Sony being sued over Blu-ray?

[Shifty Geezer]

Huh? It doesn't matter that it's been used in DVD-9...

If DVD9 uses the same alloy and was in existence before this patent was filed

That is, DVD9 came out last millenium. If when it came out last millenium it used this silver alloy, Target's patent of this alloy in 2004 is invalid, because the tech was already in use - prior art. If DVDs used a different reflective compound, and the silver alloy was developed by Target after DVD9's release, filed for patent in March 2004, and only after then used on DVDs, then the patent isn't invalidated.

It all depends on the date things happened, and no-one yet saying the same alloy is used on DVD9s (if it is - no references have been given) has said when it came into use. As is the norm for these patent threads, there's lots of important little facts that are being overlooked when people attribute blame. Some people aren't waiting to get all the info, despite me trying to present alternative cases to show that without the facts, we don't know which one of several possible situations exists. This thread is a text-book showcase of the usual 'trial by media' response. C'est la vie.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

If DVD9 used same alloy thingy and that wasn't priorly patented, Sony would have counter-sue, and this would go away in a split second. DVD used gold before.

Your the one going around talking about how Target hasn't tried to talk with Sony prior to the lawsuit, and insinuating things, your in no position to make these assumptions, you don't have a clue about what has happend and not. Thats trail by Shifty.

You talking about "trail by media", with the posts you've made prior to this, is funny.

For many years gold was the only workable solution for the semi-reflective layers of DVD discs, until, in the late 1990's, Han Nee, Target Technology Company's founder, successfully developed a significantly lower cost solution involving a highly reflective silver alloy material.

 

[Dizzy]

This is a link to Target Technology's products. It mentions DVD-9 and it gives a nice long list of patents at the end.

http://www.targettechnology.com/main/index.php?pg=products

 

[PatrickL]

Why so much hate guys.? None of us to my knowledge own Sony shares or Target shares so why so much passion. We could just talk quietly until we get more information no ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your the one going around talking about how Target hasn't tried to talk with Sony prior to the lawsuit, and insinuating things.

You seem to have missed the use of hypotheticals and 'devils advocate' reasoning. I have said...

That's a hypothetical scenario and I don't know if that's what happened here.

and I have said

If DVD9 uses the same alloy and was in existence before this patent was filed, it counts as prior art and an obvious solution.

I haven't drawn any conclusions and have repeatedly said both anything can happen and no-one knows. I haven't laid blame. I've presented speculation but in every case included caveats, saying it's all guess-work. That's why (in part) law courts takes ages to resolve these cases. It's invariably more complex than people like to imagine, and can't be resolved by simply looking at a piece of paper, seeing the date on it, and declaring 'yay' in one party's favour.

 

[dobwal]

If DVD9 uses the same alloy and was in existence before this patent was filed, it counts as prior art and an obvious solution.

Target claims to be the first to invent, develop and introduce silver alloy as an alternative to gold or silicon. Just because the technology existed and was used prior to Target's file date it does not mean it can be define as prior art.

Prior art or state of the art is all information that has been disclosed to the public in any form before a given date. Prior art does not include information kept secret, whether from trade secrecy or just a simple lack of interest in publication. Normally, we expect prior art to be descriptions sufficient to inform the average worker in the field (or the man skilled in the art), published in fixed form and made available in public libraries. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Target claims to be the first to invent, develop and introduce silver alloy as an alternative to gold or silicon. Just because the technology existed and was used prior to Target's file date it does not mean it can be define as prior art.

I wasn't saying it was! I was saying that without such clarifications, we don't know either way, but the possibility exists.

Deepbrown said DVD9's use the same alloy. There was no info provided on when this material came into use or who developed it! Capeta says that doesn't matter. I explained that if the technology is in use before Target patented it, and then Target patented it, it does matter. I'm only explaining the possibility of prior art, and not saying it comes into effect here! As long as there's question marks, different possibilities need to be considered.

