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.'"
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...
I disagree. I think if you come up with anything, purposeful or accidental, you should be able to patent it (so long as it meets the other criteria). HOWEVER, in today's industrial/economical environment, patents should be much shorter.
IMO:
Patent issue for two years.
If the patent holder shows that they are actively working on producing/licensing the patent in that time they can apply for a 3 year extension.
If the patent holder can show that they are actively working on producing/licensing the patent, but have not yet recouped the investment incurred over the first 5 years, they can file for a single addition 3 year extension.
Inactive patents drop in 2 year, most patents drop in 5 years, and a small number of patents manage to stick around for 8 years.
-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
For patently I spy a silver lining
no more blu-ray - patently shining
You know, that whole Microsoft vs. Sony is probably the hardest question an informed consumer could choose.
On one hand you have a software company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other software products from the same company.
On the other hand, you have a hardware company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other hardware products from the same company.
Tough call. Obviously, many choose neither.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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.
Claim 1: An optical storage medium, comprising:
a first layer having a pattern of features in at least one major surface; and
a first reflective layer adjacent said feature pattern, said first reflective layer including a metal alloy, said metal alloy including silver and yttrium, wherein the relationship between the amounts of silver and yttrium in the metal alloy is defined by AgxYw where 0.9500 This is not used as a mirror in any way shape or form. The process itself is also insubstantial. What is substantial is they found this really nifty compound which is shown above and noticed it was really handy in making optical storage media. They decided to patent this specific use of the compound.
Sony comes along and starts using this compound for exactly what it was used for in the patent. that's where the big no-no occurred.
If Sony were to use the exact same compound as a mirror in their bathroom stalls, Target would have no legal claim against them. If Sony decided to use it for anything besides for in an optical storage media Target would have no legal claim against them.
The only way this patent is bad, is if Sony can show that they have "substantial evidence" after filing a 37 CFR 1.131 Terminal Disclaimer that they had full knowledge of the claimed invention under their own research and development which must be backed up by documentation with a date which can be certified. This should actually be fairly interesting to follow because the patent itself as claimed is very much valid, now we get to see the fight for who has rights to it.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Nintendo's gotten better in the last 20 years. I can't say Sony has started to treat consumers better, so they're still on my shitlist. I'll give a company a chance to change... will you?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
[quote]Uh-huh. Then why the hell are they suing Sony? Sony doesn't really do much development of the physical media (that would be TDK), and they're sure as hell not the only manufacturer of the drives.
Since the patent in question is actually based on a prior-art patent that Sony filed, it sure looks like a case of "go for the deepest pockets" to me.[/quote]
1) This has nothing to do with the drives. So there could be hundreds of drive manufacturers and none of them would be lawsuit worthy.
2) This applies to only a very specific compound, it is entirely possible that TDK is not using this compound, or that TDK has licensed the use of the patented compound already.
3) I am not familiar with Sony's production facilities, I can not comment as to whether or not TDK makes all of their disks for them.
4) There is nothing wrong with filing a patent that is BASED on prior art. If Jim invents and patents a mouse trap, then Bob comes along, looks at Jim's mouse trap and improves on it, he is free to patent his new and improved mouse trap even if it cites Jim's mouse trap as a reference.
5) Wrong with going for the deepest pockets? Sony is likely making the largest profit off of their patent when compared to the other violators(if there are others), so why not start with them?
There are way too many unknowns to jump on Target as being an "evil patent whoring" company. But because of the specific use of language in the complaint and Sony's history of patent abuse, it sure sounds to me like Target showed their patented technology to Sony and Sony used it with out paying for it. If that is the gist of it, than there is nothing wrong here, it is just a smaller innovating company suing a larger company that is trying to use it's IP with out a license. This is what the Patent system is designed to protect.
-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
I think it was on here that I read about the beer where 80% of tasters in a double-blind taste-test preferred horse piss, and the other 20% thought both were horse piss. I forget which beer though.
Maybe it was Horse Piss Ale! Yes, it actually exists, I saw it in a liquor store in Kentucky. Comes in a 4-pack, and the bottle features a picture of a horse that apparently just had a big carrot shoved up its ass because it's exposing its teeth and gums in a crazy laugh/grin like Mr. Ed used to do sometimes.
We got some, hoping that "Horse Piss Ale" was just clever marketing for our generations raised on irony. But, in fact, it was actually a pretty accurate description of the taste.
The enemies of Democracy are