Slashdot Mirror
Sony Sued for Blu-Ray Patent Violation
Jaidan writes "According to a Gamespot article, a California-based company named Target Technology is suing Sony over patents it allegedly holds for silver based reflective surfaces. The suit claims that products marketed under the Blu-ray name infringe on a patent it owns for reflective layer materials in optical discs. Target is seeking a permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest, multiplied due to what it characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement. ' The patent addresses what Target called a need for specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold. According to the patent, the alloys are also more resistant to corrosion than pure silver. Target does not specify in its suit whether it believes all of Sony's Blu-ray discs infringe on its patent, or the suit applies to just a portion of the discs manufactured. The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.'"
In other news, Target Brands is suing Target Technology for trademark violations.
Why is this a bogus patent?
It's for a physical substance, that was developed by someone, which performs better/differently than anotehr compound used for the same purpose.
Isn't this what patent protection should be for?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Although Sony has been on my "Do Not Buy" list for some time, I sure hope they fight this rather than pay shut up money. It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This is news?
Then again, is this just another case of patent whoring? again, news?
Until the nightmare that is patenting computer technology/software is fixed/destroyed, these kinds of things will not be news, just a common occurrence/nuisance.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
But this looks like I could draft up a generic patent about triple layering and/or quadruple layering of data on discs and apply for the patents then just sit back and wait for someone to try and use it. I would reference all the dual layering patents and all that jazz. Would you call my ideas innovative or just common sense? Would it seem right that I didn't even have to implement these solutions? I don't know, I can think of instances where one could argue either way and this is what is inherently wrong with the patent system. Of course, I don't know how to fix it but I don't like how it works right now.
My work here is dung.
...I'm starting to see that Mark Shuttleworth was right.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
On the face of it, it sure sounds a lot like a CD which I'm pretty sure was around prior to 2004.
here. (Warning, CPU-whoring Flash)
Doesn't seem a patent troll...
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Does this mean that BluRay capabilities will be (purely by coincidence) removed from the PlayStation 4 as Sony execs try to tell us that high-capacity disks are so "last gen?"
dies by the sword. Flat TV screens anyone? I hope they get spanked real good.
Well, I know which Hi-Def player I should NOT get now, at least until this is settled. And if Sony loses this case, it will lose the movie format war again. I suppose that could be good for consumers though, because format wars just discourage adoption of useful technology.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
On it's face, the many of the claims in the linked patent seem like perfectly valid composition of matter claims. There needs to be an analysis of the prior art to determine if they are eligible for patenting (has it been invented before? is it new but obvious?).
They aren't patenting the concept of CDs or DVDs, or the use of reflective surfaces to record data, but rather the use of a specific alloy to serve as the reflective surface on DVDs. This is a common use for patenting - akin to finding a better formula for engine oil.
Those who said this sounds like "patenting the mirror" need to take a good look at the actual patent. They are claiming patents for very specific metal alloys for the reflective or the semi-reflective layer of an optical storage medium.
There isn't enough information here to form an intelligent position.
Given that Target is only suing Sony over Blu-Ray, and not suing any other organizations over CDs, DVDs, GD-ROMs, Game Discs, HD-DVDs, or FMD-ROMs (!), it's possible (however unlikely) that this is actually an example of patents working the way they should. That is, Target may have a patent on an actual technology; a specific method of producing a reflective layer that is superior and/or cheaper than other methods. If that's the case, then this is exactly how patents are supposed to work.
Alternatively, of course, Target may have patented an obvious evolution of well-established technologies, in which case this is just another patent troll. They could be holding off on suing other companies until they've set some sort of precedent with Sony.
The actual patent begins by specifying an alloy of silver an yttrium, but the further claims also (apparently) expand that claim by including alloys with other elements (such as bismuth and tin). I don't have the time right now to examine the patent in great detail; but a skim makes it look like they patented a specific method for a high-reflectivity layer thats cheaper than other methods of equivalent reflectivity. They then expand this idea to include all the derivative technologies of using this method (single & dual layer discs, write-only discs, write-once disc, re-writeable discs, etc).
The problem is I don't have enough familiarity with the technology to know if this is a non-obvious development or not. If it is non-obvious, then more power to them. Protecting your novel idea with a patent is fair play. If, of course, it's just the optical disc equivalent of "[X], but on the INTERNET and called i[X]," then I hope they get counter-sued into oblivion.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
In thinking more about this issue, I had to ask myself the question: Is Sony going to be driven out of the video games market (at least for this generation of consoles)? Their sales all already really low, they were late out of the gate as compared to Microsoft, their games are expensive and hard to develop (so they don't have all that many), and now their whole console could be barred from production over this, depriving them of the last of the few sales they are getting. And they lose money on every PS3 sold anyway... so seriously, maybe from a business perspective they ought to just cut their losses and move one. If production stops over this issue, I just don't see how they will be able to make up enough ground or get enough market share to ever catch up.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
That patent, as I read it, appears to be a novel and non-obvious improvement of an existing technology. Provided there is no prior art, it sure looks like a valid, and good, patent.
