Sony Blu-ray Under Patent Infringement Probe

Lucas123 writes "The US International Trade Commission said it will launch an investigation into possible patent infringements involving Sony's Blu-ray players and other technologies using laser and light-emitting diodes, such as Motorola's Razr phone and Hitachi camcorders. The investigation was prompted by a complaint filed in February by a Columbia University professor emerita who says she invented a method of using gallium nitride-based semiconductor material for producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue/ultraviolet end of the light spectrum. Her complaint asks the ITC to block imports of LED and laser diode technology from Asia and Europe. The total market for all types of gallium nitride devices has been forecast at $7.2 billion for 2009 alone."

If you patent something

[Hubbell (850646)]

You should have a set timelimit on using it. Either you exercise your patent right and setup royalty shit with other companies, or you start using the patented technology, otherwise it's fair game.

Re:If you patent something

[salimma (115327)]

But that's why patents do have expiration dates. But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue, after a product is openly known to use a patented technology.

Still, this must be the first non-frivolous patent claim to make Slashdot headlines in quite some time (the only one I could remember from recently was the dispute over ZFS)

How long should that be?

[grahamsz (150076)]

This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used.

However, there are plenty of things that you'd struggle to even know were in use. What if it were some new modulation strategy to make the construction of multi-band cellphones easier; there could easily be millions of them in the market before it ever came to your attention.

Re:How long should that be?

[TimeTraveler1884 (832874)]

However, there are plenty of things that you'd struggle to even know were in use. What if it were some new modulation strategy to make the construction of multi-band cellphones easier; there could easily be millions of them in the market before it ever came to your attention.

The problem is the very nature of closed business IP. What carrier or manufacturer is going to give you detailed specifications on how their devices work? Anyone who has tried to contact a manufacturer of some electronic device because you want to hack/extend it knows all about this.

It's next to impossible to get that information to know if someone is infringing on your patent. If they have a similar/duplicate patent themselves, then its a little easier to do a search and find how theirs work. But you still have to suspect that company is infringing in the first place which may not be obvious without reverse engineering. And thanks to DMCA, that can make things complicated if it touches software.

Re:How long should that be?

[ZorinLynx (31751)]

Maybe this is why hardware companies like Nvidia and ATI aren't forthcoming with the source for their drivers. They're afraid they might be infringing on one or more patents, and that releasing source code would allow the patent holder to find out about the infringements.

Security from patent lawsuits through obscurity? It probably works quite well, especially when you consider how vague and far-reaching software patents can be. You practically can't write a block of code these days without infringing on some patent troll.

Re:How long should that be?

[MightyYar (622222)]

This case is egregious, unless she was living in cave then she had to know that something she believed she'd developed was being widely used.

There's not much detail in the article. For all we know, she's been negotiating with these people for years and they've been jerking her around. We only know when she filed a complaint, not when she first contacted the individual companies (if at all). We don't even know if her patent is applicable.

Re:If you patent something

[DustyShadow (691635)]

But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue, after a product is openly known to use a patented technology.

This does exist. It's called the doctrine of laches and estoppel. If you know someone is infringing your patent and you either refuse to sue or lead them on to believe that you won't sue, you can be barred from suing. You can rebut this though if you show that you had no money and couldn't sue or you were negotiating with them during the entire time.

Re:If you patent something

[AlHunt (982887)]

>But perhaps there should be a time limit on how long the patent holder has to sue,

I'm not an attorney, but I believe the doctrine of Laches might apply. Basically, you can't wait until the damages are massive just for the sake of increasing your claim.

Re:If you patent something

[iamhassi (659463)]

"But that's why patents do have expiration dates. "

And hers was nearly up. According to the article: "Rothschild was originally issued a U.S. patent in 1993 based on her method of producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue and ultraviolet end of the light spectrum."

That's 15 years ago. And according to lectlaw.com [lectlaw.com]
"If a U.S. Patent Application is filed by June 7, 1995, and if the patent issues after June 7, 1978, then the patent expires the later of 17 years from issuance"

So she only had 2 years left. So where the hell has she been for 15 years??

Re:

[TimeTraveler1884 (832874)]

You should have a set timelimit on using it. Either you exercise your patent right and setup royalty shit with other companies, or you start using the patented technology, otherwise it's fair game.

