Slashdot Mirror
Bright LCD Patent Dispute
pcp_ip writes "Honeywell filed suit Wednesday against 34 companies (including, Apple, Dell, Sony, Kodak, Fuji et al.) for infringment of patent 5,280,371. The patent for "a directional diffuser for a liquid crystal display" was filed on January 1994 and enables "a display to produce a brighter image without requiring additional power." Honeywell is looking for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing to infringe its patent, and for "damages adequate to compensate them for Defendants infringement." So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?"
Kodak, eh? Oh isn't Karma a bitch? :-)
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Apple and Dell don't even make LCD panels... All they do OEM panels from various manufacturers and put them in a plastic housing with some accessory electronics...
Surely it would be the manufacturer that's infringing, right?
are belong to Honeywell.
Set us up the patent.
BUT..
why are they suing the people who are selling the LCDs? Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?
As everyone (should) know, there aren't very many companies that actually make these things..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
How are they doing in the market place!
I can think of SCO, Kodak, Unisys and now Honeywell. I will venture all is not well at the little Honey
Help fight continental drift.
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=honeywe ll&page=pressrel_detail&theme=T8&id=A76N12RRDKX3GS IB1JIFWSY92LOX9108H&catID=cat1b754a4-fb536f3d74-3e 3e4447ab3472a0c2a5e5fdc1e6517d&c=n
Honeywel l Files Lawsuit Against 34 Electronics Companies For Infringing Patented LCD Technology
MORRIS TOWNSHIP, New Jersey, October 6, 2004 -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) today filed a lawsuit against 34 electronics companies claiming infringement of a Honeywell patent for technology that increases the brightness of images and that reduces the appearance of certain interference effects on a liquid crystal display (LCD).
Honeywell’s lawsuit claims the company’s patented technology is being used in a variety of consumer electronics products, including notebook computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, portable DVD players, portable LCD TVs, video game systems, and digital still cameras.
"Honeywell invests millions of dollars in research and development every year, and we aggressively defend our intellectual property to protect that substantial investment,” said John Donofrio, Vice President of Intellectual Property at Honeywell.
Honeywell's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the district of Delaware, asks for monetary damages and an injunction to prohibit selling products that infringe its patent.
"The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent," said Donofrio. "Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses as a core component of our strategic business model," Donofrio said. "We are pleased that LG.Philips and Samsung Electronics are benefiting through their licenses from our technology."
Defendants named in Honeywell’s lawsuit are:
- Apple Computer, Inc.
- Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc.
- Audiovox Corporation
- Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
- Casio, Inc.
- Concord Cameras
- Dell Inc.
- Eastman Kodak Company
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.
- Fujitsu Limited
- Fujitsu America, Inc.
- Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc.
- Kyocera Wireless Corp.
- Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.
- Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America
- Navman NZ Limited
- Navman U.S.A. Inc.
- Nikon Corporation
- Nikon Inc.
- Nokia Corporation
- Nokia Americas
- Olympus Corporation
- Olympus America, Inc.
- Pentax Corporation
- Pentax U.S.A., Inc.
- Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
- Sanyo North America
- Sony Corporation
- Sony Corporation Of America
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.
- Toshiba Corporation
- Toshiba America, Inc.
Honeywell International is a $23 billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell’s shares are traded on the New York, London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. For additional information, please visit www.honeywell.com
This release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations, financial performance and market conditions. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts as further described in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act.
Contact:
Ron Crotty
602-436-6823
From reading the patent it looks like Honeywell actually had a decent and possibly novel invention. I say possibly because the solution they propose is obvious to anyone trying to solve their particular problem, however no one before had tried to solve their problem hence its originality. Now... as to exactly what Honeywell's problem is...
They decided that in displays used in situations like fighter jets, air traffic control towers and commercial airlines, having displays "bleed" out of the angle of view is not desirable. For instance, you don't want a reflection of your cockpit display in the corner of your eye from the canopy. They designed a "system of lenses" to reduce this out-of-angle light and redirect it to viewing angles.
The problem seems to come when they filed for the patent on the system. Instead of describing the system as a way to limit/redirect unused/undesired light they wrote it as a system to increase the amount of desired light. My guess as to why is because it's much easier to sue someone trying to make their displays brighter than it is to find someone trying to make their displays darker.
