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.
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;
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.
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
Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?
Well, "The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent."
So, me not knowing the market, I'm wondering who the remaining manufacturers are. From the list of companies, I get the feeling their going after companies that have made products using smaller LCD displays (Apple - iPod, camera manufacturers, etc). So who's making those displays?
From reading the relevant statutes it sounds like both manufacturer and distributer is culpable.
I don't see an article, and the summary only lists like 3 of 34 companies being sued, so they are probably going after everyone.
Honeywell patented this in 1994, developed it, and sold it. Then someone came along, took the idea, and started selling the product before the patent expired.
This is exactly what patents are supposed to prevent. Why are you guys giving them so much crap for doing something about it?
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
Laches differs from a statute of limitations in that it fails to constitute a complete defense against patent holders' lawsuits. Patentees against whom the laches defense has been successfully invoked are barred from collecting only those damages that accrued prior to filing suit. /5/ Patentees may recover damages flowing from infringing conduct that takes place after commencement of an infringement action, even where the accused infringer successfully invokes the laches defense. Accordingly, interposition of laches does not permit the alleged infringer to lawfully continue the infringing conduct. Continued infringement remains the subject of litigation that may require settlement, entering into licensing agreements that require the payment of royalties to the patentee or paying the burdensome cost of patent infringement litigation while facing an uncertain outcome. As a practical matter, infringing activity often diminishes substantially or ceases entirely after suit is commenced.
It is perhaps worth adding that the technology exposed in a patent may not be commercially viable and therfore worth stealing until many years after the patent is issued.
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.