SCE: Wrapped up in the lawsuit nonsense once more

[Carl B]

Well got wind of this via everyone's fave: The Inquirer.

I myself am not going to go to the trouble of reading through all of these patents, since there are a lot of them, but I'll just assume that the infringement claims are stretched on one level or another... still, sure to cause an added headache in addition to the dual-shock fight currently underway.

I've quoted the relevent portion of text:

Microunity Systems Engineering filed a patent infringement suit against both Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment in a Texas district court just a few days ago. Microunity alleges the Sonys infringed patent number 5,742,840 called "general purpose multiple precision parallel operation programmable media processor".

Microunity claims that Sony infringed its patent by making, using and selling the Playsation Portable (PSP). It alleges that Sony is liable for infringement "except to the extent licensed as a customer of Intel products under licenses granted to Intel Corporation."

It also alleges Sony infringed patent number 5,794,060 which Microunity claims covers the Playstation 2 and the PSP. And it also claims its patent number 5,794, 061 has also been infringed, as well as patent number 5,809,321; 6,643,765; 6,725,356 B2; 5,630,096; 5,737,547; 5,812,799 and 5,867,735. That's a lot of patents.

Microunity wants damages from Sony. Intel settled a previous patent case Microunity took against it earlier this year, which explains the reference in the court filing to Chipzilla.

Here's the link: Link

 

[Fafalada]

Uhmm, ok just reading the introduction, I fail to see anything even remotely similar in PSP or PS2.

"The general purpose, programmable media processor is disposed in a network fabric consisting of fiber optic cable, coaxial cable and twisted pair wires to transmit, process and receive single or unified media data streams."

Neither has any fiber optic or coaxial cable
Still as stupid as it sounds I am really curious where they found the supposed claim of infringement so I'll read the whole thing next.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Any company that makes baseless claims and wastes judicial time should have their "People in Charge" castrated.

 

[one]

Was this settled already?

http://news.com.com/2100-1043-5097776.html

Sony sued over PS2 chip
Published: October 27, 2003, 2:23 PM PST

Electronics giants Sony and Toshiba have been sued in a patent dispute that involves the main chip Sony's PlayStation 2 video game console uses.

A representative for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), the group that administers patents researchers at the University of Wisconsin obtain, said it filed the suit last week in U.S. District Court in Madison.

 

[Carl B]

Yeah I'm sure the claims are BS on one level or another - otherwise why wait until now? The problem though is that Intel agreeing to settle prior may give Microunity a little more precedent/clout in their struggle against Sony in this instance.

@One: I think that's a different suit entirely - though that might give Sony some precedent on their side in going forward should they emerge triumphant. (no idea what the status of that suit is)

 

[Powderkeg]

Well got wind of this via everyone's fave: The Inquirer.

I'll give you something much more legitimate.

http://www.rethinkip.com/rssmojo/archives/patent_lawsuit_filing_update_20051108.html

It's in alphabetical order, so just scroll down a bit.

 

[Powderkeg]

Yeah I'm sure the claims are BS on one level or another - otherwise why wait until now? The problem though is that Intel agreeing to settle prior may give Microunity a little more precedent/clout in their struggle against Sony in this instance.

I'm sure the claims are about as much BS as they were when they made the same claims against Intel.

And you know, nobody sifts through all of the patents and comparing them to all of the products ever made. Sometimes it takes years before a company realizes it's tech has been included in someone elses product.

 

[Carl B]

I'll give you something much more legitimate.

http://www.rethinkip.com/rssmojo/archives/patent_lawsuit_filing_update_20051108.html

It's in alphabetical order, so just scroll down a bit.

You know I don't think anyone was doubting the Inquirer in this instance - they don't just invent lawsuits, y'know? But thanks for the link. Now we really know they're being sued.

As for the Intel case, it gives them precedent - that's it. Sony's case will otherwise be judged on it's own merits. We'll just have to see what happens.

 

[Guden Oden]

Sometimes it takes years before a company realizes it's tech has been included in someone elses product.

If the tech was researched and developed independently in both cases, it can't be said to be "their tech". Besides, if the same invention is independently researched in (at least) two cases it cannot be said to be non-obvious, which is a requirement (in theory anyway) for having a patent granted.

Otherwise, someone could stick wheels on a grilled ham and cheese sandwich, patent the result, and then sue the entire car industry for infringement.

 

[Bobbler]

Otherwise, someone could stick wheels on a grilled ham and cheese sandwich, patent the result, and then sue the entire car industry for infringement.

I'd buy it. Not only would that be functional, it would be delicious as well... Functionally delicious.

 

[Xeno]

Otherwise, someone could stick wheels on a grilled ham and cheese sandwich, patent the result, and then sue the entire car industry for infringement.

In turn they would be sued by Meals-On-Wheels.

 

[Powderkeg]

If the tech was researched and developed independently in both cases, it can't be said to be "their tech".

Only if the tech was also developed simultaneously, which is not the case here.

Besides, if the same invention is independently researched in (at least) two cases it cannot be said to be non-obvious, which is a requirement (in theory anyway) for having a patent granted.

See above. One had the patent before the other developed their product.

 

[Guden Oden]

One had the patent before the other developed their product.

The argument the other would make is of course that the one should not have been awarded the patent in the first place, and that it is invalid/un-enforceable.

 

[ERP]

The argument the other would make is of course that the one should not have been awarded the patent in the first place, and that it is invalid/un-enforceable.

Unfortunately patent law assumes the patent holder is in the right and the defendant has the responsibilty to proove that there was prior art or (less likely) the patent was obvious. The latter is almost impossible once the patent has been granted, and even the former is surprisingly hard.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Which is probably the only way it can be done. Like the Telephone was awarded to Bell despite the Italian inventing it at the same time (slightly before even). Research tends to follow parallel lines and if someone's working on an idea, chances are someone somewhere else is thinking along similar lines. If you don't allow a patent to the first to register on the grounds someone else invented the same thing at the same time, how can you ever awarded ownership? What's to stop someone coming along after an idea is patented and saying 'ah, I was working on that idea too'? And because technology is developed along parallel lines I don't think you can say 'because someone else had the idea, it's not obvious.' There's 6+ billion people on this planet. Do you really think someone can have an idea without anyone else ever having it?!