The reason I say that they intended to sue/collect royalties from every manufacturer was because they went ahead and sued every single manufacturer. They did not attempt to license their technology (but of course they wouldn't... Because Honeywell also manufacturers LCD's. They'd love to put their competitors out of business.) This is all just an abuse of the patent/court system to try and get ahead... too bad it works so well.
Oh, and I have some prior art. You see, I'm sure someone had an LCD with some backlights about 10 years ago, and wanted it to be brighter in the area they were viewing... so they put a MIRROR behind it. What a novel idea! They should have patented it.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
As I wear polarized glasses most of the time, and the directional diffuser makes it nearly impossible to read many laptop screens.
However, my IPAQ doesn't seem to have one- anybody else able to see or have problems with directional diffusers who can verify this?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Lawsuit 101: You go for the deep pockets with the shotgun approach.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
The problem with patents rears its ugly head again... I have a friend who recently graduated and got a job at a Patent lawyer at a large corporation. His whole job is looking over old patents and "checking" to see if there are any modern infringments, ie: who can we sue that has mad money off of something we couldn't. sigh...
Just based off the number of companies that the plaintiff is filling against, this doesn't look to me like a case of someone deliberately stealing another's patented idea. It looks like a squatter sitting on an idea, and trying to extort money off of whoever happens to try to inovate.
I'm all for the idea of patents, but this sort of thing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The Patent was actually filed July 9, 1992. I've got an idea for some patent reform: Let your patent get knowingly infringed for 1 year - lose the patent.
This patent litigation is really getting absurd. I find it hilariously ironic that Kodak is named here after just crowing about its software patent win over Sun last week.
Now, just get Sun to file something against HP and you've got a three way standoff. Schweet! Get some popcorn and enjoy the show!
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Hye thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot to slashdot them. I went and clicked the honey well link and hit refresh a few times ;-)
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Maybe I'm going against the grain here, but I am pleased to see a patent for an actual physical implementation of a technology being defended, instead of all the bogus so-called "software patents" we've been hearing about for the last few years. Some patents are quite reasonable and legit, but with all the st00pid bogus patents getting all the press lately even legit patents are getting a bad rap.
Kudos for Honeywell, a company you don't hear about throwing it's weight around all the time, defending a patent that describes a process and physical implementation that actually DOES something. If they'd patented a method for vertical alignment of viewing sensors in front of a display apparatus to maximize contrast and enhance look-angle (ie. the up-down adjustment on your office chair), then we'd have reason to throw rotten fruit, but this patent seems to be a legitimate technological concept.
Give them a break... Rightous patents should be defended rigorously or there is no incentive to do core research. Don't let the flood of worthless patents or the incompetence of the patent examiners destroy the legitimate use of the patent system.
If the USPTO had been around when the comet hit, we probably wouldn't have any life on Earth higher than a cockroach. Earth would be populated by patent officers and lawyers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The new Sony CLIE PEG-VZ90 has a 480×320x16b OLED display. Available in Japan only, at present. A bigger picture and some news links here.
"...why werent they producing them?
They do produce them. They are used in their APEX integrated cockpit. Besides, if you google for "Honeywell" and "LCD" you'll see that most of the hits are for companies licensing LCD technology from Honeywell, like Samsung, NEC, and Toshiba.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
try to get your hands on an LCD lacking the polarized portion of the coating, then only people with polarized glasses could see the screen
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
God damnit.
I work for Honeywell.
Now, who to vote for, Honeywell or Apple...
Honeywell has licensed these technologies in the past to various manufacturers. Those that they are suing are companies that are using, but have not licensed, these technologies. It is a valid patent, not about software. Besides, LCDs for computer screens have only really recently come into the foray. Yes, they've been around for a while, but the "explosion" has only happened recently. When something takes off, I would imagine that some companies start manufacturing things and might not realize they are infringing. So, Honeywell now realizes this only because of the volume that is present. Besides, Honeywell makes these LCDs for use in cockpits and flight decks.
I might agree, except for the fact (according to the article) that the biggest manufacturers been licensing the IP. Though I don't know if they just started licensing it, or if they've been doing it since day 1.
It seems to me that aspect alone should defeat most "submarine" patents. Unless you can prove that they knowingly stole your idea, the scope of the lawsuit should automatically invalidate your patent.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm foolish enough to attempt to hold government bodies up to standards of common sense...
