Sony Sued for Blu-Ray Patent Violation 153
Jaidan writes "According to a Gamespot article, a California-based company named Target Technology is suing Sony over patents it allegedly holds for silver based reflective surfaces. The suit claims that products marketed under the Blu-ray name infringe on a patent it owns for reflective layer materials in optical discs. Target is seeking a permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest, multiplied due to what it characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement. ' The patent addresses what Target called a need for specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold. According to the patent, the alloys are also more resistant to corrosion than pure silver. Target does not specify in its suit whether it believes all of Sony's Blu-ray discs infringe on its patent, or the suit applies to just a portion of the discs manufactured. The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.'"
Target Technology website (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't seem a patent troll...
Re:Think fast... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Think fast... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Think fast... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Patents Citing Patents (Score:3, Informative)
The question is whether it's non-obvious or not. Building new technologies atop old technologies but incorporating a new, novel idea is what patents are supposed to protect. If, for example, I developed a method for making a polymer that was self-healing, thereby making optical discs scratch-proof, I would reference existing patents on optical disc formats and claim my improvement. This would be a legitimate patent, insofar as I had developed a new technology.
Of course, that's a bad example, since I can't quickly come up with a contrasting point, but hopefully you get the idea.
Target Technology (Score:5, Informative)
Outcome will be dull (Score:3, Informative)
IF ( LICENSE
So basically Sony will have a slightly lighter wallet after this but it is unlikely that Target will refuse to strike a good deal on the matter unless they get a better offer from the HD-DVD crowd.
Re:Think fast... (Score:3, Informative)
You were correct in intent, but this is not a "terminal disclaimer" but, rather a affidavit used to "swear behind" the date of a prior art reference. The applicant must show reduction to practice or conception with dilligence and must attach evidence (such as lab notebooks) similar to that which would be entered in an interference, except that all dates may be redacted out of the documents, with the inventors asserting (under the criminal penatalies for false oath or declarations) that all relevant dates were before the prior art date.
This will overcome a rejection based on 35 USC 102(a) type prior art, but not prior art applicable under 35 USC 102(b), the so called "statutory bar" that applies if the effective filing date of the application is more than one year after the prior art date.
Probably patent troll (Score:3, Informative)
The first Blu-ray Disc recorder was demonstrated by Sony [wikipedia.org] on March 3, 2003, and was introduced to the Japanese market in April that year. On September 1, 2003, JVC announced Blu-ray Disc-based products at IFA in Berlin, Germany.
According to TFA [slashdot.org], The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.
So provided these dates are correct, I have three questions: 1) did the patent troll break any laws? 2) if so, what punishment is sufficiently severe to deter this practice? and 3) if the patent troll did not break any laws, then is the law an ass?