I guess. But as an independent scientist/inventor, I don't have the time to check up on what everyone else is doing while I am trying to make ends meet in my small business. I will never become a patent troll or use patents in evil ways. However, if I patent something novel, but I am just too small of a fish to

Re:

[arthurh3535 (447288)]

I think the thing is, if it's their field of expertise, they'd keep their eyes open on what is going on by other people in that field and approach someone far earlier about their concerns.

I would bet this is a case where multiple people were working on a similiar problem with similiar solutions.

In this case, I do not believe the judge should allow for immediate cessation of import and it's definitely over the top ammounts of money. I'm pretty sure Sony hasn't made that much money off of Blue-Ray technolog

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

Yeah, more advice on slashdot that isn't practical in any way what so ever.

There is a time line, it's the length of the patent. We really shouldn't be telling people if/when/how much they should charge for their device.

He is a clue: You going to role out a billion dollar item? do a fucking patent search.

Re:

[ptbarnett (159784)]

He[r] is a clue: You going to role out a billion dollar item? do a fucking patent search.

Under current US patent law, searching for existing patents is effectively discouraged. "Willful" infringement can result in treble damages, in comparison to "inadvertent" infringement.

Re:

[DustyShadow (691635)]

You should have a set timelimit on using it.

There is a time limit, it's 20 years from filing date.

Seven Point Two Billion Dollars?

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

That's a lot of Das Blinkenlights!

Really. I could live with green.

Re:

[cerelib (903469)]

Really. I could live with green.

More like, I could live without the blue. The only place LEDs that bright belong is in a flashlight. Blue LEDs seem to be the new "futuristic" look for all new gadgetry. I have a new 32 inch LCD TV that has nice subdued green and orange for status lights, but I have seen similar TVs that have bright blue LEDs for status that can be very distracting. Also, bright LEDs do not belong on a device like a laptop where the lights are in your face while using it.

Re:

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

A gentleman lends his talents, as he can...

I'm missing something

[explosivejared (1186049)]

Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.

I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

If I were to guess, and I will, she is using it to get there attention and get the issue resolved quickly.
It's one thing to string out a lawsuit forever, it's another to do it while costing billions of dollars in revenues.
Good for her.

Re:I'm missing something

[oahazmatt (868057)]

Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped?

Maybe she invested heavily in HD-DVD?

Re:

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

Which, AFAIK, also used blue lasers

Re:

[KnightNavro (585943)]

It's likely that she's asking for a lot more than she expects (or even wants) to get. If you walk into a car dealership and want to haggle, you don't immediately offer the highest price you're willing to pay, you offer something lower and work your way up to a price you can agree on. Similarly, she may only want a reasonable amount of money so Sony can use the technology she patented and is asking for something that will hurt Sony a lot more than a reasonable settlement.

Of course, that's also the tactic a

Re:I'm missing something

[The Empiricist (854346)]

Why is she requesting that all imports of the tech in question be stopped? Doesn't this sort of thing usually just end with a licensing agreement? The inventor gets paid, and everybody goes on. The article doesn't mention that she is involved with any sort of competitor, so it just seems sort of malevolent for her to try and put a halt to the entire market.
I certainly hope there is a better explanation, though.

She is requesting blocking of imports because that's the basic remedy an intellectual property right holder gets with the International Trade Commission [usitc.gov]. I don't think it is even possible to get damages for infringement in the ITC (although a regular lawsuit to go after damages can still be filed). You also can't use ITC proceedings to prevent infringement within the country.

Some advantages of going to the ITC include speedy proceedings (so you're not still engaged in the suit 10 years later) and enforcement of exclusion orders by customs. Because the ability to import a set of goods is often vital, the threat of such exclusion orders can provide a powerful motivation to license if it appears likely that the plaintiff will win.

Another advantage is that the ITC is fairly specialized. It has people who really know the law and can pick up on technical nuances readily. ITC decisions may be higher-quality than the decisions that come from the district courts because either party can demand a jury in patent cases in the district courts and because district courts do not have the specialized legal knowledge and experience with technical cases.

need a new tag

[d3ac0n (715594)]

I'm thinking something along the lines of "cashingin" might work. Although this might be covered under the "greed" tag.

