Sony receives another patent claim against them

Useless!

Why do companies get to squat on their patents? Why don't they bring the issue up when the product is released?

Make me mad to no end...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, that's ALL of sony's electronics except their TVs... Not sure what the details are, but if Sony keeps getting this kind of attacks and if they actually pay them, they won't have much of the money they made out of the videogames market left....
 
I can't imagine a technology company as large as Sony not being sued over patents on a pretty regular basis. The Immersion case was only notable because they lost.
 
DUALDISASTER said:
Think they'll win?
I wouldve said so, but then I also thought the Immersion-suit to be ridiculous.
So lets be a bit more realistic, so lets say 1-3 is a win for Sony...
*Rolls dice*
Got a 6 :cry:
 
DUALDISASTER said:
Think they'll win?

Who knows. Without having more details about the patents in question and Sony's use -- and the wild card of how the judge will rule -- it is up in the air.

That said it does seem that Sony is not denying using the patents, but is argueing they had the right to use them. So the debate is over the licensing of the IP and not whether Sony knowingly used them to begin with.
 
One thing's for sure: IP is a minefield.

The bulk of this must be because of the restructuring of AT&T and Lucent (I wonder how many patents they hold - the mind boggles!).
 
I find this quote fun:

"...is arguing that it actually has the rights to use seven of the eight patents through a 1989 cross-licensing deal with AT&T and Lucent (whose microelectronics group eventually became Agere Systems)."

So according to Sony, they have the rights to use seven of the patents, but the 8th they didn't have the rights to, but used anyhow?

Sony can just pay them off with some of the loot they got from their 80 billion $$ loan.
 
Having Jury trials for patent cases is a bad joke. It's like playing the lottery, except that the odds are stacked when an American company sues an Asian one ...
 
AntShaw said:
So according to Sony, they have the rights to use seven of the patents, but the 8th they didn't have the rights to, but used anyhow?

The article says: "Sony also contends that some of the patents (including the one it doesn't claim a right to use) were not properly obtained because Agere omitted important information when it filed for them." ?
 
MfA said:
Having Jury trials for patent cases is a bad joke. It's like playing the lottery, except that the odds are stacked when an American company sues an Asian one ...

I didn't know that. They've really got jury trials for patent cases in the US? :LOL: That's funny.
 
MfA said:
Having Jury trials for patent cases is a bad joke. It's like playing the lottery, except that the odds are stacked when an American company sues an Asian one ...
What did Agere patent?
 
hupfinsgack said:
I didn't know that. They've really got jury trials for patent cases in the US? :LOL: That's funny.

More often than not, judges are no more knowledgable on the technical issues.
 
AntShaw said:
I find this quote fun:

"...is arguing that it actually has the rights to use seven of the eight patents through a 1989 cross-licensing deal with AT&T and Lucent (whose microelectronics group eventually became Agere Systems)."

So according to Sony, they have the rights to use seven of the patents, but the 8th they didn't have the rights to, but used anyhow?

Sony can just pay them off with some of the loot they got from their 80 billion $$ loan.

It was 80B Yen not dollars. $688M dollars.

If you read futher down in the article, the reason they claim they don't need rights to the 8th was because it is not covered by any existing patent. The patent Agere's does hold is only vaguely similar and does not include enough information on the solution.

It looks like Agere has tried this before... and lost. I bet they have more lawyers than engineers working for them.
 
inefficient said:
It looks like Agere has tried this before... and lost. I bet they have more lawyers than engineers working for them.

Which company doesnt these days?

Patents really are out of control, you cant go a night without hearing about some company being sued over a patent. So the need for having all of those lawyers is actually there, to not only protect yourself but to go after others.
 
Right, there seem to be companies popping up that basically buy a patent portfolio for the express purpose of suing people. They don't have any business model beyong that. Look at Sco years of Unix related litigation. Same thing, who needs a product to sell when you can extort a bunch of Fortune 500s?
 
Back
Top