Slashdot Mirror


Sony Blu-ray Under Patent Infringement Probe

Lucas123 writes "The US International Trade Commission said it will launch an investigation into possible patent infringements involving Sony's Blu-ray players and other technologies using laser and light-emitting diodes, such as Motorola's Razr phone and Hitachi camcorders. The investigation was prompted by a complaint filed in February by a Columbia University professor emerita who says she invented a method of using gallium nitride-based semiconductor material for producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue/ultraviolet end of the light spectrum. Her complaint asks the ITC to block imports of LED and laser diode technology from Asia and Europe. The total market for all types of gallium nitride devices has been forecast at $7.2 billion for 2009 alone."

160 comments

  1. If you patent something by Hubbell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should have a set timelimit on using it. Either you exercise your patent right and setup royalty shit with other companies, or you start using the patented technology, otherwise it's fair game.

    1. Re:If you patent something by salimma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But that's why patents do have expiration dates. But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue, after a product is openly known to use a patented technology.

      Still, this must be the first non-frivolous patent claim to make Slashdot headlines in quite some time (the only one I could remember from recently was the dispute over ZFS)

      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
    2. Re:If you patent something by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      You should have a set timelimit on using it. Either you exercise your patent right and setup royalty shit with other companies, or you start using the patented technology, otherwise it's fair game.
      I guess. But as an independent scientist/inventor, I don't have the time to check up on what everyone else is doing while I am trying to make ends meet in my small business. I will never become a patent troll or use patents in evil ways. However, if I patent something novel, but I am just too small of a fish to do anything with it for the time being, my IP should be protected equally as the big corporations' patents.

      Granted, it's wrong to know people are infringing and do nothing about it until there is a multi-billion dollar industry revolving around your patent. But you nor I know that is the case with this professor.
    3. Re:If you patent something by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, more advice on slashdot that isn't practical in any way what so ever.

      There is a time line, it's the length of the patent. We really shouldn't be telling people if/when/how much they should charge for their device.

      He is a clue: You going to role out a billion dollar item? do a fucking patent search.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:If you patent something by ptbarnett · · Score: 1, Redundant

      He[r] is a clue: You going to role out a billion dollar item? do a fucking patent search.

      Under current US patent law, searching for existing patents is effectively discouraged. "Willful" infringement can result in treble damages, in comparison to "inadvertent" infringement.

    5. Re:If you patent something by Freeside1 · · Score: 0

      But you nor I know that is the case with this professor. I know what happens to you and me when I assume,
      but since this professor is obviously tech-savvy, and since there's been decent media coverage surrounding Blu-Ray vs HD DVD, I'm very tempted to assume she was aware, and waited on purpose.
    6. Re:If you patent something by arthurh3535 · · Score: 1

      I think the thing is, if it's their field of expertise, they'd keep their eyes open on what is going on by other people in that field and approach someone far earlier about their concerns.

      I would bet this is a case where multiple people were working on a similiar problem with similiar solutions.

      In this case, I do not believe the judge should allow for immediate cessation of import and it's definitely over the top ammounts of money. I'm pretty sure Sony hasn't made that much money off of Blue-Ray technology.

      --
      No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    7. Re:If you patent something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can assume she waited to try and benefit herself if you want. As was said above, she may have been in contact with Sony many times until they told her to piss of and then she filed a complaint about the patent. We don't know she was squatting....

    8. Re:If you patent something by DustyShadow · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should have a set timelimit on using it. There is a time limit, it's 20 years from filing date.
    9. Re:If you patent something by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Informative

      But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue, after a product is openly known to use a patented technology. This does exist. It's called the doctrine of laches and estoppel. If you know someone is infringing your patent and you either refuse to sue or lead them on to believe that you won't sue, you can be barred from suing. You can rebut this though if you show that you had no money and couldn't sue or you were negotiating with them during the entire time.
    10. Re:If you patent something by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      I mean to prevent these companies/people who hold patents in shit but refuse to act on them at all. If you get a patent, you should have 6months to prove you mean to act on it either by royalty system or by your own production of said product.

    11. Re:If you patent something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that you do a search and if there is a patent you license it from the patent holder. At least that is what an honest business should do. Not searching to avoid willful infringement is like negligent homicide. You still kill someone even though you didn't mean it.

    12. Re:If you patent something by AlHunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue,

      I'm not an attorney, but I believe the doctrine of Laches might apply. Basically, you can't wait until the damages are massive just for the sake of increasing your claim.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    13. Re:If you patent something by innerweb · · Score: 1

      While we are in the land of what if....

      What if she is squatting to make a point about the brokenness of the patent system?

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    14. Re:If you patent something by innerweb · · Score: 1

      And finding out who owns the patent and negotiating a deal can avoid all damages. Of course, the owner of the patent could simply refuse to license use of the patent, but that would be an unusual situation that could have far greater expenses if the patent owner simply shuts down the product line after it is in full swing.

      On the other hand, maybe the companies are hoping to make their money before the law suit is settled or an injunction is imposed. Then, the company wins no matter what.

      Who knows, it is corporate and political America.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    15. Re:If you patent something by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      I'd never heard of treble damages.
      I misread that as Tribbles

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    16. Re:If you patent something by reebmmm · · Score: 1

      Except that everyone citing willfulness as a reason is obviously NOT an intellectual property attorney. The willfulness test everyone citing doesn't include the recent Seagate case that has essentially done away with the old rule for enhanced damages. Enhanced damages (e.g. treble damages) now requires a recklessness standard.

      And, contrary to the assertions here, under this standard new standard, lack of actual knowledge is arguably not a defense. If the infringer objectively should have known, then you can get enhanced damages.

    17. Re:If you patent something by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

      Hopefully Karma will bite sony in the ASS! I own a Toshiba HD player, I hacked it so I can record my home videos in HD DVD.. problem is that I use standard DL DVD disks so.. it's about 30 minutes each disk.. But is a simple MPEG2 stream! SONY got the industry to blackball blueray.. well sony.. I hope you lose! Who's laughing now? ME.. I AM.

    18. Re:If you patent something by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Did you mean to reply to me or the GP? As I said, I'd never heard of treble damages; I'm certainly not qualified to debate them. :)

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    19. Re:If you patent something by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "But that's why patents do have expiration dates. "

      And hers was nearly up. According to the article: "Rothschild was originally issued a U.S. patent in 1993 based on her method of producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue and ultraviolet end of the light spectrum."

      That's 15 years ago. And according to lectlaw.com
      "If a U.S. Patent Application is filed by June 7, 1995, and if the patent issues after June 7, 1978, then the patent expires the later of 17 years from issuance"

      So she only had 2 years left. So where the hell has she been for 15 years??

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  2. Seven Point Two Billion Dollars? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a lot of Das Blinkenlights!

    Really. I could live with green.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Seven Point Two Billion Dollars? by cerelib · · Score: 1

      Really. I could live with green.
      More like, I could live without the blue. The only place LEDs that bright belong is in a flashlight. Blue LEDs seem to be the new "futuristic" look for all new gadgetry. I have a new 32 inch LCD TV that has nice subdued green and orange for status lights, but I have seen similar TVs that have bright blue LEDs for status that can be very distracting. Also, bright LEDs do not belong on a device like a laptop where the lights are in your face while using it.
    2. Re:Seven Point Two Billion Dollars? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      There are blue status lamps on the new range in our kitchen.

