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."

Comments

Ongoing for 12 years

[mother_reincarnated]

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...

Re:Ongoing for 12 years

[Doctor_Jest]

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.

Re:Just Go Away!

[R2.0]

"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"

Re:Just Go Away!

[Esperi]

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.

Re:If you patent something

[DustyShadow]

You should have a set timelimit on using it. There is a time limit, it's 20 years from filing date.

True inventor of the blue LED

[Frangible]

"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.

Re:If you patent something

[DustyShadow]

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.

Re:I'm missing something

[The Empiricist]

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.

Re:Stealing?

[the eric conspiracy]

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.