Re:need a new tag

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Why? If she has a valid patent for a legitimate invention that these companies are using in violation of applicable U.S. law, why shouldn't they pay royalties like everyone else? I don't know the facts of the case, and certainly wouldn't depend upon Slashdot for any, but if she did get there first with her invention then they should pay. That's why we have patents. If you look at this reasonably, most of the complaints you hear about patents (not counting software and business-method, which are defective-by-design) are about the issuing of nonsensical, obvious, or overbroad patents. IF this is a legitimate U.S. patent specifically covering a device critical to their product manufacture, they should have two choices: pay up, or work around it.

Re:

[oliphaunt (124016)]

IF this is a legitimate U.S. patent specifically covering a device critical to their product manufacture, they should have two choices: pay up, or work around it.

But Sony is not a US company, which means they have a viable third option: ignore US law and violate the patent. This is fairly common in developing economies, especially for pharmaceuticals- For example, I'm pretty sure that Brasil regularly declines to enforce patents over drugs that combat STDs. For another example, I'm pretty sure that Teva P

Re:

[Muad'Dave (255648)]

I'm thinking something along the lines of "cashingin"...

Cash-In-Gin only works if you're a Beefeater [wikipedia.org], your last name is Gordon [wikipedia.org], or are from Bombay [wikipedia.org].

Oh, you meant "Cashing-In!". Nevermind...

Ongoing for 12 years

[mother_reincarnated (1099781)]

For everyone yelling 'patent troll,' realize that she has been trying to enforce her rights since at least 1995. She also seems perfectly willing to license the technology http://www.compoundsemi.com/documents/articles/cldoc/7121.html [compoundsemi.com]...

I think that is how you're supposed to do things...

Re:

[Doctor_Jest (688315)]

October 2007 was 14 years. :) I'll give her one thing... she's persistent. :P

(According to the patent it was issued in 1993, If I remember reading it right..) Since the patent protection starts (and lasts 14 years from) the day you are issued the patent.

Of course after Jun 1995, they're 20 years? If I'm readnig the USPTO stuff right.

Re:Ongoing for 12 years

[mordenkhai (1167617)]

While we can all agree the Japanese do enjoy fish, I think you may have their monthly lunch budget a little high.

U.S. Patent 5,252,499

[sillivalley (411349)]

This is going to be interesting. Section 337 actions are brought in rem, so success in this action could result in an exclusion order against any product incorporating or including the infringing device. That's lots of stuff! Section 337 actions are also fast, furious, and expensive!

You can get a copy of the patent from http://www.pat2pdf.org/ [pat2pdf.org]

What a bunch of garbage

[Duncan Blackthorne (1095849)]

I see more and more stories of this sort lately. Everybody and their brother is piling on now. It's like a string of serial murders, and every whack-job in the world is going to the police with a signed confession in hand, but no proof they had anything to do with any of it, they just want attention -- and in this case, money. Or how when someone with money dies, every 3rd cousin that no-one has ever heard of comes out of the woodwork looking for a hand-out.

Either that, or these people are trying to break

Re:What a bunch of garbage

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

Except this isn't a story of this sort. It is not a bullshit patent. The patent owner has a legitimate and important technological innovation that she patented in the mod-90's that opens up a whole new type of semiconductor technology. Many companies have licensed the technology without any problems. A few bad actors (some are very large companies like Sony) have ignored the patent and attempts to negotiate a reasonable license. In frustration the inventor is asking that legal remedies in place to deal with this situation be triggered.

Without this sort of patent protection this is clearly a case where an individual and obviously very creative inventor would just get run over by large companies.

Re:

[Muad'Dave (255648)]

...in the mod-90's...

The 60's were mod, just so you know.

Columbia University?

[Khyber (864651)]

Last I checked around 2001 Rothschild obtained the patent on Gallium Nitride LEDs. Seven years to file a patent infringement claim? Columbia University is a patent troll.

OT a little

[gelfling (6534)]

I've noticed that BR players and TV's have actually gone UP in price recently. That to me is real stupid.

Re:OT a little

[argent (18001)]

That's because they don't have to compete against HD any more.

