Sony Sued for Blu-Ray Patent Violation

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.'"

Think fast...

Why is this a bogus patent?

It's for a physical substance, that was developed by someone, which performs better/differently than anotehr compound used for the same purpose.

Isn't this what patent protection should be for?

Re:Think fast...

Why is this a bogus patent?
It's for a physical substance, that was developed by someone, which performs better/differently than anotehr compound used for the same purpose.
Isn't this what patent protection should be for?

Nowhere in the article or in the summary is there a reference to a bogus patent. Why the hell did *you* jump to the conclusion that this was bogus?

Re:Think fast...

Why the hell did *you* jump to the conclusion that this was bogus?

Because this is Slashdot.

Re:Think fast...

Yes, it's slashdot. Which means that anything that's bad for SONY, is good for karma!

Re:Think fast...

Yes, it's slashdot. Which means that anything that's bad for SONY, is good for karma!

However, every now and then, we get stuck in some sort of paradox, like when Jack Thompson and Microsoft are facing each other [slashdot.org], and we have to take sides...

Next up:

• Jack Thompson vs. Sony
• Microsoft vs. Sony
• ...
• Jack Thompson vs. Soviet Russia
• Profit vs. Microsoft
• Sony vs. Step 2:...
• Jack Thompson vs. Hot Grit

Re:Think fast...

You know, that whole Microsoft vs. Sony is probably the hardest question an informed consumer could choose.

On one hand you have a software company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other software products from the same company.

On the other hand, you have a hardware company whose product's 'advanced' features only work with other hardware products from the same company.

Tough call. Obviously, many choose neither.

Re:

It's easier and cheaper to fix broken software, not so easy to fix broken hardware. I'd rather see SONY in the gutter any day before Microsoft.

Re:

I take it on a case-by-case basis. Having done both hardware and software development, sometimes it's easier and cheaper to fix the hardware.

Re:

But you are forced to buy Microsoft's products since they have a monopoly. There is much more competition in the hardware space.

Re:

Well obviously hot grits... who would pour Jack Thompson down one's pants??

Re:

Probably because the GP doesn't need someone else to think for him? I realize that coming to your own conclusions can be a scary experience, but you ought to try it some time.

Re:Think fast...

Actually, this may end up being bogus for different reasons. You must realize the patent was filed April 2004 and was patented May 2006. I know that Blu-ray has been in development for quite a time and the specifications were announced in the year of 2004. If Sony can provide sufficient evidence in court that what is claimed by Target had already been conceived in some form by them they will be able to circumvent this lawsuit and nullify the patent.

Re:

IANAL, but isnt the whole 'Prior Art' thing can only be shown by...

a) A published work indicating how to do the patent BEFORE it was filed.
b) An actual example of the patent being done the exact same way before the patent was filed.

Now I dont know about yo

Re:Think fast...

But the applicant can file a terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.131) and swear behind the date as long as they give evidence of their work before the date of filing. It doesn't have to be published, nor does it have to be a working example. They actually can use internal documents as long as the date can be certified. I'm sure Sony knows this well.

Re:Think fast...

Don't argue with this guy! Patent is his middle, err, last name.

Re:

Eh, I'm late to this discussion. Anyway....

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 wit

Re:

It sounds more like its an implementation specific patent. Having specifications doesn't necessarily mean that it already had implementation details. Of course, it also doesn't mean it didn't.

Re:Think fast...

Why is this a bogus patent?

The key is that it might be a bogus patent. I've linked the patent [uspto.gov] in another post I made, but here's the summary:

A silver-based alloy thin film is provided for the highly reflective or semi-reflective coating layer of optical discs. Elements that can be added to silver to produce useful silver alloys include zinc, aluminum, copper, manganese, germanium, yttrium, bismuth, scandium, and cobalt. These alloys have moderate to high reflectivity and reasonable corrosion resistance in the ambient environment.