The part about this suit that I think should be more obvious is this: (FTA) "it [Target] characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement." That makes me think that they came up with the technology, applied for the patent, then attempted to sell/license the technology to Sony. Sony declined, but then used the technology anyways, knowing full well that someone else held the patent on it. I don't know that for fact though, it is pure speculation.
To me, this sure looks like a case of a large corporation abusing a smaller corporation that has a valid patent.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
After doing a little looking at thier site, Target Technology gets their name because they do actually make products with this technology. The make silver alloy targets for sputtering the metal onto optical discs, and their targets are currently used manufacture of many DVD-R's and other optical discs. I would guess (though I don't have enough information to be sure) that they think Sony looked at the compostion of their targets, said "hey, these work really well," and decided to make their own targets of the same compesition for their Blu-ray discs. True or not, I have no idea, but it is at least possible a valid patent case. It's not like this is just an company who hoards patents and licenses them, they actually make products based off of those patents.
The excerpt you qote is from the *BACKGROUND* of the patent. It has nothing to do with what is being patented. The nature of the patent is listed under *CLAIMS*, of which there are 88 that neet to be met for an infringment. This patent is not one of the ridiculous swinging sideways types that sometimes get passed. Please, go and actually read the list of claims before you decide a patent is bogus.
It's a marketing scheme. Sony and Target are in it together to create a buy-the-PS3-now-before-production-must-cease frenzy. Since there are thousands of PS3s sitting on store shelves collecting dust, this would seem to be the best method at resolving the problem in a hurry. Then as soon as the overstock problem is resolved, Sony and Target mysteriously settle on undisclosed terms.
It's Sony for pity's sake. This is one company even the Linux and Windows fanboys agree to hate. ;-)
Up to this point I agree.
This is where I start to disagree.
People should get some kind of help if they are not able to produce it themself.
BUT I think it's completely normally wrong, to let the patent stay dormant in some safe, wait that some other company makes an independent development, comes up with a similar idea (on they own), tries to make it into a product, and reaches commercial succes. Then suddenly the original patent holder pops out of nowhere and ask for money for something he didn't contribute at all.
The best exemple is Carmack's reversal. It' called Carmack's because John spent a long time developing it and documenting it on-line. You know it's genuine and he didn't just steal the idea by reading about it somewhere. And then suddenly, a company comes and show its patent and ask for wads of cash for settlement.
(Another similar case could be Linux, if a couple of the alleged 235 infringed Microsoft patents turn out to be genuine - There was a lot of time spent developing it, it's not blatant stealing).
Some things should be done to protect those who make a lot of efforts to develop something. Because nobody could have checked all existing patents and their possible interpretations for conflicts.
And something has to be done against those company/individuals that only spend their time writing patents that they never bother to check if they even *could* be implemented, but instead wait until they find some company whose product can be likened to the patent in convoluted ways and start trolling for money.
I really think the GP idea of "use it or lose it" is good. We just need to add "trying unsuccessfully to sell it/implement it" as possible "use".
Even if someone doesn't have money, he can still try to sell his idea to the industry for implement. If he can't ever try to sell it either the idea is completely useless, or it's just a troll waiting to sue some company independently developing similar stuff.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's called a fucking mirror, and silver alloys have been around for centuries.
The patent is bogus, IMHO, unless it's a synthetic element bonded with the silver, or if the silver alloy is made using a process that hasn't been used before.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
For patently I spy a silver lining
no more blu-ray - patently shining
Silver ain't cheap either, if you're buying it by the tonne to make discs by the millions.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
My question is : are patent about specialised usage of more general purpose thing enforceable ?
/.er in this thread. Whereas, silver alloys have been used on reflective surface (mainly mirrors, also in devices channelling sunlight inside buildings for the purpose of lighting) for almost as long as metallurgy has discovered alloys.
I mean something like : rubber duckies areobject made out of rubber floating on water, and someone publishing a special patent about putting floating rubber duckies in a bucket of water ?
Because that's what this guy has made. He has patented every possible silver alloy for making reflective surfaces in data storage medium. He basically just "patented mirror" as put by another
(It would be fun if some translation from an antique language was produced as evidence of prior art. Old-language geeks from around the world will rejoice)
I am specially sceptic, given the fact that one of the classical technique to circumvent patents is to make some form of more general stuff (general purpose algorithm in case of computer-patents, etc.) that does a lot of stuff and which has one specific type of applications that may look like the patent.
The arithmetic coding patent in data compression was circumvented with range coding in this way.
(arithmetic coding codes a sequence using a floating point number between 0 and 1 whose precision is arbitrarily high. range coding is the more general technique code data using a range of number between two arbitrarily set end points using a long binary sequence. arithmetic coding is just the special case where range boundaries are [0;1] and where binary format = float.)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It sounds like the patent was granted for an idea that silver can be alloyed with other elements to make reflective surfaces. I'd expect a lot of prior art in this area, and have trouble believing that you should be allowed to patent something you haven't even done yourself. It wouldn't appear from the parent post that the patent owner has actually made any of these alloys themselves. If so, actual alloys would be specifically listed.
