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
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.
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?"
No, because Fred Brooks has already copyrighted the fact that they don't exist.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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...
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
Watered-down beer has to have prior art from the 1940s. 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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
For patently I spy a silver lining
no more blu-ray - patently shining
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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?