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."
What... There claiming they have a patent on parallel processing. I think they should have already gone after several other companies too... Don't most modern graphics cards use parallel processing backed by on board memory to achieve the frame rates they currently have. This also sounds a lot like "hyper threading" or "multi core" but what do I know.
I guess they have a case. Maybe I should sue Bill Gates because he wrote an os that makes my computer blue screen daily. I don't see my case making it but I can try none the less.
I guess there success may not be won in the court room but has already been achieved in the media spotlight. We will see how far it goes. I hope this doesn't turn into another SCO vs. IBM thing.
Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody. Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will. It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony. Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.