Hmmmn,

[Hawthorne01 (575586)]

You can patent human DNA sequences [nsf.gov].

Chances are, I have a bit of one of a patented DNA string within my own DNA.

I wonder how long it'll be until Monsanto or someone else sues me because of my very existence...

"Je pense, donc, je suis poursuivi en justice"? (Google translation: I speak Spanish, not French. :) ).

Re:

[squiggleslash (241428)]

I read about this going on well before January. I suspect Toshiba actually licensed the technology or something similar.

Re:

[ivan256 (17499)]

Here I thought this bit of mis-information died along with HD-DVD.

HD-DVD used the same blue laser as BluRay. From there you should be able to extrapolate why everything else in your post is incorrect.

Re:

[jdgeorge (18767)]

Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode.

Huh? HD-DVD [wikipedia.org] uses a blue laser. Am I missing something, or are you?

Re:

[squiggleslash (241428)]

Others have pointed out that you're incorrect. I'm curious why you'd have believed this crap though: if HD DVD had been red-laser based, then HD DVD drives wouldn't have been any more expensive than DVD drives. It's doubtful it would have taken two years for a sub-$200 HD DVD player to appear (and the A3 was heavily subsidized), and virtually every manufacturer currently making DVD drives would have been able to - and therefore would have - jumped into the market almost right away.

There are ways red-lase

Re:

[Duncan Blackthorne (1095849)]

What, no goatse reference and link? Sheesh, can't count on anyone to be consistent these days :-/

Re:Just Go Away!

[R2.0 (532027)]

"Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it."

Really? Given that her patent claim is 12 YEARS OLD, I don't think the word "clearly" means what you think it means.

"U.S. Patent No. 4,904,618, "Process for Doping Crystals of Wide Band Gap Semiconductors," and U.S. Patent No. 5,252,499, "Wide Band-Gap Semiconductors Having Low Bipolar Resistivity and Method of Formation"

Re:Just Go Away!

[Esperi (782483)]

I think she'll go away once infringement has been settled. Having settled with Philips [pr-inside.com] and Toyoda [ledsmagazine.com] this doesn't look much like a troll to me.

Re:

[ucblockhead (63650)]

Patents have nothing to do with whether you develop something on your own. If I invent something and patent it, I can demand a license fee from you even if you make the exact same invention, on your own, with no knowledge of my earlier invention.

Stealing?

[dmeranda (120061)]

Clearly Sony developed this on their own, so you can't even say they stole it.

You must be thinking copyrights, or trade secrets. Because patent law don't care one tiny bit whether anything was stolen, pirated, plundered, copied, leaked, miasspropriated, derived from, inspired by, just coincidental, or "discovered" completely independently in an entirely different galaxy by a lone martian who's never even heard of the patentee or patent office. There's no shred of moral justification for patents like t

Re:

[the eric conspiracy (20178)]

they're a claim over not just the appropriation of "thought", but over the entire ownership of a particular thought and the absolute dominion and authority to exclude the entire human race ever having it, even if they do so entirely on their own or even just accidentally.

I call bullshit. Patents only cover the application of an idea, not the idea itself, and in the only in the country the patent was granted for a limited period of time. In fact, there is also a research exemption which allows people to use

Re:True inventor of the blue LED

[smallfries (601545)]

When you made your indepth investigation of dates on wikipedia, why did you only look at one side? It's nice that that Nakamura claims invention of the blue LED (not what Neuman is suing over btw) in 1991. But the patent that she is suing over is for a particular type of doping that is useful to create these LEDs - which she filed in 1988 [freepatentsonline.com].

Try and get your basic facts rights before you post your pathetic righteous indignation that the FTC doesn't just conduct its business on wikipedia.

Re:True inventor of the blue LED

[FuzzyDaddy (584528)]

Just for the record, her patent is here [uspto.gov]. What she seems to have invented is a way to make pn junctions in wide bandgap semiconductor with the diffusion of atomic hydrogen diffusion to compensate for impurities.

There's no claim that she invented the blue LED. The question is whether the process used today involves this technique.

In truth, there is never one inventor of something. It's all based on previous work. Nakamura can certainly be called the inventor of the blue LED, but he based, as does every inventor, on previous work.