      They reflect to where I do the washing-up, 4 meters away. When I glance at the glasses that I have placed on the draining-board to dry, I am continually catching myself.

      "Look, that one's not rinsed properly, and there's a soap bubble inside."

      Nope. It's a blue reflection, glinting off the Duralex. Gets me every time.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Seven Point Two Billion Dollars? by kgwilliam · · Score: 1

      Why isn't your wife doing the dishes? Oh, right... this is Slashdot. Never mind.

    4. Re:Seven Point Two Billion Dollars? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A gentleman lends his talents, as he can...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  3. I'm missing something by explosivejared · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.

    I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:I'm missing something by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If I were to guess, and I will, she is using it to get there attention and get the issue resolved quickly.
      It's one thing to string out a lawsuit forever, it's another to do it while costing billions of dollars in revenues.
      Good for her.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I'm missing something by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Maybe she invested heavily in HD-DVD?
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    3. Re:I'm missing something by KnightNavro · · Score: 1
      It's likely that she's asking for a lot more than she expects (or even wants) to get. If you walk into a car dealership and want to haggle, you don't immediately offer the highest price you're willing to pay, you offer something lower and work your way up to a price you can agree on. Similarly, she may only want a reasonable amount of money so Sony can use the technology she patented and is asking for something that will hurt Sony a lot more than a reasonable settlement.

      Of course, that's also the tactic a patent troll would take: ask for a huge penalty then be happy when they get a few million for squatting on a patent that never should have been granted. It's a shame that the tactics look the same and it's almost impossible to tell how legit her case is based on TFA.

    4. Re:I'm missing something by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which, AFAIK, also used blue lasers

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    5. Re:I'm missing something by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Ok so on top of being a dick, you're also stupid. She's retired so I bet she's old enough not to get those anymore.

    6. Re:I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? Don't you think that potentially blocking this much money from being made will get a licensing agreement signed really quick?
    7. Re:I'm missing something by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      Honestly I think it's more likely she would have tried her best to pick the winning side, and invest heavily in them. As many commenters have already said, the timeframe of this filing seems a bit bizarre. It happened pretty much immediately after the concession of HD-DVD, no?

    8. Re:I'm missing something by The+Empiricist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.
      I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.

      She is requesting blocking of imports because that's the basic remedy an intellectual property right holder gets with the International Trade Commission. I don't think it is even possible to get damages for infringement in the ITC (although a regular lawsuit to go after damages can still be filed). You also can't use ITC proceedings to prevent infringement within the country.

      Some advantages of going to the ITC include speedy proceedings (so you're not still engaged in the suit 10 years later) and enforcement of exclusion orders by customs. Because the ability to import a set of goods is often vital, the threat of such exclusion orders can provide a powerful motivation to license if it appears likely that the plaintiff will win.

      Another advantage is that the ITC is fairly specialized. It has people who really know the law and can pick up on technical nuances readily. ITC decisions may be higher-quality than the decisions that come from the district courts because either party can demand a jury in patent cases in the district courts and because district courts do not have the specialized legal knowledge and experience with technical cases.

    9. Re:I'm missing something by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the timings of the lawsuit, but this issue was raised long before January, I remember reading about it last December and wondering if it would tip the balance in the format war.

      A more realistic scenario than "She's pissed because HD DVD lost" is that Toshiba probably licensed the technology.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely she got some "funding" from Microsoft.

    11. Re:I'm missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hd-dvd or blu-ray is not the issue as both uses blue laser. it was a format war.

  4. Columbia University by Gothmolly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'nuff said.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Columbia University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enlighten me. What does that have to do with anything?

    2. Re:Columbia University by Farmer+Crack-Ass · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but as someone who had to look up Columbia University on Wikipedia just to find out it was an Ivy League school, I don't find that remark "insightful" in the slightest. Could someone explain the "insight" provided by this post?

    3. Re:Columbia University by mc+moss · · Score: 1

      ??? I don't get it. Columbia University is one of the best universities in the country. What's with the 'nuff said? If it has to do with Ahmadinejad giving a speech there, then you need to grow up and get your head examined.

    4. Re:Columbia University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is who pays her salary (public university? taxes?) and why in the world she's the patent holder and not the public (public university?)?

  5. How long should that be? by grahamsz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used.

    However, there are plenty of things that you'd struggle to even know were in use. What if it were some new modulation strategy to make the construction of multi-band cellphones easier; there could easily be millions of them in the market before it ever came to your attention.

    1. Re:How long should that be? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, there are plenty of things that you'd struggle to even know were in use. What if it were some new modulation strategy to make the construction of multi-band cellphones easier; there could easily be millions of them in the market before it ever came to your attention.
      The problem is the very nature of closed business IP. What carrier or manufacturer is going to give you detailed specifications on how their devices work? Anyone who has tried to contact a manufacturer of some electronic device because you want to hack/extend it knows all about this.

      It's next to impossible to get that information to know if someone is infringing on your patent. If they have a similar/duplicate patent themselves, then its a little easier to do a search and find how theirs work. But you still have to suspect that company is infringing in the first place which may not be obvious without reverse engineering. And thanks to DMCA, that can make things complicated if it touches software.
    2. Re:How long should that be? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used. There's not much detail in the article. For all we know, she's been negotiating with these people for years and they've been jerking her around. We only know when she filed a complaint, not when she first contacted the individual companies (if at all). We don't even know if her patent is applicable.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:How long should that be? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe this is why hardware companies like Nvidia and ATI aren't forthcoming with the source for their drivers. They're afraid they might be infringing on one or more patents, and that releasing source code would allow the patent holder to find out about the infringements.

      Security from patent lawsuits through obscurity? It probably works quite well, especially when you consider how vague and far-reaching software patents can be. You practically can't write a block of code these days without infringing on some patent troll.

    4. Re:How long should that be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used.

      That's a strong opinion from a guy who knows almost nothing about it. I don't know what her home is like, but cave or not, she's been trying to enforce the patent for more than a decade, and had made repeated offers of reasonable licensing terms before she ever filed a suit. And after doing so, at least one other company has already settled with her.

    5. Re:How long should that be? by packeteer · · Score: 1

      This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used.

      It's possible that if she would have warned everyone earlier that she had a patent they would have simply switch to different technology. I think this is why you are supposed to defend things like trademarks or lose them. You should not be able to sit around and make sure everyone relies on your technology before you go around suing everyone.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    6. Re:How long should that be? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      In her defense, I imagine it would take some time for her to:

      a) Determine if they are indeed using a similar technique to the one she invented.
      b) Determine if they deliberately ripped her work off or developed the same technique independently.
      c) Plan her case - she is taking on the ENTIRE data storage industry. This would probably take a long time, and she'd have to figure out if she had stood a fighting chance to even bother investing time and money into this.
      d) Double check the above, because you would hope that a scientist would take some time to doubt their initial conclusions and verify the facts again.
      e) File the lawsuit.
      f) Get the media to care about reporting about it.
      g) Have Slashdot finally post an article about it.