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
90 degrees didn't show anything-but maybe it does still have a diffuser, just a different kind of one, because at 45 degrees I see rainbows.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Took them 10 years to figure out that they're being infringed upon? Not a company I'd want to own stock in.
Or is this an outright scam? Wait until everyone is using it and then sue, as opposed to telling them in the beginning and letting them decide to license, work around, or do without.
If this has been a scam to wait until it is widely adopted, and then ask for all back royalities, the patent should be invalidated for lack of notice and enforcement, and Honeywell should be given NOTHING!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So much for innovation, eh?
And now, Kodak sues Sun similarly. The abused becomes another abuser. The circle continues.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
IBM. Why? Probably because IBM has so many patents up the wazoo that to sue it for patent infringement will almost certainly result in a countersuit for twice as much for twice as many patents. What's the moral of the story? The best defence against idiotic patents is to have more idiotic patents than everyone else.
As a software engineer, I have no clue about the technology involved in making an LCD screen brighter without using extra power, but the idea dazzles me and my first reaction was that this company SHOULD uphold its patent basically because I dont understand how it works.
It struck me that I NEVER agree with any of the software patents that are proposed by various entities, because I generally have a deep understanding of how the relevant technology operates.
This is why I understand why it is so difficult to educate laymen of the dangers of software patents. I too am swayed by aruments for patents if I am impressed by technology I dont understand
If I am not mistaken ... Apple has made investments in the LCD lines of Samsung and LG Philips (through Chi Mei Electronics)
If I am also not mistaken this included sharing patent and development knowledge between Apple and said companies.
Since Apple may move to OLED or another technology and be involved in it's creation, enhancement and deployment - maybe they could offer Honeywell a piece of that pie to be "dropped" from litigation.
Otherwise - I think Honeywell is unjustly going after the computer makers because they are simply OEM and ODM from essentially 4 main conglomerates: Samsung, Sharp, LG Philips, Mitsubishi - there are smaller players in abundance but these four control about 80% of the market.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The practical application of light has been around for a very long time. Look at the fluorescent lights above your head (if your at work), What kind of lenselets or diffuser is being used? Look at the tail lights on cars, the red plastic is internally (or sometimes externally) covered with bumps(lenses) to redirect the light. This is very old technology for light guiding.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
If Samsung has licensed the patent, and Apple or Dell use Samsung LCD panels, doesn't that make Apple or Dell clear, or do you have to double license? That seems fishy.
- oZ
// i am here.
"Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses ..."
The complaint most often levied at the current (US) patent system is that it stifles competition. Supporters argue that patent holders are willing to license their IP, so only the owner of the patent gets an advantage; that still qualifies as competition. But here we have Honeywell admitting to what is common practice; licensing only in cases where the product does not compete with anything Honeywell sells. This is clearly a case of preventing competition.
Would the patent system work better if all patent holders were required to license their IP, at fair prices, to all comers? Businesses are required to do business equitably with everyone who wants to do business. Similarly, Honeywell expects to be allowed to bid on -- compete for -- DoD contracts. I'm not sure what their expectation is concerning fair play and equal treatment, given the current Washington culture, but we do have laws that attempt to keep things fair and competitive. Why then should they expect patent law to protect them for competition?
The best way to approach this would be to remove protections, rather than adding requirements, and let the free market work its magic.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
The directional diffuser has nothing to do with polarization; LCDs depend on polarization effects anyway.
The first claim of the Honeywell patent covers a backlight diffuser consisting of two sheets of cylindrical lenses between the backlight and the screen, with the front sheet having a larger number of lenses per unit height than the back, and both having more lenses per unit height than the number of lines per unit height of the display.
The second claim covers the same device as the first claim specifically when the number of lenses per unit height of the front sheet is not an integral multiple of either the number of lenses per unit height of the back sheet or of the number of lines per inch of the display. IMO, given the device of the first claim, this one's pretty obvious.
The third claim is independent and claims the innovation of having the lenses slightly rotated with respect to each other.
The prior art covers, among other things, a display with two sheets of cylindrical lenses where one is in front of the display and the other between the display and the light.
The patent is certainly useful and seems novel, but I'm not versed in the field; maybe it is anticipated by the prior art. The bit about waiting 10 years before bringing suit is the problem, IMO.