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

If you patent something

[Hubbell]

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.

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:If you patent something

[AlHunt]

>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.

Seven Point Two Billion Dollars?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's a lot of Das Blinkenlights!

Really. I could live with green.

Re:I'm missing something

[oahazmatt]

Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Maybe she invested heavily in HD-DVD?

Re:How long should that be?

[TimeTraveler1884]

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.

Re:How long should that be?

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:need a new tag

[ScrewMaster]

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.

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

[mordenkhai]

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

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:What a bunch of garbage

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

Re:How long should that be?

[ZorinLynx]

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.

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:True inventor of the blue LED

[smallfries]

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.