Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Sues Sony over digital TV

Posted by Hemos on from the battle-of-odd-giants dept.

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.

12 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. And We're OFF.... by darkPHi3er · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...
  2. Re:I don't get it... by matrix0040 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No MIT is not a federally funded university.
    From mit.edu:
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- a coeducational, privately endowed research university

    Ofcourse there are some projects which get federal grant but not all and so it also has the right to patent stuff like any other research institute

  3. graduate student inventions by mj6798 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A lot of the truly novel ideas at a place like MIT are developed by graduate students, often with little or no input from professors. That can make the ethical question of ownership of those ideas a bit murky: graduate students aren't exactly getting paid a lot, and what they do get paid often doesn't come from MIT funds (but instead from fellowships and government grants). Of course, legally, you can be sure that MIT's lawyers have it all nailed down airtight.

    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".

    1. Re:graduate student inventions by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That can make the ethical question of ownership of those ideas a bit murky: graduate students aren't exactly getting paid a lot, and what they do get paid often doesn't come from MIT funds (but instead from fellowships and government grants). Of course, legally, you can be sure that MIT's lawyers have it all nailed down airtight.

      What the graduate students get out of it is that when they get their Ph.D., they are the foremost experts in the world in one subject. From the time of their discovery to the point they publish, they alone know the answer to a problem many people (if they choose their battles wisely) want answered.

      The point of academia is fame, not fortune. People who want to make their discoveries and get paid well for them go into industry, or become entrepreneurs. Academia is where you may not get paid for your idea, but everyone considers you an expert, and you get speaking engagements, press interviews, and the like.

    2. Re:graduate student inventions by krmt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While you're right about things being murky, you do have to remember that the University does fund a great deal, including lab space, supplies, and even simple administrative stuff like waste disposal (critical for biohazard), mail, phone, and internet. While salaries don't really come from anything but grants and Teaching Assistant stipends, the University does provide a lot of important stuff.

      I totally agree that the inventor should get a significant cut of the pie (I'm biased though, being an undergrad lab assistant ;-) you can't cut out the University because they are critical for a lot of reasons.

      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    3. Re:graduate student inventions by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • The point of academia is fame, not fortune. People who want to make their discoveries and get paid well for them go into industry
      • I am under an NDA agreement. My employer decides who I may and may not share my knowledge with, and can legally gag me.
      • My employer owns all rights to my inventions.
      • My employer uses my inventions for their financial gain.

      From that description, you tell me whether I work in "academia" or "industry". There is no dividing line any more.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. Re:I'm curious... by platypus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sony _has_ been in court for patent infringment before. The case was about the walkman which a german inventor named Andreas Pavel claimed to have a patent for (granted 1977!)
    They stumped him with an armee of lawyers, court costs for him were abough 2.000.000 british pounds.
    Note that before that sony actually had payed him appr. 50.000$ - while they sold walkmen for a couple of billion $s worldwide.

  5. Google Cache of the page by defence+budget · · Score: 3, Informative

    The server appears to be down(/.tted?) The google cache of the page can be found here or in geocities.

  6. Re:US Laws and Extraterritoriality by plumby · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most governments (including the US and Japan) have signed up to WIPO (www.wipo.org), the World Intelectual Property Organisation, who's job it is expressly to manage multinational IP issues, and these kinds of issues are frequently upheld across national bounderies.

  7. Re:US Laws and Extraterritoriality by aozilla · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does the US Legal system really have much right to tell a Japanese company what technologies it can and cannot develop?


    This would be a valid point if the patent described the process of making the hardware. That infringement at least potentially takes place completely outside the US would have to resort to asking other countries for help and if they didn't get it then resort to trade embargos or just give up.


    But more likely the patent describes the use of the product, and by selling the product in the US, Sony places itself under US jurisdiction for contributory patent infringement (selling a product which is designed for the primary purpose of infringing patents, essentially). Sounds pretty similar to what Dmitry Sklyarov was allegedly doing, doesn't it?

    --
    ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
  8. Not to add facts to the fire but.... by maggard · · Score: 5, Informative
    Coupla basic points: (easily discovered by anyone willing to invest the same time at a search engine as they did posting something foolish to /.)
    • MIT is a private institution. Yes it gets money from public grants & programs, almost every accredited institution does. MIT is no more a public or government entity then the trade schools that advertise on late night TV. Furthermore even parts of the US Gov't doing public work can now claim IP on some of their products.
    • Yes MIT uses Graduate Students and no they don't generally earn much. On the other hand putting them to work probably does keep their tuition down a bit and heck, if you don't like it you can always go someplace else (courts rarely require X years attending MIT as part of a sentence and the campus is very open, one is free to leave it and not return at any time.) However this has nothing to do with the topic and just gets brought up every time a .edu issue is raised.
    • The US HDTV standards happened after the FCC ran a competition in which four finalists emerged. Rather then a winner-take-all situation emerging (which would of taken years with the legal wrangling) a pooling of the "best" of a various technologies was brokered. As the patent & other IP issues around HDTV were spread out amongst several institutions and companies a pool was created held by the companies who now dubbed themselves "The Grand Alliance". Then as any other number of projects have done (DVD, Firewire, etc.) an examiner was brought in to determine exactly what IP was required then a formula was put in place to compensate the IP owners and everything got signed off on.
    • MIT earns some large sum of money every year from it's IP material, money which helps fund them. Sony does the same from it's own portfolio. In this case MIT's IP is used through the Grand Alliance agreement, something which Sony seems to have now decided to ignore. Whether or not you agree with all details of all IP in this case it seems rather strightforward and not to fall into any of the areas which so many folks find offensive.
    • Yes MIT (a US institution) can sue Sony (a company HQ'd in Japan.) Internationial trade has been going on since we first worked out nations and the laws are rather straightforward in cases like this. Did anyone other then a few sappy posters think that this was a new situation, that one couldn't sue an offshore entity?
    --
    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.
  9. Re:I don't get it... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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


    It hasn't been that way for a long time now. The sale and licensing of intellectual property can represent a significant source of income to a university, and those dollars can be used to offset tuition costs and operating expenses, which is a good thing.

    It's no different than intercollegiate sports; the players aren't professionals, public funds help pay their tuitions, why shouldn't we get into the games for free? Because the ticket fees help support the program so my taxes don't have to.