Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firm Sues Sony Over Cell Processor

Posted by Zonk on from the just-what-they-didn't-need dept.

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."

8 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. What's next? by vigmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are they going to go after AMD and Intel for their multicore CPUs?

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:What's next? by Frothy+Walrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      look at the site -- they make PLC's, not general-purpose processors. they're not losing a goddamn cent to Sony or IBM.

    2. Re:What's next? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which makes little to no difference to patent applications. If you own a patent, the damages are in lost licensing fees for the patented technology. That's how inventors get rich. They patent an idea, then sell the rights to use the patent. Meanwhile, they get to stop working on their invention and rake in the dough.

      My point about their business muddying the waters is that their business adds a certain amount of legitimacy to their claims of owning the rights to and licensing such technologies. It does not matter if they produce the tech themselves or not.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. Re:Impractical by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think there ever was an "impound and destroy" precedent in patent law. It is completely ridiculous, and the only reason I see them doing it is so they have a starting point for a haggle-structure. You start with something completely preposterous, and any further proposal will come over as somewhat reasonable.

    B.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  3. You don't get it. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They don't want to have every PS3 impounded and destroyed. They want MONEY. By pushing for nuclear option they hope Sony will pay them off. They probably know that they don't have a chance to win in court but by making the stakes so high they are hoping that Sony will just give them a few million to go away.
    If they where just asking for damages then Sony would without a doubt go to court and beat this case. So they want to push the risk level to a point that Sony will just offer them a wad of cash to get them out of their hair.
    If they did recall all the PS3 Son would instantly loose not just the console race but it would also kill Blue Ray since the PS3 is the most popular Blue Ray player on the planet.
    My guess is that Sony will smack them down anyway but it is a good gamble.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. hmmm. by apodyopsis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    from TFA "Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused "irreparable harm and monetary damage" to the company.".

    Oh, Really?

    Did they mean to say "Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused an opportunity to turn a fairly wide ranging patent that is useless on its own into some solid income via legal means.".

    So they waited to see if the console was selling then hit them with a law suit so Sony would be more inclined to settle quick?

    I am getting quite sick of IP trolls and patents that are so broadly phrased that they cover anything from toothpaste to nuclear physics. (disclaimer, I have not read the patent yet - but I am assuming that Sony carried out patent searches before building the Cell). And on that subject - why is the suite against Sony in particular not against the other members of the consortium that developed the Cell.

    I hope Sony sees them in court instead of folding.

  5. I am no fan of Sony, but... by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think we have to acknowledge once and for all that for too many companies the purpose of a patent is to hide in a blind and wait for someone who has brains to make a go of something similar enough and resources to sue rather than make a product of their own.

    It is sheer parasitism.

  6. Re:Use it or lose it by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, and no. There is a time honored tradition called the submarine patent, where you patent something, wait for someone else to develop it, wait some more for it to become profitable, and then sue. See NTP v. RIM for case in point, or read about the patent shenanigans surrounding the invention of the LASER (back when it was still capitalized).

    Now, I know that some of you are out there saying the enemy of my enemy... But really it is nonsense like this that causes the big dogs to file so many stupid patents. If they don't patent the stupid and obvious, someone else might - and then sue them for it.

    More companies need to see the light like IBM and realize that all patents after the first thousand or so are a liability, not an asset, and a cost, not an investment. Soon, after more suits like this start happening (look to the pharma and chemical industries) more major companies will start lobbying for patent reform, and then we might get something accomplished.