      From the initial release of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players until now, I think it's a reasonable time-frame for us to be reading about this now. Sure, GaN lasers and LEDs have been around longer than that, but to even file the lawsuit, she would probably need to start getting those devices under SEMs and examining their architecture. I imagine there are some retired professors out there that have their own lab in their basement, but there's a good chance she doesn't have a class 10000 clean room in her basement with accompanying SEM. Yes, back scratching is always an option, but that takes time - it's other people's equipment you're trying to get access to.

    7. Re:How long should that be? by zilym · · Score: 1

      AFAIK (and IANAL), patent law does not provide any exemptions for developing the same technique independently, so your step B has no purpose.

      Example:
      Company A works 5 years developing some new whizbang invention.
      Company B independently has been working on the same invention for the past 5 years and 1 day.
      Let's say both companies did all the same exact things, spent the same amount of time and money, but because Company B started a hair earlier, they got the patent on the invention.

      Company A would now be required to pay to use the invention they just spent 5 years developing themselves because Company B got a patent on the invention before they did.

    8. Re:How long should that be? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is why hardware companies like Nvidia and ATI aren't forthcoming with the source for their drivers. They're afraid they might be infringing on one or more patents, and that releasing source code would allow the patent holder to find out about the infringements. I don't know about nVidia, but at least ATI claims that they can't release the source because of third party agreements. Otherwise, they (and I presume nVidia as well) have been fairly good with releasing specs.

      Really, the standard that's held up to hardware companies is how good they are in releasing specs and providing information necessary for free software developers (so that they don't have to reverse-engineer the protocol, etc.). I don't think anyone expects the hardware companies to develop their own driver, only to donate it away. It would be good if they did, but as far as I know, no one in the hardware business does (if they do release a "free" driver, then something else is packaged away as an unknown binary firmware that has to be loaded into the device before the driver can work).
    9. Re:How long should that be? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Let's say both companies did all the same exact things, spent the same amount of time and money, but because Company B started a hair earlier, they got the patent on the invention.

      Company A would now be required to pay to use the invention they just spent 5 years developing themselves because Company B got a patent on the invention before they did.
      Things like that happen, really. One example of this is the Twaron vs. Kevlar issue: around 1980 both Akzo (now Akzo-Nobel) and DuPont developed a superstrong aramid fibre, and started marketing their fibres. But they both had patents on the technology.
      In that case the two companies made a gentlemen's agreement: Dutch company AKZO would market and sell their aramid in the European market, American company DuPont would get the monopoly in the Americas, and only in the Asian market they would both sell and compete.
      By now the patents should be expired, and there are also many more superstrong fibres in the market. It has changed a lot since then. But still the point is that here two companies worked independently very hard to develop a technology, and both applied for patents (and got it).
    10. Re:How long should that be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually from news pieces I've read elsewhere, there was a previous lawsuit on the technology that was playing through the courts on a different application and that they were waiting for that suit finished before filing further suits. (That suit was eventually settled out of court in her favor with a royalty payment plan from the company involved).

      Perfectly natural not to run around suit everyone at the same time, since it costs a lot to file and defend a patent (and usually a number of years).

    11. Re:How long should that be? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      ummm my step B does have a purpose - to decide whether to proceed with a lawsuit or not. If they delibrately ripped her work off, then proceed with lawsuit, if they developed technique in-house, do not proceed with lawsuit.

  6. The plan is actually filled in this time... by Digi-John · · Score: 0, Redundant

    1. Create technology
    2. Wait for one design to win the market
    3. Sue manufacturer
    4. Profit!

    --
    Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    1. Re:The plan is actually filled in this time... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I read about this going on well before January. I suspect Toshiba actually licensed the technology or something similar.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  7. Sweet by geekoid · · Score: 1, Troll

    After all the bogus crap and lies spread about Blu-Ray, and the fact that there locking DRM into it I'm glad. I hope either:
    A) Sony looses their shirt
    and
    B) This allows any one to be able to manufacture the device.
    pipe dream:
    C) She makes 'No DRM' part of the licensing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Sweet by Narishma · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add '~' at the end of your sentences.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    2. Re:Sweet by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I am modded troll, but oh well.

      OTOH, I would like to see those things happen. Not that they will.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. need a new tag by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking something along the lines of "cashingin" might work. Although this might be covered under the "greed" tag.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:need a new tag by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? If she has a valid patent for a legitimate invention that these companies are using in violation of applicable U.S. law, why shouldn't they pay royalties like everyone else? I don't know the facts of the case, and certainly wouldn't depend upon Slashdot for any, but if she did get there first with her invention then they should pay. That's why we have patents. If you look at this reasonably, most of the complaints you hear about patents (not counting software and business-method, which are defective-by-design) are about the issuing of nonsensical, obvious, or overbroad patents. IF this is a legitimate U.S. patent specifically covering a device critical to their product manufacture, they should have two choices: pay up, or work around it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:need a new tag by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      I'm thinking something along the lines of "cashingin"...


      Cash-In-Gin only works if you're a Beefeater, your last name is Gordon, or are from Bombay.


      Oh, you meant "Cashing-In!". Nevermind...

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:need a new tag by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      IF this is a legitimate U.S. patent specifically covering a device critical to their product manufacture, they should have two choices: pay up, or work around it.


      But Sony is not a US company, which means they have a viable third option: ignore US law and violate the patent. This is fairly common in developing economies, especially for pharmaceuticals- For example, I'm pretty sure that Brasil regularly declines to enforce patents over drugs that combat STDs. For another example, I'm pretty sure that Teva Pharmaceuticals in Israel simply disregards most international patents when making generic knockoff drugs for resale on the international market.

      In these situations, the proper recourse is diplomatic- the US and other countries have trade deals that restrict the import and sale of products which would violate native copyrights and patents. You can't get around copyright law simply by making xeroxes of your Harry Potter book in Mexico (where US copyright law doesn't apply) and then importing them back across the border for resale here.

      But if the Federal government refuses to enforce those laws, the patent owner is pretty much out of luck.
      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    4. Re:need a new tag by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Issues concerning the legitimacy of patents aside, Sony is not a US company, and as such might be able to ignore US law, but not if it wants to trade in the US. It is whether Sony can continue to import blue lasers into the US that's at issue here: if they continue to violate the patent without coming to an agreement with the patent holder, then they may be barred from importing blue lasers.

      Nobody is proposing to prevent Sony from selling blue lasers in, say, Japan. This is exclusively about what Sony does in the US.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:need a new tag by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, Sony's U.S. operation is incorporated here ... Sony USA. But, sure, a U.S. patent is only valid in the United States. Nobody says that you can't sell device that's only patented in the United States somewhere else: you just can't make or sell it here. What it means is that if she gets an injunction, the U.S. is not a market for said device until they either license the technology or work around it to the satisfaction of the courts. That will happen, one way or the other, because the United States is a substantial market for consumer products based upon the blue LED. Frankly, I don't know enough about the development history of that technology to know if this professor's patent is legitimate or not. If there's prior art I'm sure it will come out in court.

      Sometimes the system does work though. For example, a data acquisition system I developed for the steel mill industry some fifteen years ago was patented. We found out that a British company was violating the patent, and had their product stopped on the docks until such time as they could work around it or license. They didn't even argue about it: just shipped their stuff back and eventually delivered a non-infringing version, which was fine by us. This really wasn't a case of willful infringement either, they just happened to have done something similar enough to our patented design that the judge agreed with us. The British outfit was totally reasonable about it and didn't try to fight it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:need a new tag by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      Righto. I guess the point I left unsaid is that the patent-holder can't pick up a gun on her own and patrol the Port of Los Angeles to keep those darn Japanese lasers off U.S. soil. She would need to get a court order to do it, which I guess is what this particluar lawsuit is about.

