Slashdot Mirror
Sony Sued By University Over PS2 Chip
Mike Hawk writes "Cry me a river! Sony is being sued over the creation of its 'Emotion Engine' PlayStation 2 chip. The University of Wisconsin (Madison) has filed the suit claiming the "EE Core" violates a 16 year old U-Dub patent. And you guys have been gaming with 16 year old technology the whole time - those PS2 jaggies make perfect sense now..." Since this story broke on Friday, a CNET News article has added a little more information, quoting a University spokesman as saying the patent involves "advanced chipmaking technologies and has been licensed by a number of technology companies", but not Sony or the chip's co-creator, Toshiba.
Gee, right after Sony sells it's 60 millionth PS2, this University finally figures out that Sony "Stole" their (ancient) technology. Sounds awfully fishy to me.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
"Why does the original poster of this article type like he's a brainwashed, consumer fanboy of a system other than the PS2?"
Probably because fan boys of the PS2 don't like it brought up that the system has a nasty little limitation that causes those jaggies. I imagine it was painful for the people who spent $300 for a PS2, waited for months for it to be available (remember the shortage?), and brought it home to realize that in most cases Dreamcast games looked better.
"Derp de derp."
This isn't like a soccer mom trying to cash in on frivuolous lawsuit #235 of the week, this is an actual university, and the entire board of directors must have legitimate concern to sue.
Perhaps they have a case.
(Personally, when I saw the complete lack of pop-ups in Wipeout Fusion I was happy.)
Um, "U-Dub" is what people call the University of Washington. I don't recall anyone ever calling it that while at the University of Wisconsin.
"The point is that the little dig was completely unnecessary."
You're right. In terms of good journalistic reporting, it really wasn't in good form. However, the quip was more about how old the patent was (16 years in tech terms is virtually an eternity), not as much a poke at the limitations of the PS2.
As for my comment, the point of it was that his view of what he was seeing in that post was tainted by annoyance at that limitation. It sounded to him like somebody was a fanboy of another system. The reality is not so clear cut. However, assuming the AC comes from the point of view of being a fan of the PS2, I can see why he'd leap to that conclusion.
"Derp de derp."
Uh, why are universities patenting their research? Aren't they supposed to be releasing info for public use?
That is partially a rhetorical question, and my partial answer is that federal cuts have probably reduced grants/funds to the point that universities must (and indeed they have long since started to) patent and sell their research, sometimes with tacit partnership with industry with specific products in mind, as opposed to being "pure" research.
I'm not against the public, businesses included, profiting from university research, I'm just sort of skeptical of universities getting patents (anathema to the whole purpose of universities), and then licensing them to a select few that pay enough. Otherwise our universities just become off-site research labs for specific companies (i.e. the ones with the money).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
*cries how could my college do this to me...
And it's probably The Foundation that's doing this. Those lawyers are hated by most of the university, especially the faculty who's ideas are stolen and exploited. The Foundation made a killing off synthetic BGH. It's actually what started this whole university-patent thing. Before that universities research was to benifit society, not for quick cash.
In 1820, it may have taken 20 years to get a headstart in fields like cotton ginning and steam-shipping. Now, 20 years is 5 product lifetimes. I think hardware patents should be 5 years, and 3 years for software/business method type patents.
Companies that truly innovate will still have plenty of time to exploit their advantage in the market (witness Palm or Amazon - you can build a real advantage in a short space of time). Entities that want to sit on patents will be SOL (that's not Sony of Latvia).
The patent the article concerns, valid or not, should have expired a long time ago.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
So do I.
:)
Our University gets money from things like this, and that is a good thing. If companies didn't have to license patents from WARF, do you think that they would donate money to the university for more research? I'm not optimistic that they would. This is a way to fund more research, which in turn attracts more top talent to Wisconsin (Madtown, I don't know where the U-Dub came from), making it a better school.
If you work in a lab here and get a patent through warf, the school gets something like 80% and the creator gets 20%. This is another reason that we have some really great professors here, it's like profit sharing.
WARF originated from a professor adding a vitamin to milk to cure rickets. The school has made so much money from that patent that it has developed into a very good institution, contributing to the world's fight.
I'm not sure that sony can say the same thing about the playstation 2, especially with all of the productivity the PS2 costs us
Cheese-Whiz University?
Yes, that is the moniker I chose for slashdot. Because it is funny. For me it is a reference to a practical joke played by Consolidated Skateboards when they announced that they had signed Tony Hawk's brother Mike to the team. This actually went largely unnoticed for a while. It still makes me smile. Did it make you smile?
Your handle there is "dafoomie". This is more credible to you? The other random "leetd00d47" or "potman420" names are? The name Mike Hawk is clearly a joke, and to me a funny one given the historical reference.
The news story is valid, and actually higher brow than most of the games section stuff, imho. Had it made it to the main slashdot page the discussion over patent law and its application in this case would have become quite heated, as all patent discussions tend to do. So, tell me again what's fishy about Mike Hawk?
There's a common cause that both large organizations and inviduals share alike when it comes to lawsuits. From soccer mom to university... that common cause is money. And even with a board of directors, the discussion is probably not so much as "do you think we're in the right to sue," as "do you think we'll win/profit?"
Money is a great motivator in the legal world
My name is no more valid than anyones. I'm simply pointing out that you have a name that Bart Simpson would have Moe call out at his bar if it weren't too vulgar. It being funny is the only reason I said anything. The story is higher brow than most of the stuff there, and probably should have made the main page. But a story may have less credibility if its submitted by Seymour Butts or I.P. Freely. Nothing against you personally. I don't personally have a problem with it. But that, combined with your bias in the comment, might make someone think twice about taking it seriously.
Bah, cmon, that was all just build up to ask you if there is anything fishy about Mike Hawk. Thats funny.
You should have taken it as the compliment that it was then :P