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.
Yes, let's all stroke ours Wiis over this news.
No. Their patent appears to be directed at a specific subset of multiprocessing known as MIMD (Multiple Instruction Multiple Data) processors. The key to their "invention" is a processor that sits in front of the various processing elements and divvies up the chores to ensure that all processor elements are well fed.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM. I suppose it's probably tactical, especially since Sony is actually selling the chips as opposed to IBM who's mostly talking about them at this point. (IBM fabs the chips on Sony's behalf.)
It's hard to be sure, but this sounds like a patent troll case. The only thing that muddies the waters a bit is that this "International Parallel Machines, Inc." actually exists and sells products:
http://www.ipmiplc.com/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Dear brain processor dude: this is God. Cease and desist. I own the patent on brains. Have a nice day.
u-bend
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.
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.