      But my tinfoil hat is telling me that Wal-Mart would never allow US Customs to enforce an injunction against all products containing Sony lasers, no matter how valid the patent may be or how well the patent-holder does in court. In the realpolitik of global economics, it just ain't gonna happen.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    7. Re:need a new tag by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      But Sony is not a US company, which means they have a viable third option: ignore US law and violate the patent.

      There is a fourth option. Granted, it's quite extreme, but seeing as TFA quoted $7.9 *billion* dollars, well..that's a heck of a lot of motivation.

      "NEWS FLASH!! A Columbia professor emerita was killed earlier today in a random (pick one: drive-by, mugging, burglary, hit-and-run). No details are available at this time and authorities declined to comment."

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:need a new tag by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      What it means is that if she gets an injunction, the U.S. is not a market for said device until they either license the technology or work around it to the satisfaction of the courts. That will happen, one way or the other, because the United States is a substantial market for consumer products based upon the blue LED.


      And that's the crux of the problem. When the SCOTUS decided the betamax case in 1984, there were between four and six million VCRs already in American homes, and some other unknown number of VCRs already in the stream of commerce. In some sense, the decision had to come out the way it did because it was impossible to put that particular genie back in the bottle. Courts generally don't like to make decisions that can't practically be enforced, becuase such decisions provide easy opportunities for the public and the other branches of government to undermine the court's authority.

      This isn't just about blu-ray. Can you imagine the practical limitations of trying to enforce an injunction against the sale of all DVD players in the US? An order where the FBI / Customs & Treasury / Federal Marshalls would need to go into every single electronics retailer in the United States and seize every single DVD player on the shelves? Let alone a decision that brands all CD burners and DVD players in private homes as contraband?

      Yeah, good luck with that.
      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    9. Re:need a new tag by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, if it's about the blue LED it goes further than just DVD players. The things are used in all kinds of products, from printers to medical equipment to PDAs. It would be huge, which I'm sure is why the manufacturers have been blowing her off (unless, of course, the patent isn't valid, but if that were they case they should have gone to court before this and invalidated it.) If a large number of foreign corporations simply chose to market their products with clear knowledge they were in violation of a legitimate U.S. patent (something they do every day) it would undermine the court's authority even more to simply stifle an American inventor and throw control of her invention to the infringing corporations. Not much point in having a patent system, in that case. We'll see what happens: probably the State Department will get involved and try to negotiate a license fee that everyone can agree upon, something like that. It's not like this hasn't happened before, times without number.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:need a new tag by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, I meant "blue laser", not "blue LED".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:need a new tag by reebmmm · · Score: 1

      Um, if she really has a patent over this, I'd assume that she'd have taken the extra step of patenting it in Japan as well. While it's a bit more expensive, it seems that a technology applicable like this is well worth the little bit of extra money.

      I have not actually looked to see if a PCT application or a JP national phase application has been made. But, it would seem VERY likely.

    12. Re:need a new tag by Shade+of+Pyrrhus · · Score: 1

      Plain and simple: if you're doing business in the US, you must follow US law. In addition, if you are a US business doing business in another country, you have to follow the US law and that country's law. Sure, they can ignore the patent - however this could mean their company either saying bye-bye to doing business in the US, or paying up in the end anyway. For a company so rooted in the US this could be problematic.

      But yeah, they can ignore the law and stop dealing with the US, which would likely be a huge loss on their part, considering how much they've invested in selling and producing goods here. I'd imagine that dealing with such a huge company the government would have trouble simply ignoring the issue - people getting paid (likely the inventor - come up with conspiracy theories for the rest) could help resolve it all.

    13. Re:need a new tag by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, you're correct. But just because a law is in effect doesn't mean that the law is ENFORCED. Patent/copyright law is NOT self-enforcing. Practically, if someone violates your patent, you need to sue them to make them stop. If a company is importing goods that violate the patent, you need to obtain assistance from US Customs / Treasury to impound those goods, or obtain a civil seizure order from a federal court and then you need assistance from the Federal Marshalls to execute the order.

      If the company violating your patent is Wal-Mart, and the Customs/Treasury/DOJ officers who you need for enforcement report to George W. Bush... why don't you write us a letter from Guantanamo and let us know how the law is working out for you.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
  9. Re:Eat my shorts slashdot !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat my shorts slashdot !!


    Real good one there, took you a while to come up with that one.
  10. Ongoing for 12 years by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 5, Informative

    For everyone yelling 'patent troll,' realize that she has been trying to enforce her rights since at least 1995. She also seems perfectly willing to license the technology http://www.compoundsemi.com/documents/articles/cldoc/7121.html...

    I think that is how you're supposed to do things...

    1. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say sony gives her 1.2 billion dollars and the whole thing goes Public Domain.

      It's a fair solution and sony blows that each month on carp.

    2. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by mordenkhai · · Score: 5, Funny

      While we can all agree the Japanese do enjoy fish, I think you may have their monthly lunch budget a little high.

    3. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by limabone · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I would have definitely modded you as funny! I had to read the parent post again :)

    4. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Informative

      October 2007 was 14 years. :) I'll give her one thing... she's persistent. :P

      (According to the patent it was issued in 1993, If I remember reading it right..) Since the patent protection starts (and lasts 14 years from) the day you are issued the patent.

      Of course after Jun 1995, they're 20 years? If I'm readnig the USPTO stuff right.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    5. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by b00tang · · Score: 1

      perhaps the funniest comment I have ever seen on slashdot. A rating of +5 funny is not nearly enough to do this justice.

    6. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by russotto · · Score: 1

      From your linkedpress release:

      "Despite the recognized potential of LEDs, their commercial use was initially limited because it was not commercially feasible to produce LEDs in green and other high spectral ranges. Through the process claimed in Professor Neumark's patents, it has become commercially feasible to produce such LEDs"

      Really? Green LEDs weren't feasible until Neumark invented the process in 1988? What were all those green LEDs doing at Radio Shack before then?

    7. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      The "Green" LEDS you are alluding to only look green until you compare them to true green! When compared to true green, the LEDS we originally called green look very yellow/sickly.

      Traffic signal green these days use "true" green LEDS, The things we used to call green leds were not the right colour, and were never suitable for use in traffic lights.

      I must admit, I really like the true green leds, the colour is very stunning! I actually used 32 true green LEDs in a tiny (4.3" LCD, 480x272) monitor for backlighting the buttons. (Monitors main use ... US police vehicles, digital video recorder.)

    8. Re:Ongoing for 12 years by grrrl · · Score: 1

      Older green LEDs are closer to yellow, and are far less 'bright' (to put it in everyday terms). They are made of InGaP and related compounds, and were never able to acheive the standards required for high power and brighter applications such as green traffic lights.

      The inability to produce brighter green LEDs previously was due to fundamental materials issues with the semiconductors used.

