Bright LCD Patent Dispute 291
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?"
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely it would be the manufacturer that's infringing, right?
Patent squatting? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hall of Fame (Score:4, Insightful)
How are they doing in the market place!
I can think of SCO, Kodak, Unisys and now Honeywell. I will venture all is not well at the little Honey
since 1994??? (Score:1, Insightful)
34 Companies? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for the idea of patents, but this sort of thing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth...
Re:Directional Diffusers: BAD from my point of vie (Score:1, Insightful)
Tild your head (or IPAQ) 90 degrees.
It might not help, but it's fun just the same. (no, seriously, try it.)
Valid patent for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos for Honeywell, a company you don't hear about throwing it's weight around all the time, defending a patent that describes a process and physical implementation that actually DOES something. If they'd patented a method for vertical alignment of viewing sensors in front of a display apparatus to maximize contrast and enhance look-angle (ie. the up-down adjustment on your office chair), then we'd have reason to throw rotten fruit, but this patent seems to be a legitimate technological concept.
Give them a break... Rightous patents should be defended rigorously or there is no incentive to do core research. Don't let the flood of worthless patents or the incompetence of the patent examiners destroy the legitimate use of the patent system.
Re:Karma for Kodak (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch.
Though I expect that Sun will ultimately prevail when they appeal this case. Still, the only real winners when patents get involved are the lawyers.
Re:Directional Diffusers: BAD from my point of vie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
271 USC 35
So if I sell one of these on eBay, I may be in violation of patent law? That's scary...
Re:Yet another example of patent BS. (Score:2, Insightful)
But, mankind went 2000 years without it.
Honeywells solution looks obvious to you in hindsight, but it's actually fairly novel.
The "obvious" solution to the brightness problem is brighter lightbulbs, not an array of lenses and other optics.
Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unobvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Just because it's obvious after the fact of their filing doesn't negate the fact that they filed first and therefore were the "innovators" for the idea.
Screw OLED! (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's why:
So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?
Wrong! The problem here is not OLED!
The problem here is the fucking stupid patent system! Submarine patents should be illegal. If you want a lottery ticket, go buy one. Don't clutter up the courts with nonsense bullshit gold digging.
And don't turn a blind eye to companies who pull this horseshit. Don't just roll over and take it. "Here's hoping OLED comes out soon"??? Bullcrap. Here's hoping the US Courts System someday pulls their collective heads out of their asses and fixes things.
EOR
Re:Yet another example of patent BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever looked inside a flashlight?
Re:Unobvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, what if instead of reading those tech magazines, the small companies trying to compete against Samsung & LG realized that they both use a similar method, and concluded (incorrectly) that is was something that did not have a patent, because both major LCD companies had this technology in use. Honeywell is definately not the first name in consumer LCDs. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that some other companies copied this design under the false assumption that it was not a patented idea.
Re:Valid patent for once (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:From the Horses Mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Honeywell not only makes LCDs, but they have licensed this technology to some of the largest, consumer LCD companies such as LG & Samsung. What a trip huh?
Re:Karma for Kodak (Score:2, Insightful)
Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for innovation, eh?
And now, Kodak sues Sun similarly. The abused becomes another abuser. The circle continues.
Notice who's NOT on the list? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perception of technology I dont understand (Score:4, Insightful)
It struck me that I NEVER agree with any of the software patents that are proposed by various entities, because I generally have a deep understanding of how the relevant technology operates.
This is why I understand why it is so difficult to educate laymen of the dangers of software patents. I too am swayed by aruments for patents if I am impressed by technology I dont understand
Apple may have some leverage ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I am also not mistaken this included sharing patent and development knowledge between Apple and said companies.
Since Apple may move to OLED or another technology and be involved in it's creation, enhancement and deployment - maybe they could offer Honeywell a piece of that pie to be "dropped" from litigation.
Otherwise - I think Honeywell is unjustly going after the computer makers because they are simply OEM and ODM from essentially 4 main conglomerates: Samsung, Sharp, LG Philips, Mitsubishi - there are smaller players in abundance but these four control about 80% of the market.
Re:Bit slow here, aren't we? -- or Scam? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bit slow here, aren't we? -- or Scam? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, they patented the technology 10 years ago. I highly doubt that the infringement started immediately, but then again I suffer from a mental disability called Rational Thinking, or RT for short, that prevents me from jumping to conclusions. The condition is exacerbated by the heightened activity in the part of my brain responsible for sarcasm.
Honey admits to limiting competition (Score:2, Insightful)
"Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses ..."