Sounds bogus to me, and a black stain on the US Patent Office.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wrong, you only need to infringe one claim to infringe the whole patent.
That said, reading the patent in question, most of its' claims are just re-iterations of a handful of the basic reflective layer compositions claims in combination with various types of discs. However, seeing as there are several different compositions and alloys claimed, and each of those claims includes wide variations in the proportions of the elements, I'd say this patent not specific enough to warrant winning a lawsuit. For all I know, the applicant just read through the existing literature on what alloys are highly reflective and resitant to corrosion, and listed them in conjunction with magic words about CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray discs in order to make a concrete claim.
If it is a valid claim Sony will probably settle and buy a license to use the technology, otherwise they will fight it in court. Actually, it is probably more along the lines of .LT. (DAMAGES * P(.LOSS.) ) THEN CALL SETTLE ELSE CALL FIGHT END IF !pardon the Fortran
IF ( LICENSE
So basically Sony will have a slightly lighter wallet after this but it is unlikely that Target will refuse to strike a good deal on the matter unless they get a better offer from the HD-DVD crowd.
This story was posted 21 minutes after the story about the formation of the copyright alliance, of which Sony Pictures is part of.
If that's not instant karma, I don't know what is!
Bah!
Submarine patents usually hide for much longer than 2 years. Wikipedia has a good entry on them. One big reason submarine patents are less common now is that the term of a patent is reckoned 20 years from its filing date, instead of the previous method when it began with the date a patent is granted. If you take 5-10 years to go from filing to granted and the term of your patent is only 20 years, you're taking a big gamble.
Someone already has a patent out citing this one. US 7,167,440: "Optical information recording medium," assigned to TDK corp. They probably figured out a way to circumvent Target Tech's claims. It's not easy, but it can be fun. :)
I mean come on. I think my toaster violates this patent, but then that's pre-existing art, but wait isn't that copyright, or trademark, god damn it. A law that ceases to make sense if it ceases to serve society. I have worked at many companies whom all think they have a "secret" process they and only they use. However in every simalar industry I see them doing the same shit. So even when companies our filing patents for something other than suing other companies, it's still bullshit 99% of the time.
In the end who really pays for this bullshit; you and I twice. Once cause we pay every court clerk that touchs this trash, as well as every judge and/or jury on the case. Most of the time judges have to pay experts to try to explain why it even makes since that I have a patent for a big purple spider button on my laptop. The second place we pay is in every product we buy. Even if a company isn't being sued, they still retain 1 to 1000 lawyers in case any thing might cause them to be sued or they can sue some one else.
At the end of the day patients just protect companies from competing for the best product. If they do something that say reduces time of production, they patent the process, thus ensuring they can bleed more profit longer from the same product. In the end this same company could have looked at the market and entered it at a lower price, and by doing so increased market share. During that period they win because they make more money, the consumer wins because they can purchase the same prduct for less money. Their competitors must now figure out a way to make either a better product or reduce the price of the existing one, and then the consumer wins again. Currently companies see patents as a way to avoid living in the free market. Microsoft would for example prefer threating linux users instead of competing with linux with their own product. So every windows user out there should know that part of the price you pay for your product is not going back into development of a better or cheaper product. Instead your dollar is being spent on lawyers who call up your tax payed federal courts, to attempt to prevent development of a product that offers you a choice in the market place. Tell me who wins in this kind of system.
Patents are quickly turning into the largest assult on free market capitalism since Karl Marx picked up a pen. Now don't even get me started on copyright.
...that they knew what horse piss tasted like.
C'mon, silver has been used for mirrors since... ummm... almost forever?
Okay, maybe they can patent some alloy or chemical process, but their's doesn't sound too specific. Something about adding any old amount of a large section of the periodic table? Yeah, like people have never used impure silver mirrors before...
Maybe I'm being glib because I haven't read the patent, but you're going to have to show me something really novel (and show that Sony copied it) before I think of it as a valid patent. Also, it may very well be obvious to material scientists. Especially if they independently reinvented it.
According to wikipedia:
The first Blu-ray Disc recorder was demonstrated by Sony on March 3, 2003, and was introduced to the Japanese market in April that year. On September 1, 2003, JVC announced Blu-ray Disc-based products at IFA in Berlin, Germany.
According to TFA, The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.
So provided these dates are correct, I have three questions: 1) did the patent troll break any laws? 2) if so, what punishment is sufficiently severe to deter this practice? and 3) if the patent troll did not break any laws, then is the law an ass?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
sigh... quote the fucking patent why don't you.
there's a difference between an idea:
I WILL PATENT SPACE TRAVEL
and an implementation of something
The use of a solar array to collect energy from the sun to provide power to a space craft. SOLAR SAIL
You shouldn't have to put something into production to have a patent. Small business / individuals would just get stomped out by the 800lb gorillas. Fuck ass lawyers using patents to leech money from people is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with, but abolition of patents and saying that you must have an assembly line ready to have a patent is not the way to do it.
retards. (sorry, I can't help it. This is obvious.)