      Once gallium nitride was successfully grown and doped it opened up a whole new area of the spectrum. Current green LEDs are InGaN based (a ternary compound of indium nitride and gallium nitride, with low concentrations of indium) - difficulty incorporating higher amounts of indium is actually stopping GaN-based LEDs from achieving the yellowy-green or yellow LEDs. You'll notice there is a hole in the LED spectrum in the region of true yellow.

      But because we now have good bright red, green and blue LEDs (InP, InGaN and GaN) we don't care so much because we can use colour mixing and phosphours to achieve full colour displays etc.

  11. Just Go Away! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Troll
    Won't these people just GO AWAY!

    PS3 and BluRay have been on the market for years now, and in quite public development for years prior to that. If this professor had come out publicly at the beginning and said, hey, that's my LED they're using, and I want boodles of ca$h, I would probably consider that acceptable behavior. Same for the RAZR (can't Motorola even spell?). But to wait this long and suddenly wake up from that Rip Van Winkle stupor to suddenly realize - that has to be my patent in there somewhere and now that you have built the market and are invested so deeply that you can't change anything to work around my idea I intend to blackmail you out of even bigger boodles of ca$h isn't acceptable. At a certain point patent trolls just harm too many other people to be allowed to continue, and this is a good case of exactly that!

    Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Just Go Away! by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it."

      Really? Given that her patent claim is 12 YEARS OLD, I don't think the word "clearly" means what you think it means.

      "U.S. Patent No. 4,904,618, "Process for Doping Crystals of Wide Band Gap Semiconductors," and U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499, "Wide Band-Gap Semiconductors Having Low Bipolar Resistivity and Method of Formation"

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    2. Re:Just Go Away! by Esperi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think she'll go away once infringement has been settled. Having settled with Philips and Toyoda this doesn't look much like a troll to me.

    3. Re:Just Go Away! by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Patents have nothing to do with whether you develop something on your own. If I invent something and patent it, I can demand a license fee from you even if you make the exact same invention, on your own, with no knowledge of my earlier invention.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:Just Go Away! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However she isn't the only scientist who worked on blue leds, how can she be so sure that they infringed her patents?

      Wikipedia doesn't even mention her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_LED#Ultraviolet_and_blue_LEDs

      There are a lot of patents by other scientists on gallium-nitride blue leds, this is from 1993:
      http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5578839

    5. Re:Just Go Away! by Grendel70 · · Score: 1

      Best sig ever.

      --
      Perhaps you mean a different thing than I do when you say "science."
    6. Re:Just Go Away! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      This is true only in some circumstances. For example if I was practicing the patented invention prior to the patentee developing it, the patentee cannot successfully claim infringement.

    7. Re:Just Go Away! by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia doesn't mention her because I just deleted her from it's entire database. I was bored.

    8. Re:Just Go Away! by grrrl · · Score: 1

      This is true only in some circumstances. For example if I was practicing the patented invention prior to the patentee developing it, the patentee cannot successfully claim infringement.


      I don't think this is true once the patent is granted (and IIRC in the US it is 'first to file' who gets the patent).

      So if you don't patent and don't disclose (ie show your invention publicily in a way that prevents it ever being patented) then someone can, and if they get the patent they can then sue you for using the invention after that date ( I doubt theyd want to prove you used it before!).

      At least that is how I understand it to work, please correct me if it isn't the case.

  12. U.S. Patent 5,252,499 by sillivalley · · Score: 1

    This is going to be interesting. Section 337 actions are brought in rem, so success in this action could result in an exclusion order against any product incorporating or including the infringing device. That's lots of stuff! Section 337 actions are also fast, furious, and expensive!

    You can get a copy of the patent from http://www.pat2pdf.org/

  13. Re:The plan is actually filled in this time...RED by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    I suspect Toshiba actually licensed the technology or something similar.

    Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode. That's partly why Toshiba got to market first, and PS3 was delayed for months - the problem in building the blue laser diodes in quantity. The circumstances might be different.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  14. Re:Eat my shorts slashdot !! by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1

    What, no goatse reference and link? Sheesh, can't count on anyone to be consistent these days :-/

  15. Re:The plan is actually filled in this time...RED by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Here I thought this bit of mis-information died along with HD-DVD.

    HD-DVD used the same blue laser as BluRay. From there you should be able to extrapolate why everything else in your post is incorrect.

  16. What a bunch of garbage by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 1
    I see more and more stories of this sort lately. Everybody and their brother is piling on now. It's like a string of serial murders, and every whack-job in the world is going to the police with a signed confession in hand, but no proof they had anything to do with any of it, they just want attention -- and in this case, money. Or how when someone with money dies, every 3rd cousin that no-one has ever heard of comes out of the woodwork looking for a hand-out.

    Either that, or these people are trying to break the current patent system by exploiting it and overloading the courts with these allegedly bullshit patent suits.

    1. Re:What a bunch of garbage by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except this isn't a story of this sort. It is not a bullshit patent. The patent owner has a legitimate and important technological innovation that she patented in the mod-90's that opens up a whole new type of semiconductor technology. Many companies have licensed the technology without any problems. A few bad actors (some are very large companies like Sony) have ignored the patent and attempts to negotiate a reasonable license. In frustration the inventor is asking that legal remedies in place to deal with this situation be triggered.

      Without this sort of patent protection this is clearly a case where an individual and obviously very creative inventor would just get run over by large companies.

    2. Re:What a bunch of garbage by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      ...in the mod-90's...


      The 60's were mod, just so you know.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:What a bunch of garbage by geekoid · · Score: 1

      huh, I don't remembering in boxen with neon in the 60's... OTOH in the 90's I did a lot of modding.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:What a bunch of garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the eric conspiracy (20178) : "It is not a bullshit patent."

      Yes it is. Total garbage. Does not teach anything of value to making anything. There is nothing in her pure speculation that is needed for blue lasers or LEDs, or anything else for that matter. She will be buried in her challenge. One fool company actually paid her for this. Waste of money.

    5. Re:What a bunch of garbage by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Mod was a very popular expression in the 60's for everything that was hip, cool, groovy, in, far out, etc. Kinda like the "Austin Powers: The spy who shagged me" movie, but in real life. I think the original poster meant 'mid-90s', but wrote 'mod-90s'.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  17. Re:The plan is actually filled in this time...RED by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

    Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode.

    Huh? HD-DVD uses a blue laser. Am I missing something, or are you?

  18. Re:The plan is actually filled in this time...RED by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Others have pointed out that you're incorrect. I'm curious why you'd have believed this crap though: if HD DVD had been red-laser based, then HD DVD drives wouldn't have been any more expensive than DVD drives. It's doubtful it would have taken two years for a sub-$200 HD DVD player to appear (and the A3 was heavily subsidized), and virtually every manufacturer currently making DVD drives would have been able to - and therefore would have - jumped into the market almost right away.

    There are ways red-laser media might have been practical - indeed, a format called HD-VMD is out that uses red laser technology, choosing to use massive numbers of layers and slightly more efficient bit encoding, to overcome the 4.7/9Gb limitations of DVD. And it'd be interesting to know if red laser media could have been more dense if they'd used the tricks with aperture that BD uses (that gave it the 60% advantage over HD DVD per layer.) But HD DVD didn't use any of these techniques. Had it done so, the media would have been more expensive, but the players would have been much, much, cheaper. We'd probably never have even seen a "war", it would have been game over in 2005, when Toshiba would have released a player much earlier than they eventually did, at a price that everyone could afford, followed quickly by Apex and numerous other entrants from the low cost consumer electronics industry.

