Bright LCD Patent Dispute

pcp_ip writes "Honeywell filed suit Wednesday against 34 companies (including, Apple, Dell, Sony, Kodak, Fuji et al.) for infringment of patent 5,280,371. The patent for "a directional diffuser for a liquid crystal display" was filed on January 1994 and enables "a display to produce a brighter image without requiring additional power." Honeywell is looking for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing to infringe its patent, and for "damages adequate to compensate them for Defendants infringement." So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?"

Well, it looks like the patent is valid..

[d_jedi]

BUT..

why are they suing the people who are selling the LCDs? Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?

As everyone (should) know, there aren't very many companies that actually make these things..

From the Horses Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=honeywe ll&page=pressrel_detail&theme=T8&id=A76N12RRDKX3GS IB1JIFWSY92LOX9108H&catID=cat1b754a4-fb536f3d74-3e 3e4447ab3472a0c2a5e5fdc1e6517d&c=n

Honeywel l Files Lawsuit Against 34 Electronics Companies For Infringing Patented LCD Technology

MORRIS TOWNSHIP, New Jersey, October 6, 2004 -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) today filed a lawsuit against 34 electronics companies claiming infringement of a Honeywell patent for technology that increases the brightness of images and that reduces the appearance of certain interference effects on a liquid crystal display (LCD).

Honeywell’s lawsuit claims the company’s patented technology is being used in a variety of consumer electronics products, including notebook computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, portable DVD players, portable LCD TVs, video game systems, and digital still cameras.

"Honeywell invests millions of dollars in research and development every year, and we aggressively defend our intellectual property to protect that substantial investment,” said John Donofrio, Vice President of Intellectual Property at Honeywell.

Honeywell's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the district of Delaware, asks for monetary damages and an injunction to prohibit selling products that infringe its patent.

"The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent," said Donofrio. "Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses as a core component of our strategic business model," Donofrio said. "We are pleased that LG.Philips and Samsung Electronics are benefiting through their licenses from our technology."

Defendants named in Honeywell’s lawsuit are:

- Apple Computer, Inc.
- Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc.
- Audiovox Corporation
- Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
- Casio, Inc.
- Concord Cameras
- Dell Inc.
- Eastman Kodak Company
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.
- Fujitsu Limited
- Fujitsu America, Inc.
- Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc.
- Kyocera Wireless Corp.
- Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.
- Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America
- Navman NZ Limited
- Navman U.S.A. Inc.
- Nikon Corporation
- Nikon Inc.
- Nokia Corporation
- Nokia Americas
- Olympus Corporation
- Olympus America, Inc.
- Pentax Corporation
- Pentax U.S.A., Inc.
- Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
- Sanyo North America
- Sony Corporation
- Sony Corporation Of America
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.
- Toshiba Corporation
- Toshiba America, Inc.

Honeywell International is a $23 billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell’s shares are traded on the New York, London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. For additional information, please visit www.honeywell.com

This release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations, financial performance and market conditions. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts as further described in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act.

Contact:
Ron Crotty
602-436-6823

Yet another example of patent BS.

[SeanTobin]

From reading the patent it looks like Honeywell actually had a decent and possibly novel invention. I say possibly because the solution they propose is obvious to anyone trying to solve their particular problem, however no one before had tried to solve their problem hence its originality. Now... as to exactly what Honeywell's problem is...

They decided that in displays used in situations like fighter jets, air traffic control towers and commercial airlines, having displays "bleed" out of the angle of view is not desirable. For instance, you don't want a reflection of your cockpit display in the corner of your eye from the canopy. They designed a "system of lenses" to reduce this out-of-angle light and redirect it to viewing angles.

The problem seems to come when they filed for the patent on the system. Instead of describing the system as a way to limit/redirect unused/undesired light they wrote it as a system to increase the amount of desired light. My guess as to why is because it's much easier to sue someone trying to make their displays brighter than it is to find someone trying to make their displays darker.

The reason I say that they intended to sue/collect royalties from every manufacturer was because they went ahead and sued every single manufacturer. They did not attempt to license their technology (but of course they wouldn't... Because Honeywell also manufacturers LCD's. They'd love to put their competitors out of business.) This is all just an abuse of the patent/court system to try and get ahead... too bad it works so well.

Oh, and I have some prior art. You see, I'm sure someone had an LCD with some backlights about 10 years ago, and wanted it to be brighter in the area they were viewing... so they put a MIRROR behind it. What a novel idea! They should have patented it.