Ok, so if I get a patent that says "silver alloys are best for reflective surfaces" and then I go on to list the possibility of using all elements in the periodic table (or those that make sense) and then I get that patent ... basically no one else can use silver in an alloy to make reflective products. Does that seem right? Should you be able to patent an alloy? Should you be able to blanket patent alloys that are reflective and restrict their use to your 'idea'? Isn't that something mother nature made possible? I'm not a chemist, is this stuff common sense? I think that a lot needs to be analyzed before this can be an obvious or bogus patent but, you know, there are a lot of reasons this could be a bogus patent.

Personally, I think patents should be "if you don't use it, you lose it" because what good does it do us if an idea is patented and the company just sits around waiting for a larger one to use it? The patent system is broken and so is the mentality of about half the patent holders that use it. It's no longer about protecting your intellectual property, it's about the tricks you can play to get insane sums of money. How long did NTP wait for RIM to expand and grow? A long time. It's not currently wrong but morally they've gotta be approaching some sort of evil.

Re:

basically no one else can use silver in an alloy to make reflective products.

Not fully correct. The chemical compounds are patented for their specific purpose which in this case is as an optical storage medium. Just because they have the patent for silver used in a reflective products doesn't mean they have protection against anyt

Re:

Does that seem right? Should you be able to patent an alloy? . . . Isn't that something mother nature made possible?

At least in the U.S., an alloy is patentable. 35 U.S.C. 101 [cornell.edu]:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, o

Re:

Yes alloys are and should be patentable.

How much research goes into developing harder steels for the sake of competitive advantage? From an industry perspective having a harder steel is only good if you are the only one to market it. It is also really re

Re:

"...The patent owner has to be able to walk away. And while he's walked away, it's not fair for the company to go to the patent office and say, "Hey, we offered him a nice shiny quarter, and he wouldn't sell. He's not using it so you should take the patent

More general use prior art

My question is : are patent about specialised usage of more general purpose thing enforceable ?

I mean something like : rubber duckies areobject made out of rubber floating on water, and someone publishing a special patent about putting floating rubber duck

Hope they fight

Although Sony has been on my "Do Not Buy" list for some time, I sure hope they fight this rather than pay shut up money. It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.

Re:

Can I patent the silver bullet that someone will use to shoot them? Someone should find content newer than 2006 on their website and copyright it (their copyright is listed from 2005-2006).

Re:

No, because Fred Brooks [wikipedia.org] has already copyrighted the fact that they don't exist.

Re:Hope they fight

Watered-down beer has to have prior art from the 1940s. I think it was on here that I read about the beer where 80% of tasters in a double-blind taste-test preferred horse piss, and the other 20% thought both were horse piss. I forget which beer though.

Re:

I think it was on here that I read about the beer where 80% of tasters in a double-blind taste-test preferred horse piss, and the other 20% thought both were horse piss. I forget which beer though.

Maybe it was Horse Piss Ale! Yes, it actually exists, I sa

Re:

It sounds like Target patented the mirror and it would be nice if someone showed them their own vile reflection in it.

I'm not sure that's exactly the case. Target Tech. didn't patent the concept of a mirror, they just patented a specific substance that

Re:

Nintendo's gotten better in the last 20 years [gamestop.com]. I can't say Sony has started to treat consumers better, so they're still on my shitlist. I'll give a company a chance to change... will you?

Sony Sued for Something

This is news?

Then again, is this just another case of patent whoring? again, news?

Until the nightmare that is patenting computer technology/software is fixed/destroyed, these kinds of things will not be news, just a common occurrence/nuisance.

Re:

Well this isn't software, and calling it "computer technology" is a bit of a stretch, since standalone DVD players aren't what we generally think of as computers.

Unless you are against ALL patents, I don't really see a huge problem here.

And yes, it is n

Re:Sony Sued for Something

Patenting technology [e.g. material sciences] is not the same as software. In software, you're more likely to just adapt from a known source to suit your needs. True innovative [and original] computer algorithms are rare, which is why people oppose software patents. If it were the case that truly original innovations were common in software it would be a different story.