The complaint most often levied at the current (US) patent system is that it stifles competition. Supporters argue that patent holders are willing to license their IP, so only the owner of the patent gets an advantage; that still qualifies as competition. But here we have Honeywell admitting to what is common practice; licensing only in cases where the product does not compete with anything Honeywell sells. This is clearly a case of preventing competition.
Would the patent system work better if all patent holders were required to license their IP, at fair prices, to all comers? Businesses are required to do business equitably with everyone who wants to do business. Similarly, Honeywell expects to be allowed to bid on -- compete for -- DoD contracts. I'm not sure what their expectation is concerning fair play and equal treatment, given the current Washington culture, but we do have laws that attempt to keep things fair and competitive. Why then should they expect patent law to protect them for competition?
The best way to approach this would be to remove protections, rather than adding requirements, and let the free market work its magic.
Re:Hall of Fame (Score:3, Insightful)
What's more is that the patent at issue here has fewer than 6 claims, they are written in clear English, the entire application is fewer than 20 pages, and it is directed toward a physical, tangible invention.
To answer your question, because the Slashdot groupthink regarding patents is completely reTARded. There is no basis in fact, there is no interest in learning the facts, and the moderation system rewards the stubbornly retarded while burying anybody with a clue. This post contains actual facts I learned by looking at the patent - let's see how it gets moderated, eh?
Re:Directional Diffusers: BAD from my point of vie (Score:3, Insightful)
The first claim of the Honeywell patent covers a backlight diffuser consisting of two sheets of cylindrical lenses between the backlight and the screen, with the front sheet having a larger number of lenses per unit height than the back, and both having more lenses per unit height than the number of lines per unit height of the display.
The second claim covers the same device as the first claim specifically when the number of lenses per unit height of the front sheet is not an integral multiple of either the number of lenses per unit height of the back sheet or of the number of lines per inch of the display. IMO, given the device of the first claim, this one's pretty obvious.
The third claim is independent and claims the innovation of having the lenses slightly rotated with respect to each other.
The prior art covers, among other things, a display with two sheets of cylindrical lenses where one is in front of the display and the other between the display and the light.
The patent is certainly useful and seems novel, but I'm not versed in the field; maybe it is anticipated by the prior art. The bit about waiting 10 years before bringing suit is the problem, IMO.
Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, in the 100MPG automobile scenario, if the auto companies bought the patent and just sat on it, then after 20 years, it would essentially be worthless as anyone could then go make the 100MPG car and the big auto companies would be out of business.
On the other hand, if they bought the design outright, before it was patented, then they can sit on it as a trade secret for however long they like and keep the man down.
(Apologies for the simplistic overview of things, since I'm at work and can't really look up the finer details, but that's pretty much how it works.)
CyberDave
Re:Innovation (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Polaroid had a patent, they didn't need to constantly try to innovate with completely new things and stay at the front of the market. There are a lot of examples of single-invention companies going that way.
But: Polaroid did have its day.. Had they not had any patents at all, you can bet their instant-camera business would've been ripped off from the start, and we'd just have seen the established camera companies get richer.
So there are lessons both ways.
Re:Wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
First, patent applications are currently kept secret for 18 months following the date of application. (IANAL, so I may be a bit off on this). My suggestion is to keep patent applications and patents themselves secret for 18 months following application. If somebody else "invents" the same thing during that 18 month period, that should be considered proof that the content of the patent is obvious and non-innovative.
Second, don't allow patents that are simply a unique combination of existing inventions. That way, you couldn't simply patent using Widget A and Widget B together. If an "invention" is required to use Widget A and Widget B in combination, that invention could be patented.
I recently ran accross a patent at work from one of our competitors (expired BTW). Basically, it patented printing a particular type of potentiometer (already invented) onto a flexible film (already invented). Nothing in the claim indicates that anything new needed to be invented to use the two in combination. As a result, I really have a hard time imaging how the public received any benifit from what the inventor disclosed in the patent. If the inventor had to invent a material, process, etc. in order to print a potentiometer onto a flexible film, those inventions are the patent system should allow.
Likewise, if Widget A and Widget B can be used togther to do something that isn't possible with existing inventions, you could patent the use of Widget A and Widget B together to accomplish that goal. In the above case, printing the potentionmeter on a flexible film allows the potentiometer to fit in a smaller volume, and could be used to improve the linearity of a rotary potentiometer by arranging the potentiometer in a configuration that wouldn't work if the potentiometer were printed on a rigit substrate. (BTW, how one might arrange the potentiometer to achieve this advantage isn't mentioned in the patent)