    Instead we got a blue laser war. Yealch.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  19. True inventor of the blue LED by Frangible · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Shuji Nakamura of Nichia Corporation of Japan demonstrated the first high-brightness blue LED based on InGaN, borrowing on critical developments in GaN nucleation on sapphire substrates and the demonstration of p-type doping of GaN which were developed by I. Akasaki and H. Amano in Nagoya. The existence of the blue LED led quickly to the first white LED, which employed a Y3Al5O12:Ce, or "YAG", phosphor coating to mix yellow (down-converted) light with blue to produce light that appears white. Nakamura was awarded the 2006 Millennium Technology Prize for his invention."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6900465.PN.&OS=PN/6900465&RS=PN/6900465

    "In 1991, I made n-type gallium nitride. The following year I succeeded making p-type using a thermal annealing technique. Now all gallium nitride researchers use my technique for p-type gallium nitride. Another big breakthrough was making the first single crystal of indium gallium nitride, which we needed for an emitting layer. Finally at the end of 1993, I succeeded in making the first commercial-based blue LEDs."

    http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2000/sw_jan-feb2000_page4.htm

    The invention this woman claims to have done was already done years previous by the true inventor of the blue LED and laser diode, Shuji Nakamura. She is a patent troll, and the fact the FTC is wasting taxpayer money with an investigation into something that could've been resolved by 5 minutes of looking at dates on Wikipedia is sad.

    1. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the fact the FTC is wasting taxpayer money with an investigation into something that could've been resolved by 5 minutes of looking at dates on Wikipedia is sad.

      You'll pardon me if I assert that more rigorous investigation than reading and automatically believing Wikipedia might actually be called for here?

    2. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by smallfries · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you made your indepth investigation of dates on wikipedia, why did you only look at one side? It's nice that that Nakamura claims invention of the blue LED (not what Neuman is suing over btw) in 1991. But the patent that she is suing over is for a particular type of doping that is useful to create these LEDs - which she filed in 1988.

      Try and get your basic facts rights before you post your pathetic righteous indignation that the FTC doesn't just conduct its business on wikipedia.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    3. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      According to your wiki article his discovery was in 1993 and hers was also. The discoveries were made simultaneously. However, the article does not indicate whether he or his employer patented the discovery, ever. She, in fact did. Nakumura made no discovery years prior to hers. He made it at almost the exact same time. If his employer failed to patent his discovery that is their error. If her method of making the LEDs is in use over his method the patent is still valid regardless of who actually "discovered" it first.

      It was while working for Nichia that Nakamura invented the first high brightness GaN LED whose brilliant blue light is (when partially converted to yellow by a phosphor coating) the key to white LED lighting, and which went into production in 1993.


      Where exactly is this discovery years prior to hers in 1993? And note that his discovery is used in White LEDs initially not blue as hers does in the same year.
    4. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even read you own post. How sad. It is right there BRILLIANT BLUE LIGHT. The white LED is a modification to the original and it went commercial in 1993 which ment is we developed before that and since it was based on the BLUE LED that inherently implies that the BLUE LED was developed first.

      Nakamura invented the first high brightness GaN LED whose brilliant blue light

    5. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Just for the record, her patent is here. What she seems to have invented is a way to make pn junctions in wide bandgap semiconductor with the diffusion of atomic hydrogen diffusion to compensate for impurities.

      There's no claim that she invented the blue LED. The question is whether the process used today involves this technique.

      In truth, there is never one inventor of something. It's all based on previous work. Nakamura can certainly be called the inventor of the blue LED, but he based, as does every inventor, on previous work.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    6. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by Frangible · · Score: 1

      Great, except that is not the patent in question, which the first article notes was awarded in 1993. That's my point-- gallium arsenide semiconducting diodes have a lot of prior art before that date. The patent you cite has a different date (1990) than the article notes. You found a patent, and congratulations in doing that, it just wasn't the one mentioned in this article.

      If you want more evidence for that, here's the USPO link: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4904618.PN.&OS=PN/4904618&RS=PN/4904618

      "Rothschild was originally issued a U.S. patent in 1993 based on her method of producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue and ultraviolet end of the light spectrum."

      "In particular, the portion of Rothschild's work at issue in the ITC case focuses on using gallium nitride-based semiconductor material." Perhaps this is a later patent that references her earlier one, but I don't see any evidence for that. The article also specifically addresses diodes producing the "blue/UV" end of the spectrum, and that didn't exist until Nakamura created it in 1991. Without using the techniques in the patent you cite, I might add.

      So yeah. My point remains. Prior art is easily found.

      And if you stop modding me down long enough to actually read the links I posted, you'll note in the interview with Nakamura, he successfully made processes for blue LEDs without the technique described in the patent you do cite, so the argument put forth in one of the original links that GaN semiconductors can't be made without this process is a bit spurious.

      If you still believe that despite the differences in dates the patent you cite is the correct one, let me ask you this: since there are multiple methods by which GaN semiconductors can be produced, how was it Rothschild ascertained all these companies were violating her patent? Did she examine all these company's products with a scanning-tunneling electron microscope... while retired? Or did she just assume these products could not be made without her process, despite the fact that Nakamura himself did not use it?

    7. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by grrrl · · Score: 1

      since there are multiple methods by which GaN semiconductors can be produced, how was it Rothschild ascertained all these companies were violating her patent? Did she examine all these company's products with a scanning-tunneling electron microscope... while retired? Or did she just assume these products could not be made without her process, despite the fact that Nakamura himself did not use it?

      Just because there is more than one way of doing something, does not mean that there is more than one way of doing something that is COMMERCIALLY VIABLE. You could say dope GaN in a highly expensive research system, in a way that enables you to make a LED. But doing it on a scale that enables commercial fabrication of LEDs in a cost effective manner may be limited to only one method (perhaps the one that Rothschild patented).

      I work in semiconductors, and research capabilities are often not applicable to wide scale manufacturing. I have not read the patents in question so I do not know exactly what the deal is. But most commerical manufacturing of semicondcutor devices is not all that secret (even processes used at defence contractors get out, if you know who to talk to).

    8. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by grrrl · · Score: 1

      Thanks - the first useful link!

      Like I mentioned in a previous post somewhere above, the process she describes may not be the ONLY way to make a pn junction in GaN (and hence blue LEDs) but may be the only COMMERCIALLY VIABLE way to do so on a large scale (often semiconductor research lab equipment does not scale well, especially in cost).

      The method used to manufacture semiconductor devices is generally not very secret, even if the company tries to be. Their methods may stay semi-secret for a while, but by now I'm pretty sure it would be known what methods are used to make blue LEDs.

    9. Re:True inventor of the blue LED by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Your point does not remain valid. You argued that prior art was trivial because Nakamura invented the processs before her. You also argued that five minutes on wikipedia would back this up. I have not provided prior art, I provided a link that refutes your prior art claim.

      I can't find the new story that claimed that the 1990 patent was one in the case - but other than the claim in the article (which isn't backed up anywhere on the web) there is no evidence that the suit is based on the 1993 patent. What is more likely is that the suit is based on both, as this is how she got a settlement in the last round of suits. The point being that she has not patented blue lasers, nor has she claimed that she has. As the other reply notes she has patented the manufacturing process that would be needed to produce the lasers cheaply enough for consumer electronics.

