Slashdot Mirror
LG Wants PlayStation 3 Banned From US Market
FlorianMueller writes "On Friday LG filed a complaint against Sony with the US International Trade Commission, claiming the PlayStation 3 infringes four Blu-ray Disc patents and demanding a permanent ban of the PS3 (and possibly other products) from the US market. LG, which boasts that it owns 90,000 patents worldwide, appears to take this step in retaliation for a previous Sony complaint about various LG smartphones, which the ITC is already investigating. This is reminiscent of Motorola's infringement action against the Xbox 360 that is part of its wider dispute with Microsoft. In other words, you touch my smartphones and I bomb your game consoles."
9 companies were in on the formation of Blu-ray, though Sony is widely creditted as being the primary creators of the technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Sony, you know that sharp pain in your rear right now?
That is what us commoners call karma, and it is currently biting you in the ass.
I suspect that LG has no actual interest in damaging the success of blu-ray as such; but are rather just playing the classic "Patents: Mutually Assured Destruction" game that large companies play. Since patents are so numerous, and often so broad, it is likely that both Sony and LG are guilty as sin of violating one another's patents. However, Sony was tactless enough to sue LG about it. Instead of just trying a conventional defense-in-court(and potentially ending up paying out serious cash and/or having injunctions placed against important products), LG is counter-suing. Since both parties know that they, and their opponent, are almost certainly guilty, the end result will probably be an out-of-court arrangement of some sort, with an agreement to drop the issue, and possibly a cash payment from the party with the less impressive patent chest to the one with the more impressive one...
Aside from the futile legal costs this imposes on the big players, there are two main problems with this status-quo strategy:
One, it gives the large players substantial latitude to threaten, and then crush or aquire, small competitors. If it is titan to titan, both sides can be reasonably assured that the other violates their patents in some ways and they violate the other's patents in some ways. If it is a titan vs. a startup, the latter has few or no patents to violate, and almost certainly violates(or is close enough to potentially violating that they could be tied up in court long after the VC money runs out...) the larger company's patents. This creates an unfortunate pro-incumbent pressure.
Second, of course, are the patent trolls. As long as you don't produce anything but lawsuits, you probably don't violate anybody's patents. You therefore spend your time acquiring patents at fire sales and bankruptcies in the greatest bulk possible, at the lowest cost possible, and then use those to shake down the people who actually do produce things. Since a protracted legal battle is expensive and risky(because of product injunctions or willful infringement damages), you can usually walk away with a quick chunk of cash if you size your extortion demands correctly.