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...
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.
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.