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.'"

Sony Sued for Something

[Billosaur (927319)]

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:

[catbutt (469582)]

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 news.

Re:Sony Sued for Something

[tomstdenis (446163)]

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

[eldavojohn (898314)]

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.

Good patent, bad company.

[RingDev (879105)]

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) "it [Target] characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement." That makes me think that they came up with the technology, applied for the patent, then attempted to sell/license the technology to Sony. Sony declined, but then used the technology anywa

Re:

[Control Group (105494)]

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, 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 improvem

Re:

[RingDev (879105)]

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 medication that will cause your skin to tan. Towards the end of our study, running out of money, and researchers are ready to move on one of our founders takes a risk and pops a pile of our prototype pills to see what happens. He comes back the next week to tell u

Re:

[RingDev (879105)]

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 two years.
If the patent holder shows that they are actively working on producing/licensing the patent in that time they can apply for a 3 year extension.
If the patent holder can show that they are actively working on producing/licensing the patent, but ha

Target Technology website

[alexhs (877055)]

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

Doesn't seem a patent troll...

Sounds familiar...

[Guppy06 (410832)]

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

[Control Group (105494)]

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

[lucyfersam (68224)]

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?

[akpoff (683177)]

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

Re:Think fast...

[Phisbut (761268)]

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...

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Because this is Slashdot.

Re:Think fast...

[pipatron (966506)]

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

Re:Think fast...

[Phisbut (761268)]

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...

[sl3xd (111641)]

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:Think fast...

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

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:Think fast...

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

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...

[XnavxeMiyyep (782119)]

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

Re:Think fast...

[eldavojohn (898314)]

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:

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

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 anything shiny with silver in it.

Re:

[Hognoxious (631665)]

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

Re:Hope they fight

[Belacgod (1103921)]

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.