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.'"
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.
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
MOD PARENT UP!
:P
I am all for patent bashing, but i am not a chemist, nor is most of slashdot.
Unless this is an obvious leap, this is EXACTLY what patents are for. It's not software, it's not the human genome, and it's a novel invention that includes both the method and the compound used. That is the epitome of somethign that someone should be able to patent so they can resell it for awhile to make money off it.
For the car analogy requirement: I would almost give this akin to, say, developing a new method of making spark plugs that are cheaper. Why wouldn't that be patentable?
For all the talk on slashdot about normal people getting stupid and losing common sense whenever technology is involved, there sure is some of it in our little group here.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Thats never going to happen, at least not in the way you say it. Sony is still making a mint on the ps2 and its sales. If they can't win in a suit against this company then will just pay off this company so that they can use this tech, just like what happened with the dual shock controler. Besides its not about the video games its just about the blue ray discs and they could probably just find a diffrent way to make them, like use just silver or an element thats not in the patent. I really hate $ony but, they are makeing enough money to keep their company alive. Sony has to may connetions for them to just get out of video games.
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 ]
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.