As for material sciences [e.g. making a disc] it could quite possibly not have been obvious that a given composition of alloys make a highly reflective corrosion resistant material. Just because something is computer related doesn't mean it's software. Of course, just because you got a patent for it doesn't mean you deserved it too...

Tom

Patents Citing Patents

So, I thought I would investigate by reading the patents [uspto.gov] of Target Technology Company LLC (the specific patent here [uspto.gov]) and noticed that the patent mentioned actually references one of Sony's patents in regards to R/W capabilities of discs:

The recording medium may be erased for re-recording by focussing a laser of intermediate power on the recording medium. This returns the recording medium layer to its original or erased state. A more detailed discussion of the recording mechanism of optically recordable media can be found in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,741,603; 5,498,507; and 5,719,006 assigned to the Sony Corporation, the TDK Corporation, and the NEC Corporation, all of Tokyo, Japan, respectively, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

I haven't read all the patents referenced by Target Technology Company's patent but if they have a case, this looks like TTC built a slight logical advancement on top of Sony's (and a vast number of other company's) work in optical discs and optical drives then they waited for someone to make this logical step. Here, it looks to be using a certain chemical to make the discs more reflective. Ok, so maybe they spent a lot of research and maybe they didn't ... I don't know. Is it a specific chemical? Could one patent the specific use of a chemical? Did Sony just read the patent and use the chemical? I'm sure the court case will have to examine all that. I just hope some kind of justice can be found that seems right and logical in this case between the two companies.

But this looks like I could draft up a generic patent about triple layering and/or quadruple layering of data on discs and apply for the patents then just sit back and wait for someone to try and use it. I would reference all the dual layering patents and all that jazz. Would you call my ideas innovative or just common sense? Would it seem right that I didn't even have to implement these solutions? I don't know, I can think of instances where one could argue either way and this is what is inherently wrong with the patent system. Of course, I don't know how to fix it but I don't like how it works right now.

Re:

After reading, this patent doesn't seem to be an "invention" at all, but rather a research paper which shows which alloys work best.

While I personally don't think you should be able to patent a discovery, I don't know how the current legal system of any c

Re:

Here's a little scenario for you. Lets say I'm with a small time drug research company. We have a couple of docs, some grad students, and a bunch of admins and what not. And lets say we spend 2 million dollars over 3 years trying to come up with a medicati

Re:

I disagree. I think if you come up with anything, purposeful or accidental, you should be able to patent it (so long as it meets the other criteria). HOWEVER, in today's industrial/economical environment, patents should be much shorter.

IMO:
Patent issue for

Re:

'' Now you're just trying to conflate relatively simple metallurgy with rather intensely complicated organic chemistry. The patent system should serve to make it more likely that Edison style filament experimentation will occur. If the sort of invention/di

Good patent, bad company.

That patent, as I read it, appears to be a novel and non-obvious improvement of an existing technology. Provided there is no prior art, it sure looks like a valid, and good, patent.

The part about this suit that I think should be more obvious is this: (FTA)

Re:

[quote]Uh-huh. Then why the hell are they suing Sony? Sony doesn't really do much development of the physical media (that would be TDK), and they're sure as hell not the only manufacturer of the drives.

Since the patent in question is actually based on a pr

Re:

this looks like TTC built a slight logical advancement on top of Sony's (and a vast number of other company's) work in optical discs

The question is whether it's non-obvious or not. Building new technologies atop old technologies but incorporating a new, no

Target Technology website

here [targettechnology.com]. (Warning, CPU-whoring Flash)

Doesn't seem a patent troll...

Sounds familiar...

Does this mean that BluRay capabilities will be (purely by coincidence) removed from the PlayStation 4 as Sony execs try to tell us that high-capacity disks are so "last gen?"

Not enough information

There isn't enough information here to form an intelligent position.

