Sony being sued over Blu-ray?
- Thread starter PSman
- Start date
"Nerve-Damage"
Regular
Douche Bags!
Lawsuits are getting more-and-more out of control, especially so-called patent infringement lawsuits.
Lawsuits are getting more-and-more out of control, especially so-called patent infringement lawsuits.
archangelmorph
Veteran
I'm tempted to just laugh this off and expect to hear nothing more of it besides the failure of the lawsuit..
However after the whole immersion debacle I'm curious as to what would happen if this lawsuit was successful?
Wouldn't that completely destroy Sony's Blu-ray business (and the PS3 along with it)?
I don't think this realistically has any legs to stand on but it does make one wonder..
However after the whole immersion debacle I'm curious as to what would happen if this lawsuit was successful?
Wouldn't that completely destroy Sony's Blu-ray business (and the PS3 along with it)?
I don't think this realistically has any legs to stand on but it does make one wonder..
Has anybody read the article or checked out the company. They may very well have a leg to stand on. They are not suing over an idea they are suing over an alloy they have a patent on that is being used in dvd-9 manufacturing and they claim is being used by Sony in Blue-ray disk without proper compensation. This is what patent laws were design to protect.
What I always wondwered is how do things end towards such lawsuits when both companies patent their products. If Sony patented BR disk and its methods of producing etc that logically means there was no problem to use them. Logically when you got to pantent a product it should be checked if it is reminicent of another product before it is patented.
Its stupid if someone patents for example a toaster, then a year later someone else who has no idea someone patented a toaster already, also patents a toaster which results to a lawsuit.
Isnt there an examination of the product before it is patented in case it uses something that was already patented before by someone else?
In such case I dont think its any companies' fault.
Its stupid if someone patents for example a toaster, then a year later someone else who has no idea someone patented a toaster already, also patents a toaster which results to a lawsuit.
Isnt there an examination of the product before it is patented in case it uses something that was already patented before by someone else?
In such case I dont think its any companies' fault.
No no no! It's not about like or dislike, it is always just the money.
Boss: "If we sue them we will ruin their business and ours!"
Consultant: "But our lawyer strongly advises it, you really have to see him jumping up and down in excitement - so cute!"
Boss: "OK, let's do it!"
Here we go again.
BRD is the product of the BRD consortium which at least is represented by 3 major companies includuing Sony. So why suing Sony only... Looks like they are more looking for easy money than protecting thei patent, to me.
I just hope that no other country will go suingfrenzy about anything.
BRD is the product of the BRD consortium which at least is represented by 3 major companies includuing Sony. So why suing Sony only... Looks like they are more looking for easy money than protecting thei patent, to me.
I just hope that no other country will go suingfrenzy about anything.
I dont think any country can reach US's records in this
...assuming this is another case in USarchangelmorph
Veteran
Agreed..
In this case I think both parties should be well within their right to file for "damages" against the patent office itself..
At least that way they'd think twice before approving any old pantent only to find several months down the line that it infringes on another that the same establishment had access to checking prior..
I wonder if this company actually does have legs with this lawsuit however..
If they claimed they patented the alloy used in DVD-9 manufacture then surely they shouldn't be going after blu-ray (since the market is small ATM) but after every company which manufactures and distributes DVDs or has done for the past several years..?
The whole thing sounds very fishy to me to be honest..
Because not everything is patented by the consortium. If the BR standard works like other standards that I'm familiar with, not everything with regards to the implementation is patented and is left up to each individual company to develop their own technology and patents for the implementation.
I haven't read the BR standard, but I assume that it only specifies the specifications for the discs (ie, size, thinkness, data format, etc.) How they are manufactured is probably left up to the companies as long as they meet spec.
I think the headline of the article maybe misleading. To me it doesn't sound like they are suing over BR, but over the alloy used in the manufacturing processes to achieve the required reflectivity and scratch resistance. While a level of disc reflectivity and scratch resistance is probably specified by the standard, the exact manufacturing methods probably are not.
So I think it's very possible that Sony is legitimately infringing on patents.
Why? The patent aren't given out without it being reviewed first to see if they are the same as prior registered patents.
But thats the point. If its been reviewed why on earth does the later product manage to get a patent registration? And since it got a patent registration by the law, why is it the later company's fault if they were given the green light?
Because its not the Patent Office's task to check if another different patent uses parts from other ones. Their job is to keep track of who owns the right to things, who actually invented the things, rather than if one technology utilizes other previously pattented technology.
For example, the Immersion lawsuit.
Immersion patented the whole rumble technology.
Sony patented a controller with similiar rumble tech. It also patented their own rumble tech, and other parts.
Immersion sues Sony for using technology that clearly utilizes their patent, it wins because the technology used was found to similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well since it is nobody's task it shows how stupid things work. It should have been someone's task to check. There are so many registrated patents, so many kind of products and methods of production it is easy to violate patents without knowing.
The person\company who patents the item, is responsible for it not violating other patents.
Plus just because things work like this doesnt mean they are working correctly.
Also if its impossible for the office to check, imagine how hard it is for one company to guess and review countless of registered patents.
The office is not considered responsible but they should have been responsible.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
So let me see if I've got this straight.
You are complaining that one huge and inefficient bureaucracy isn't working correctly, and your solution to the problem is to give them even more responsibilities and increase the size of the bureaucracy?
The purpose of the patent office is to keep records. It is up to the patent holder to make sure that nobody else infringes on their patent. When they feel that another company has violated their patent, they issue that company a notice to cease the infringement and if the company refuses, they sue for damages.
If anybody is at fault here, it is Sony (provided there is actual infringement) for not insuring that their manufacturing process wasn't in violation of existing patents.
And as was previously mentioned, Sony already demonstrated their arrogance once in this regard in the Immersion suit.