      It is natural to assume that everyone with a patent is a troll after most of the crappy stories that make to slashdot. But in this case we have a scientist who did some commercially valuable work. Then patented it. Then notified the infringing companies straight away when they started to use it (back in 1995), and who has fought through the courts to stop these large corporations from walking all over her.

      This is how the patent system should work, and your original claim that the FTC should have dismissed the patent after five minutes on wikipedia is as asinine as ever.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  20. Little guy bites big guys? by DJRikki · · Score: 1

    If I read that correct then ha-ha Sony. Makes a change for the little guy to bite the big guys.

  21. Columbia University? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Last I checked around 2001 Rothschild obtained the patent on Gallium Nitride LEDs. Seven years to file a patent infringement claim? Columbia University is a patent troll.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Columbia University? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      BluRay DVD players were first imported into the US in June 2006. That is more like 18 months.

    2. Re:Columbia University? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      We were using Gallium-Nitride laser diodes before then.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Columbia University? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Licensed or unlicensed?

  22. OT a little by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that BR players and TV's have actually gone UP in price recently. That to me is real stupid.

    1. Re:OT a little by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because they don't have to compete against HD any more.

    2. Re:OT a little by Zcar · · Score: 1

      And all the Christmas, post-Christmas, President's Day sales are over.

    3. Re:OT a little by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      No conspiracy required -- its called supply and demand. Demand has gone up now that the format war is over and supply hasn't caught up yet. By the time Christmas rolls around again there will probably be plenty of supply to drop prices very low now that manufacturers can almost guarantee themselves sales.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    4. Re:OT a little by Enahs · · Score: 1

      That, and (assuming you're from the U.S.) the dollar is worth quite a bit less right now--remember, since they're largely from Japan, it's an international good, subject to the whims of the markets (which seem to be in full-on Armageddon mode right now. :-( )

      And now to go even further off topic:

      I find it hard to panic, and I hope not to have us all proven wrong for our optimism, but I suppose my problem is grasping how the world economy is going to fail because a bunch of asshats in urban markets bought a house that was far too expensive for their incomes. If I have to default on mine because of this, I'll be pissed--not that I would unless I had to, I feel it's my duty as one entity in a contract to fulfill my obligation. Now, if my expenses were to go prohibitively up and/or I lost my job, that's another story...let's hope this is basically a hiccup and that buttheads in SoCal will have to eat the soup they shat in.

      Having said all that, I look forward to the inevitable Blu-Ray price drops later on. I have an HD DVD player and most the titles I want (which weren't many--I don't have, or want, a boatload of movies) and want something that justifies that TV I shelled out $600 in cash for! LOL

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  23. She probably published a paper in a journal by gilesjuk · · Score: 0

    Scientists do this sort of thing, make a discovery public and then are annoyed when they find other people using it.

    If you want to patent something you tell nobody else.

    I don't see how people can patent someone using a material that exists on the planet anyway, it surely is the process of manufacture that is patented? this woman hasn't made anything, it's restricted to a discovery made in a lab.

    1. Re:She probably published a paper in a journal by PPH · · Score: 1

      If you want to patent something you tell nobody else.

      One of the benefits of a patent system is that one can 'publish' one's invention so that others may build upon it and you can still protect your IP rights.

      If you don't want anyone knowing about something, keep it as a trade secret. But then you have no recourse when another researcher arrives at the same discovery independently.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:She probably published a paper in a journal by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      Not quite right, you can't really whine about someone using it unless you patented it! In which case, you likely held back a good amount of your results from publication.
        Just because it's published doesn't mean anyone can use it, i mean, putting in a paper with the USPTO could technically reveal all your secrets as well.

    3. Re:She probably published a paper in a journal by monxrtr · · Score: 1

      If you don't want anyone knowing about something, keep it as a trade secret. But then you have no recourse when another researcher arrives at the same discovery independently. And doesn't that then imply the invention is obvious?
      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
  24. Re:Eat my shorts slashdot !! by Grendel70 · · Score: 1

    They just don't make trolls like they used to.

    --
    Perhaps you mean a different thing than I do when you say "science."
  25. Hmmmn, by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

    You can patent human DNA sequences.

    Chances are, I have a bit of one of a patented DNA string within my own DNA.

    I wonder how long it'll be until Monsanto or someone else sues me because of my very existence...

    "Je pense, donc, je suis poursuivi en justice"? (Google translation: I speak Spanish, not French. :) ).

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  26. What I hope by scubamage · · Score: 1

    I hope she wins so long as she's an open source advocate. Having the full Blu-Ray spec being forced open would be very sexy indeed especially to reverse engineers and PS3 hackers. Plus I'd be much happier seeing the scientist who developed the technology get the cash, and not Sony just because I, like many /.'ers, despise multinational conglomerates.

    1. Re:What I hope by no+haters · · Score: 1

      I, like many /.'ers, despise multinational conglomerates.
      What does this even mean? From what I can gather, "/.'ers" despise certain business practices, but not MNCs outright (see: apple fanboyism).
    2. Re:What I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash, scientist are employed by multinational conglomerates, too.

  27. Stealing? by dmeranda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it.

    You must be thinking copyrights, or trade secrets. Because patent law don't care one tiny bit whether anything was stolen, pirated, plundered, copied, leaked, miasspropriated, derived from, inspired by, just coincidental, or "discovered" completely independently in an entirely different galaxy by a lone martian who's never even heard of the patentee or patent office. There's no shred of moral justification for patents like there could be with copyright. That's why patents are so offensive; they're a claim over not just the appropriation of "thought", but over the entire ownership of a particular thought and the absolute dominion and authority to exclude the entire human race ever having it, even if they do so entirely on their own or even just accidentally.

    And as for the people asking why she didn't do something with the patent herself, to manufacture anything. Well, odds are really really good that even if she did have all the intent and means to do so (which may be arguable), that she couldn't do so because then she herself would be violating somebody else's patent. Having a patent to "A" doesn't give you any rights to make "A" at all. All having a patent does is the give you the authority to make sure that nobody else can do "A" either. Patents only take away, they never give.

    1. Re:Stealing? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      they're a claim over not just the appropriation of "thought", but over the entire ownership of a particular thought and the absolute dominion and authority to exclude the entire human race ever having it, even if they do so entirely on their own or even just accidentally.

      I call bullshit. Patents only cover the application of an idea, not the idea itself, and in the only in the country the patent was granted for a limited period of time. In fact, there is also a research exemption which allows people to use a patented technology in research activities. For example this is why generic drug manufacturers can develop manufacturing processes for on-patent drugs and get regulatory approval for the manufacturing process so that they can begin manufacturing in quantity the day the patent on a drug expires. An offshore manufacturer can have a boatload of the drug ready to land in port the day the patent exprires.

      So:

      1. Absolute dominion and authority - not absolute - there are exceptions.
      2. Entire human race - nope, only applicable to a given country.
      3. Ever - Nope. 20 years.
      4. Approbation of thought - not even close. Only some active uses.

  28. Because of of Prior Art? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 1

    Even if she was the first to patent in the USA, doesn't th patent still have to be *valid*?