Given that Target is only suing Sony over Blu-Ray, and not suing any other organizations over CDs, DVDs, GD-ROMs, Game Discs, HD-DVDs, or FMD-ROMs (!), it's possible (however unlikely) that this is actually an example of patents working the way they should. That is, Target may have a patent on an actual technology; a specific method of producing a reflective layer that is superior and/or cheaper than other methods. If that's the case, then this is exactly how patents are supposed to work.

Alternatively, of course, Target may have patented an obvious evolution of well-established technologies, in which case this is just another patent troll. They could be holding off on suing other companies until they've set some sort of precedent with Sony.

The actual patent [uspto.gov] begins by specifying an alloy of silver an yttrium, but the further claims also (apparently) expand that claim by including alloys with other elements (such as bismuth and tin). I don't have the time right now to examine the patent in great detail; but a skim makes it look like they patented a specific method for a high-reflectivity layer thats cheaper than other methods of equivalent reflectivity. They then expand this idea to include all the derivative technologies of using this method (single & dual layer discs, write-only discs, write-once disc, re-writeable discs, etc).

The problem is I don't have enough familiarity with the technology to know if this is a non-obvious development or not. If it is non-obvious, then more power to them. Protecting your novel idea with a patent is fair play. If, of course, it's just the optical disc equivalent of "[X], but on the INTERNET and called i[X]," then I hope they get counter-sued into oblivion.

Target Technology

After doing a little looking at thier site, Target Technology gets their name because they do actually make products with this technology. The make silver alloy targets for sputtering the metal onto optical discs, and their targets are currently used manufacture of many DVD-R's and other optical discs. I would guess (though I don't have enough information to be sure) that they think Sony looked at the compostion of their targets, said "hey, these work really well," and decided to make their own targets of the same compesition for their Blu-ray discs. True or not, I have no idea, but it is at least possible a valid patent case. It's not like this is just an company who hoards patents and licenses them, they actually make products based off of those patents.

Can We have the "HaHa" Tag Back Just for This One?

It's Sony for pity's sake. This is one company even the Linux and Windows fanboys agree to hate. ;-)

my mind is clouded

For patently I spy a silver lining
no more blu-ray - patently shining

Outcome will be dull

If it is a valid claim Sony will probably settle and buy a license to use the technology, otherwise they will fight it in court. Actually, it is probably more along the lines of
IF ( LICENSE .LT. (DAMAGES * P(.LOSS.) ) THEN CALL SETTLE ELSE CALL FIGHT END IF !pardon the Fortran
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.

Probably patent troll

According to wikipedia:

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?

Re:

It's called oversimplification of the claimed matter. let's go ahead and take a look at claim 1 which is one of the independent (and most general) claims for this patent.

Claim 1: An optical storage medium, comprising:

a first layer having a pattern of features in at least one major surface; and
a first reflective layer adjacent said feature pattern, said first reflective layer including a metal alloy, said metal alloy including silver and yttrium, wherein the relationship between the amounts of silver and yttrium in the metal alloy is defined by AgxYw where 0.9500 This is not used as a mirror in any way shape or form. The process itself is also insubstantial. What is substantial is they found this really nifty compound which is shown above and noticed it was really handy in making optical storage media. They decided to patent this specific use of the compound.
Sony comes along and starts using this compound for exactly what it was used for in the patent. that's where the big no-no occurred.
If Sony were to use the exact same compound as a mirror in their bathroom stalls, Target would have no legal claim against them. If Sony decided to use it for anything besides for in an optical storage media Target would have no legal claim against them.
The only way this patent is bad, is if Sony can show that they have "substantial evidence" after filing a 37 CFR 1.131 Terminal Disclaimer that they had full knowledge of the claimed invention under their own research and development which must be backed up by documentation with a date which can be certified. This should actually be fairly interesting to follow because the patent itself as claimed is very much valid, now we get to see the fight for who has rights to it.