Sony's latest legal challenger - aiming to destroy PlayStation!

[borowki]

1) If the Patent Office grant a patent when they shouldn't have, and Sony lose the case, can they sue the Patent Office and cast all costs onto them? After all, if the PO hadn't granted the patent and pointed out the prior patent, Sony would have done things differently.

Thank god they can't. Otherwise, you know what it means: the taxpayers picking up the bill.

I don't know why people get so worked up whenever a bogus patent suit comes up. It's not old grandma who's getting mugged here. These are multi-billion dollar companies we're talking about. They're more than able to defend themselves. So what if there're mistakes? No system is perfect, and here, it's a good thing that the cost inflicted is borne by those most capable of bearing it, and who have, moreover, benefited hugely from the system.

 

[Ill.Skillz]

Sony Lawsuit Cleared

filed in 2001 and issued in 2007, actually lists the 1991 patent as a citation. In other words, Sony’s own patent lawyers have already seen the old patent and deemed it not to be a threat, and the U.S. Patent Office apparently agreed when it issued Sony the patent in June.That’s no guarantee that Parallel Processing Corp. doesn’t have a case, but it makes their somewhat outlandish outcome seem a little less likely. According to NextGen, the company is demanding “the impounding and destruction of all Defendant’s products that infringe the ‘000 Patent.†Lock up your PS3’s, kids!

Source: Digitaltrends.com

 

[Ill.Skillz]

Link doesn't work, sorry.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/13725/ps3s_cell_processor_faces_patent_challenge

 

[StefanS]

Merged, no need for another thread...

 

[archie4oz]

The amusing thing is that technically the patent would also cover the EE as well...

 

[Platon]

Does this company that now sues Sony have any products that are similar to cell? Although I do think patents are good and should exists sometimes it feels as if they are way too general and are more theories than actual working prototypes/products. That is a bit annoying about the patents.

In my work in biomedicine, now that you can pattent genes for example, or at least the function of the genes, there are those that patent a gene and just give a list of a thousand different functions that the gene might or might not have, without them having to prove that they have scientific evidence that supports those functions you mention in the patent, which kind of sucks...

 

[Simon F]

Hang on a second..?

Didn't Sony and IBM patent the Cell??

If so how the hell did it ever get through the patent process with this patent so clearly similar and represented as related prior art?

I don't think that is anything new. I just read three US patents that, essentially, patented the same thing. <shrug>

This is something I was thinking, and perhaps here's a good time for those more clued into international intellectual property to comment

1) If the Patent Office grant a patent when they shouldn't have, and Sony lose the case, can they sue the Patent Office and cast all costs onto them? After all, if the PO hadn't granted the patent and pointed out the prior patent, Sony would have done things differently.

Actually, IIRC, it is the patentee's duty to find prior art and, if more comes to light after the patent is filed or granted, to notify the patent office.

The patent examiner's job is, in a sense, to throw out or restrict as many claims as possible in the patent. They can't search everything all the time.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Hang on a second..?

Didn't Sony and IBM patent the Cell??

If so how the hell did it ever get through the patent process with this patent so clearly similar and represented as related prior art?

Surely then this entire lawsuit was settled when the ignorance/carelessness/complacency/whatever it was of the patent office granted Sony the patent for the Cell processor in the first place..?

Either the previous patent was deemed too dissimilar, it wasn't referenced at all (in such a case Sony should be able to counter-sue the patent office.. In an ideal world anyway..) or it was deemed void and of no relevance to the Cell patent..

Either way we all know who the REAL criminals are in this..

(Patent Office.. Grrr...)

Its not the Patent Office's job to ensure that nothing similar have been patented. The person\firm who patent's something is responsible for it not to infringe with previous patents.

You cannot possibly excpect government employees whos job consists of filing documents to have the knowledge to understand the patents that are being supplied. They do some basic prior art checks, but its still YOUR responsibility that no previous patents may threaten your invention, not the Patent office

The Patent office is there so you can legally claim an invention as yours, its your responsibility to ensure that the invention isn't previously patented

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Its not the Patent Office's job to ensure that nothing similar have been patented. The person\firm who patent's something is responsible for it not to infringe with previous patents.

