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.'"
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
Nowhere in the article or in the summary is there a reference to a bogus patent. Why the hell did *you* jump to the conclusion that this was bogus?
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
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.
Actually, this may end up being bogus for different reasons. You must realize the patent was filed April 2004 and was patented May 2006. I know that Blu-ray has been in development for quite a time and the specifications were announced in the year of 2004. If Sony can provide sufficient evidence in court that what is claimed by Target had already been conceived in some form by them they will be able to circumvent this lawsuit and nullify the patent.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Personally, I think patents should be "if you don't use it, you lose it" because what good does it do us if an idea is patented and the company just sits around waiting for a larger one to use it? The patent system is broken and so is the mentality of about half the patent holders that use it. It's no longer about protecting your intellectual property, it's about the tricks you can play to get insane sums of money. How long did NTP wait for RIM to expand and grow? A long time. It's not currently wrong but morally they've gotta be approaching some sort of evil.
My work here is dung.
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?"
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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...
But the applicant can file a terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.131) and swear behind the date as long as they give evidence of their work before the date of filing. It doesn't have to be published, nor does it have to be a working example. They actually can use internal documents as long as the date can be certified. I'm sure Sony knows this well.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
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.
Yes, it's slashdot. Which means that anything that's bad for SONY, is good for karma!
c++;
Don't argue with this guy! Patent is his middle, err, last name.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
However, every now and then, we get stuck in some sort of paradox, like when Jack Thompson and Microsoft are facing each other, and we have to take sides...
Next up:
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
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 Sony for pity's sake. This is one company even the Linux and Windows fanboys agree to hate. ;-)
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.
Eh, I'm late to this discussion. Anyway....
You were correct in intent, but this is not a "terminal disclaimer" but, rather a affidavit used to "swear behind" the date of a prior art reference. The applicant must show reduction to practice or conception with dilligence and must attach evidence (such as lab notebooks) similar to that which would be entered in an interference, except that all dates may be redacted out of the documents, with the inventors asserting (under the criminal penatalies for false oath or declarations) that all relevant dates were before the prior art date.
This will overcome a rejection based on 35 USC 102(a) type prior art, but not prior art applicable under 35 USC 102(b), the so called "statutory bar" that applies if the effective filing date of the application is more than one year after the prior art date.