  29. Funny by Private.Tucker · · Score: 1

    I love it how this story comes to light AFTER the format war is ended (Thanks Toshiba! :) ) It's as if she sat at her computer every day, reading SlashDot, and waited for the end. Blu-Ray loses -> "Aww, I'm out millions and billions" Blu-Ray wins -> "Yay, mucho dinero por favor." Anyone want a CowPie?

  30. Title is wrong... by Maxwell · · Score: 1

    Please change to "Motorola Razr under patent infringement probe". There are millions of Razrs in America and not that many BD players....

  31. Does The Patent Apply by n2hightech · · Score: 1

    The only patent I found for Rothschild related to semiconductors Patent 5,252,499 October 12, 1993 does not seem even remotely related to current LED fabrication processes. Most LEDs are now made using a vapor deposition process on sapphire substrates. Her patent is for using hydrogen to increase the conductivity of zinc based semiconductors. It looks to me like she is fishing for a cheap payoff to prevent litigation. Another case of mugging by patent attorney.

    1. Re:Does The Patent Apply by GanjaManja · · Score: 1

      Do you know how Sony makes their blue LED/Lasers? That would be a useful thing to find out before saying that Prof. Rothschild's patent has nothing to do with LED fabrication, much less Sony.
      Perhaps Sony uses Zinc/Cadmium/Selenide etc., as shown here:
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/v074j46847410755/ [a paper by Sony on green-LEDs made with such a material]

      I would guess increasing the conductivity of these Zinc-based semiconductors is the big deal...

  32. Re:Eat my shorts slashdot !! by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

    In my day I had to walk through 10 feet of trolls to get to the comments, uphill both ways!

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  33. Re:Eat my shorts slashdot !! by Grendel70 · · Score: 1

    Luxury.

    --
    Perhaps you mean a different thing than I do when you say "science."
  34. You've got to be kidding! by Maestro485 · · Score: 1

    A patent story in which the little guy (or girl in this case) is sticking it to a big corporation with a real live viable non-trolling patent! I gotta go make sure the sky is still blue...

    Seriously though, its nice to see the system actually working for a change.

  35. Re:Just Go Away! READ THE PARENT by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Really? Given that her patent claim is 12 YEARS OLD, I don't think the word "clearly" means what you think it means.

    So are you saying that Sony read her patent, decided "That's neat!" and ripped it off from the patent office? Or did they likely do their own original research?

    Also, you left out the word I carefully put in: "Publicly". Why haven't we heard about this until now. PS3 has been out for years. Why wasn't a stink raised the moment the first PS3 hit the docks in the USA? Going public from the beginning washes away patent troll accusations very nicely.

    In addition, at least one computer news site today says this is in regard to another patent filed in February.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  36. Re:Just Go Away!Best Sig Ever Redux by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Best sig ever.

    Actually, that's the second best sig. The best sig is:

    As God is my witness, I thought Balrogs could fly. -Gandalf

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  37. This is for the Professor Emerita. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You suck.

  38. This should be interesting... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    A simple patent search will find a plethora of patents that overlap or cover her idea...

    The interesting thing is so many patents were issued on this - including numerous ones that seem to be the same (technology wise) as the one she claims she received in 1993. Oddly, I cant find her patent...

    Either way, this should be interesting - especially since she is taking a non-normal route to pursue the situation. (ITC, etc).

  39. OWNED - But is this the end? by Petersko · · Score: 1

    Your stomping of the grandparent was truly beautiful.

    However, I cannot help but pray that the grandparent finds something with which to crush you. Because then it would be your turn again, and I would be even more entertained.

    Carry on! I'm tuned to this channel.

    1. Re:OWNED - But is this the end? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Happy days. Check the rest of the thread. Thank you for shopping at the make-a-wish foundation...

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  40. where was she? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years, people had been looking for this technology. The Nobel Prize folk gave them awards for their work on the blue laser. Products are developed, competition between formats comes and goes, and finally, finally, finally "OH Wait, she cries, ITS MINE, ITS ALL MINE!!!" Thanks for coming to the party. Sorry, the cake is all gone, also the wine, and most of the other guests (ok, all of them) have already left, and the hosts have changed and gone to bed. But if you peek in the fridge, there might still be some food left. Its amazing how people come up with submarine patents way late in the game. I would like to see criminal prosecution for people who pull this kind of stunt. Its a money grab from people who live in a country like the US, where the 'its not possible if it wasn't invented here' mentality (or mentally retarded) live. Sorry supposed patent holder. You are Betamax. The world has moved on without you. You could have shouted 5 years ago and people would have listened. At present, you are as useless as tits on a bull. If you whine some more, you should be taken out and shot. You have contributed nothing to the world, and deserve same. The world at this point, would truly be a better place if you stopped contributing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere with every breath. Go back beneath the rock, and stay there till we call you.

  41. Cease and Desist?? WTF?!? by newbie56k · · Score: 1

    "Rothschild claims diodes currently imported for use in 'hand-held mobile devices, instrument panels, billboards, traffic lights, HD DVD players (e.g, Blu-ray Disc players), and data storage devices' infringe upon one of her patents, and thus are in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. As such, Rothschild is requesting that the US trade body issue exclusion and cease and desist orders to all companies named in the investigation."

    Cease and Desist letters. to all companies. you gotta be kidding me. This kinda of request is just absurd.
  42. Jeez, Slashdot, enough with the incendiary titles! by cybereal · · Score: 1

    I'm not one to completely avoid jumping on a bashwagon once in a while but this is just silly. Nearly every new LED and consumer LASER based device is using this technology but you singled out Blu-ray ... why?

    I wonder what kind of incendiary headline will be on fark and digg when slashdot is next sued for patent or copyright infringement. Obviously Microsoft has prior art on "Website that claims to be web standards compatible but is broken in most browser most of the time." Better be careful of that one ;)

    Awaiting troll mod in 3...2...1...

    --
    I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  43. My cellphone has one blue led, so what by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1
    The Motorola Razor has one led which blinks to tell you it is charged. To the best of my knowledge, that is it's only purpose. Since the led only lights when the phone is plugged into power, it seems to me that any low power aspects of the led are unimportant.

    It seems to me that Motorola can change the color of the led in future manufacturing and life can go on. The blue led has nothing to do with the Razor's appeal as a cell phone. I bought mine for its quality and size and functionality. Every other device I own that has a blue led, is plugged into power and is not a low power issue either. If she makes enough of a stink about this, we can all just discontinue use of these (with the exception of the bluray) and choose another color.

    She should go after the blkuray people and leave the rest alone. A simple licens ing agreement can solve his and life can go on.

  44. I will license all the name companies by fedrive · · Score: 1

    Since my patents predate all, by licnesing my patents, Cheaply, her patent threat goes away.

    Regards,

    MThomas
    http://colossalstorage.net/

  45. Funded by NSF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know if this professor received funding from the NSF (or any other government agency) for this work. If so, from what I recall from my grad school days, isn't the work in the public domain?

  46. How about a patent in another country? by reiisi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There's a Japanese guy with a patent on blue-end LEDs, and most of the Japanese companies involved in that base their products on technology that comes under his patent.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  47. Japanese patent by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Haven't checked the details, but there is a Japanese researcher who has a patent in blue end stuff that the Japanese manufacturers are licensing.

    I should go find out who it was and whether it's the same stuff, but I have other things to do. Been here too long today.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.