Slashdot Mirror
Firm Sues Sony Over Cell Processor
An anonymous reader writes that earlier this month, Sony received word of a lawsuit from a Newport Beach company called Parallel Processing. They've filed against the electronics giant alleging that the Cell processor, used in the PlayStation 3, infringes on a patent they own. They've made the somewhat outrageous demand that every infringing chip (and console) be 'impounded and destroyed'. From the article at Next Generation: "The patent, 'Synchronized Parallel Processing with Shared Memory' was issued in October 1991. It describes a high-speed computer that breaks down a program 'into smaller concurrent processes running in different parallel processors' and resynchronizes the program for faster processing times ... Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused 'irreparable harm and monetary damage' to the company."
Patent link. Should be in the summary, IMO.
At least read the headline and figure out who's holding the patents.
1 - "a plurality of multi-access memory modules;"
The PS3 does apparently use 4 RAM chips, but they don't appear to be multi-access. Elpida makes them, and I couldn't find ANY of their offerings that were 'multi-access'.
2 - "2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the number of processors is equal to the number of multi-access memory modules."
Ouch, pretty sure there's 7 cores to that Cell processor, and NOT 7 RAM chips. (There's 4.)
6 - "including a plurality of multi-access memory modules,"
Too bad, guys, you lost your lawsuit before you started. The others are all based on 1 or 6, and losing both of those kills the whole thing for sure.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I was asking myself the same question.
Transputers date back to the early/mid-'80s and patents therefore are out of date.
IIRC, each transputer had its own memory; it didn't share it.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Well it's usually nearby Marshall Texas that patent cases are filed in. They have very patent friendly (and expedient) courts there. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall_texas _patent_central.html
IBM has been involved in the parallel processing field for a long time. I'm sure they have plenty of patents which pre-date and overlap this one and probably quite a few that International Parallel Machines is arguably infringing on.
The stuff in Claim 1 of the patent (5,056,000) is basic multi-processor stuff which certainly wasn't actually novel in 1989 (when the patent was filed). And the Cell doesn't seem to violate it anyway. It appears to be Claim 6 they are suing over. Claim 6 describes a particular way of partitioning processing power in a MIMD system, but again I doubt it was novel in 1989.
They may not be trolling. But if they go against IBM, or if IBM intervenes, I don't think they can win.
Polaroid v. Kodak. All of Kodak's infringing cameras had to be recalled and destroyed.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is well known in patent and IP litigation. It's frequently called the "second rocket docket" (the 4th District, in Virginia, being the original one) because of its rules for discovery, and very firm deadlines during trials. They also have a jury pool that's pretty conservative, arguably biased towards rightsholders, and judges that are receptive towards patent plaintiffs (certainly moreso than the average jury pool in the 9th District, which includes California).
9 8
However some people have speculated that since rolling out the red carpet for patent cases, that they're beginning to become overwhelmed:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11035497289
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No, it doesn't. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to grant exclusive rights (for limited times). The distinction is important, because Congress still gets to decide if such rights should be granted and what their precise scope should be.
If they do win at trial, destruction of every infringing device is within their rights.Perhaps, but I doubt it. I haven't studied patent law much, but I do know that the purpose of patent law is to encourage the use of new inventions, so giving that much power to the patent holder would defeat the purpose. The law and the courts don't look kindly on patent owners who want to lock up the technology and prevent anyone from using it. Instead, what they want to see is patent licensing, so that inventors are compensated for their work and for their decision to publish their invention via the patent process, but so that the invention is used for the benefit of the society who funds the enforcement of the law.
In the case of infringement, courts look for the most equitable way to repair the damage to the plaintiff, and there's no way that ordering Sony to buy back and destroy every PS3 is equitable. It would be unnecessarily injurious to all of the innocent people who bought PS3s and would force Sony to pay amounts that far exceed the value of the processors in the units (since Sony would have to buy back and destroy the entire units, not just the CPUs). Not only that, but it would do little or nothing to make the plaintiff whole, since they wouldn't get a penny from such destruction. It would be an absolutely senseless remedy and if any court ordered it, it would be overturned on appeal.
The plaintiff can ask for whatever remedy they want, but this one is pure grandstanding, and there's no way they can believe that they would get it -- and it's extremely unlikely that they even want it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.