Directional Diffusers: BAD from my point of view

[Marxist Hacker 42]

As I wear polarized glasses most of the time, and the directional diffuser makes it nearly impossible to read many laptop screens.

However, my IPAQ doesn't seem to have one- anybody else able to see or have problems with directional diffusers who can verify this?

Links to news sites

[tearmeapart]

Another day of sloppy articles. Here are a few links to news sites concerning this item:

• Google search [google.ca]
• CNN [cnn.com]
• CNET [com.com]
• MacWorld [macworld.com]
• Computer World [computerworld.com]
• The Register [theregister.co.uk]

Re:But...

[nacturation]

Which also brings up the question of whether an LCD manufactured outside the US falls under the protection of this patent. Any thoughts on that?

US patents apply to any products sold in the US regardless of where they're manufactured. Otherwise, patents wouldn't mean anything as you could simply manufacture products outside the country, import them, and sell them with impunity.

Re:But...

[EvanED]

"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
271 USC 35

They do make them.

[RiffRafff]

"...why werent they producing them?

They do produce them. They are used in their APEX integrated cockpit. Besides, if you google for "Honeywell" and "LCD" you'll see that most of the hits are for companies licensing LCD technology from Honeywell, like Samsung, NEC, and Toshiba.

Re:All your LCDs

[necro2607]

actually, it should be "set up us the patent"...

the phrase "somebody set up us the bomb" gets misquoted so badly it's not even funny...

Re:Well, it looks like the patent is valid..

[EvanED]

From reading the relevant statutes [cornell.edu] it sounds like both manufacturer and distributer is culpable.

I don't see an article, and the summary only lists like 3 of 34 companies being sued, so they are probably going after everyone.

Re:since 1994???

[kidgenius]

Honeywell has licensed these technologies in the past to various manufacturers. Those that they are suing are companies that are using, but have not licensed, these technologies. It is a valid patent, not about software. Besides, LCDs for computer screens have only really recently come into the foray. Yes, they've been around for a while, but the "explosion" has only happened recently. When something takes off, I would imagine that some companies start manufacturing things and might not realize they are infringing. So, Honeywell now realizes this only because of the volume that is present. Besides, Honeywell makes these LCDs for use in cockpits and flight decks.

Re:Submarine Patent?

[shotfeel]

I might agree, except for the fact (according to the article) that the biggest manufacturers been licensing the IP. Though I don't know if they just started licensing it, or if they've been doing it since day 1.

Re:Yet another example of patent BS.

[indros13]

I'm not too clear on the scope of the patent, but I should point out that Honeywell DID license their technology. From the article, "The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent," said Donofrio.

I would also add that sometimes patenting actually serves the greater good. There's a lot of knee-jerk mentality on Slashdot toward any large corporation that tries to defend its IP. But if patent law works well (which it may or may not), it both rewards the inventor and adds knowledge to society. I'm sure there are plenty of examples (lightbulbs? toilets?). [not to be construed as support for this particular case]

Re:Unobvious?

[JayBlalock]

Yes, but in theory, merely filing first isn't proof that an idea is unobvious. It just means you're the first person to happen to come across and solve a certain problem. When LCDs first came out, it was inevitable that folks would want to make them brighter. If everyone stumbles upon the same basic solution, then that DOES mean the solution was obvious - the patenter was merely the first to find an obvious thing. That doesn't make it patent-worthy.

In other words: A) Figuring out how to make an LCD screen: pretty unobvious.

B)Thinking to stick a mirror behind it to increase light going outwards: Very obvious.

(yes, I know it's more complex than that, but it serves as an example)

Re:Valid patent for once

[mrtrumbe]

Just because someone patented a physical implementation of a technology, doesn't mean that they were the actual innovators or that their patent is valid. This post [slashdot.org] seems to indicate that the patent isn't valid.

Sure, this isn't another "we own Linux" type case, but that doesn't make it any more valid.

Taft

Re:But...

[troyboy]

The "first sale doctrine" allows you to resell an item that you have purchased. The patentee doesn't get to control every sale, only the first.

Hold on.

[outZider]

If Samsung has licensed the patent, and Apple or Dell use Samsung LCD panels, doesn't that make Apple or Dell clear, or do you have to double license? That seems fishy.

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention" do you fail to understand?

A patent owner can sue the manufacturer, importer, distributor, retailer, and end user. Believe me, I've filed actions against all except for the last.