didn't you notice there's like a 3 day delay between when these articles show up in the general press and when it shows up in slashdot. i know i've submitted articles the day i saw them only to be rejected, then they show up here days later... but whaddaya expect fer nuthin, rubber biscuits?
it used be the first place to go for tech info, but no more.
Not to mention that our fearless leader, CmdrMalda, has decreed that "registration is baaad" when the NY Times forces you to give them your hotmail addy. "Oh, but they're trying to use the info to target advertisements, and invade your privacy, and we can't encourage that." NIGGA PLEEZ. OSDN offers "geotargeted" advertising on all of it's network sites, including Slashdot. That's right, every time Slashdot runs an article about how baaad DoubleClick is, the server is busy trying to figure out the geographic location of your IP block so they can shove just the right advertising down your throat.
But there's no hypocrisy here.
The Patent and Trademark Office recognises the differences between inventing something and owning it and inventing something and not owning it. Work for hire is, in fact, the property of your employeer, if it is part of your job and/or contract.
If you work for Microsoft and you discover the cure for diabetes while on vacation at your grandma's house in South Texas, it is yours.
That is assuming you didn't sign away your life to your employeer.
jrbd
You are a stupid racist pig! What do you have against Black people?!? They have done a lot for this country (USA). And all you can do is dish out abuse.
How about a world where your light bulbs burn out after 20 minutes and it takes 5 hours to get to work because every corner has a stop sign instead of a traffic light?
That would suck, wouldn't it? And that is just the result of removing 2 African-American invented items (traffic lights and Lewis Lattimer's improvement on the lightbulb).
Black people have also made MANY contributions to American culture.
And yet we are not appreciative as a society! This is injustice!
Why don't you go read about Black history and maybe become a little less ignorant?
Your post is proof one can be a "geek" and still have no clue about life.
Not all whites are like this knucklehead. Some of us are trying to work AGAINST racism.
I bet this will get modded down. Just remember, a down-moderation is a vote for anti-Black racism.
With all the money institutions are receiving from licensing fees, it seems to me that post-secondary education could be free. Of course, that would be assuming that the institutions involved are truly interested in teaching students, not just making money.
And it was like living inside slashdot 24/7.
(Actually a higher quality slashdot where
everyone knows what they are talking about instead
of the 20% here.)
You are of course correct Al Gore did not say, "I invented the Internet." However he did say, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Of course the distinction is miniscule (Merriam Webster list create and invent as synonyms) and the amount of credit Gore was taking has diminished only in retrospect after he was called on it, but he was clearly taking more credit than he was due. So please excuse the previous poster for paraphrasing, but recognize that Al Gore is a BIG FUCKING LIAR. (You didn't forget his grandmother and her pills did you?)
The MIT Media Lab did considerable work on digital TV back in the late 1980s, from whence this patent dates. But the Media Lab was a place where corporations could buy in and get rights to all the technology developed there. Sony was one of those corporations. So I'd have thought they'd have rights to those patents.
I felt as if I was trapped in a bad Dilbert sequence on ISO 9000. I actually saw the answers coming. THeir focus now is on "outcome assessment." You can be as bad as you want, as long as you're measuring something.
At this campus, I'm involved in the Bachelor of Science in Business (BSB) program. It is a separate program from the Smeal college on the main campus, as they had accreditation concerns. Now some of the faculty in this program are talking about accreditation, and I (and others) are opposed to even applying. The Penn State name means a lot more than AACSB. We would be foolish to make any changes to satisfy them; it would be a tradeoff of standards for nonsense.
In fact, I don't want to stop at not applying; I want an official statement explaining the reason, and stating our willingness to joinin forming a body that accredits based on standards and quality rather than process.
hawk, of course speaking for himself and neither the program or the university.
In this case, what's important is where the infringing acts take place. If MIT has only US patents, only actions that take place in the US would be considered in determining infringement. If no US acts occur, there is no infringement, and therefore no legitimate reason to seize anything belonging to Sony, whether it's Sony Japan or Sony US. In other words, if MIT doesn't have a Japanese patent for this technology, Sony can sell the product in Japan all the live long day, without punishment, because a US patent can't be infringed in a foreign country.
WIPO has no jurisdiction over a US patent. WIPO does oversee adherence to the Patent Cooperation Treaty among signatory countries (US and JApan included), and in that respect helps facilitate getting patent rights in other countries. But if a company only has patent rights in the US, WIPO can't enforce those rights across borders. In fact, they'd tell that company that they should have sought international protection prior to getting the patent in the US, wise up next time.
This topic reminded me of an article in this month's edition of Tech Review about the impact of patents to university. They indeed can become a significant source of income and can be put back to more research, especially for private universities. There's a table ranking universities based on their license income from patents. MIT is not surprising judging by the proportion of their license revenue compared to their research expenditure, which is only 2.2%. Compare this with Florida State University, whose license revenue is 43.2% of their research expenditure. It's basic economics.
Why? The whole comment was designed to be absurdly funny. Mainly because Sony is a japaneese company, and as an Undergrad I seem to remember them sponsoring the Kung Fu Masterpiece Theatre at 4am...
So the whole thing seemed appropo....