Now if Target invented the silver alloy, and the alloy used on DVD9s is Target's development, and it wasn't used prior to Target's patent, than my 'IF' resolves to 'false'. But that doesn't change the nature of the example I gave! Without the information on who developed the silver alloy used in DVD9s, and when it came into effect, you can't cite it's use in DVD9s as either for or against the lawsuit. Which is my point. Not who's right or who's wrong, but that there's different things that can be happening that need to be investigated, whoch I attempt to point out in the hopes people won't jump to conclusions as usually happens on these patent infringement threads.

 

[Capeta]

Deepbrown said DVD9's use the same alloy. Capeta says that doesn't matter. I explained that if the technology is in use before Target patented it, and then Target patented it, it does matter. I'm only explaining the possibility of prior art, and not saying it comes into effect here! As long as there's question marks, different possibilities need to be considered.

Again that's irrelevent with respect to my reply to Deepbrown, who assumed because it was already used in DVD-9s, the lawsuit wasn't valid hence his follow up comment about it being suspicious. Why is it suspicious???

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Again that's irrelevent with respect to my reply to Deepbrown, who assumed because it was already used in DVD-9s, the lawsuit wasn't valid hence his follow up comment about it being suspicious. Why is it suspicious???

Deepbrown said 'a bit strange', which isn't exactly the same thing as 'suspicious'. And it would be a bit strange for Target to have a patent if the technology was already in use in DVD9s before they filed their patent, no? Well, no, not in this day and age! That's how I read Deepbrown's comments anyhow - DVD9 already has this tech, so how can Target be patenting it.

 

[Capeta]

Deepbrown said 'a bit strange', which isn't exactly the same thing as 'suspicious'. And it would be a bit strange for Target to have a patent if the technology was already in use in DVD9s before they filed their patent, no? Well, no, not in this day and age! That's how I read Deepbrown's comments anyhow - DVD9 already has this tech, so how can Target be patenting it.

If I invented X material and sold it to Y company for use in Z product, there is no law that says I need to patent this material. I may decide to patent it at a later time years after the material has been used in Z product.

 

[dobwal]

This is your past post with your hypothetical situation:

If DVD9 uses the same alloy and was in existence before this patent was filed

That is, DVD9 came out last millenium. If when it came out last millenium it used this silver alloy, Target's patent of this alloy in 2004 is invalid, because the tech was already in use - prior art. If DVDs used a different reflective compound, and the silver alloy was developed by Target after DVD9's release, filed for patent in March 2004, and only after then used on DVDs, then the patent isn't invalidated..

Even under your hypothetical scenario, netiher description can be describe as prior art or a legimate reason to invalidate a patent. Prior art requires public knowledge as trade secrets can be patented even if they have been used for years prior. Therefore, technology doesn't have to be instituted after filing a patent for the patent to be valid.

 

[one]

Unless the current Blu-ray disc is manufactured with it or its use is essential to manufacture any kinds of Blu-ray disc (both are not very likely) its effect is trivial.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Even under your hypothetical scenario, netiher description can be describe as prior art or a legimate reason to invalidate a patent. Prior art requires public knowledge as trade secrets can be patented even if they have been used for years prior. Therefore, technology doesn't have to be instituted after filing a patent for the patent to be valid.

That's true, but does still depend on the nature of the 'trade secrets'. Taking Capeta's example, it all depends on how much info there is on your material, and what the NDAs are like. If you don't patent the material before you release it, and someone leaks it and another company reverse engineers it and release their material, you can't then get a valid patent.

In my hypothetical situation, I was assuming the material was out and common knowledge. If the material has been in use for years but without anyone knowing what was in it, buying it from Target, than you're right, it wouldn't count as prior art.

 

[dobwal]

That's true, but does still depend on the nature of the 'trade secrets'. Taking Capeta's example, it all depends on how much info there is on your material, and what the NDAs are like. If you don't patent the material before you release it, and someone leaks it and another company reverse engineers it and release their material, you can't then get a valid patent.

In my hypothetical situation, I was assuming the material was out and common knowledge. If the material has been in use for years but without anyone knowing what was in it, buying it from Target, than you're right, it wouldn't count as prior art.

If the compositition and manufacturing of the technology was common knowledge before the patent was file then its prior art. You were right in your former post until we have all the information, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and have this thread turn into a flaming wreak.