The Patent office is there so you can legally claim an invention as yours, its your responsibility to ensure that the invention isn't previously patented

I'm not a patent lawyer, but of the few patents I've been involved in, the UK patent office performs a search to make sure it's not new.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-applying/p-after.htm

Request searchYou must request a search within 12 months of your filing or priority date.
We check your application against published patents and documents to check your invention is new and inventive.

A requirement of the patent system is that you don't grant patents to new stuff, and as the patent office are the people dishing out the patents, surely the onus is on them? That why they do a search. If it doesn't matter to them whether there's prior art or not, why have this search step and rejection of applications? That's what patent clerks are supposed to be paid for after all! It won't be a catch-all, but in something like this, that patent should have come up (especially when cited in the application)

Otherwise the patent office is just there to hand out certificates when people pay fees, and leave the courts to fight it out. Which to be honest is exactly what the US patent system seems to have become, but that's not what the official explanation of patents describe.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

shifty, im not sure you understand.

I said, yes they do checks, but they are not responsible if they miss out on something. They claim no responsibility.

Yes, the patent office setup may suck, but thats irrelevant.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I said, yes they do checks, but they are not responsible if they miss out on something. They claim no responsibility.

Okay, I'm with you there. The old 'we aren't responsible for anything' disclaimer. Whatever examinations they may do, you have to do your own as well.

 

[Xenus]

The US patent system is horrible resulting in a lot of frivolous cases that sometimes the little patent companies end up winning even though they have no right to be. Let alone it's unenforceable outside the US. Which leads to companies on china tearing apart products and basically building the same exact thing the US company has patented down to the bolt placement without persecution.

 

[Carl B]

In this case Sony actually listed the patent in question in the prior art section, meaning both that their own lawyers reviewed it and that the examiner would have reviewed it as well. That's not to say that the legal challenge is nullified, but I think that fact will serve Sony well in its defense.

 

[Xenus]

You'd think it should. I mean if the patent office reviewed your patent and still granted the other patent to the other company. The other company did their best if you have a beef with someone take it up with the patent office and not the company.

 

[London Geezer]

(Evening guys!)

Ok so let me get this straight... These guys patented "synchronised parallel processing" and out of all the people they could sue who have been producing these kind of chips for years, they sue Sony??

Maybe someone should tell them about IBM, Intel, nvidia and pretty much all other chip manufacturers who have sold a hell of a lot more processors than Sony...


Or... this is a farce... mmm

 

[SugarCoat]

The US patent system is horrible resulting in a lot of frivolous cases that sometimes the little patent companies end up winning even though they have no right to be. Let alone it's unenforceable outside the US. Which leads to companies on china tearing apart products and basically building the same exact thing the US company has patented down to the bolt placement without persecution.

actually the patent system works fantastic for how massive of a job it is. People like you just assume its broken when the occasional tech related patent lawsuit pops up, you have to understand it was never really made with complex chip/technology design in mind.

 

[Xenus]

Nah I assume it is broke becuase people make things in the US and find their products torn apart and reproduced in china then sold for cheaper do to cheaper labor and materials.

Probably a bit of bias though as my dad works for a small UPS company and have seen that happen to them.

 

[3dilettante]

actually the patent system works fantastic for how massive of a job it is. People like you just assume its broken when the occasional tech related patent lawsuit pops up, you have to understand it was never really made with complex chip/technology design in mind.

That and the 5 dozen perpetual motion machine patents on file.

There isn't a premium for quality patent screening, in part because of volume, and in part because the patent office makes money from filing fees, which means rejecting patents costs money.

 

[zed]

People like you just assume its broken when the occasional tech related patent lawsuit pops up

thanks for clearing that up, ppl like me assume its broken, cause they will let you patent basic plain obvious commonsense, no brains required ideas (im sure others can come with a huge list if desired, i know ive read a few crackers over the years, that the US patent office have approved )
wrt to the lawsuit aint that the scent of SCO in the air

 

[Rainbow Man]

Hm! So you divide up a program into n bits and run it on n processors at ~n speed of 1 processor - DAMN! These guys must be so smart!

I mean, who coulda thunk it?!!!11one

I guess Cray and all those other companies who actually BUILT multiprocessor systems (instead of just file a nebulous patent) as early as back in the 60s or 70s just didn't have a clue.


Obviously this patent is teh fail on both prior art and the obviousness requirement.
Peace.