Sony sued over Blu-ray

[roma_turok]

California company alleges patent infringements in PS3 maker's latest optical disc technology.
Given its global position as an electronics giant, Sony is quite familiar with patent law. The company is also quite familiar with the potential penalties for running afoul of patent law, as evidenced by the $97 million in damages and interest it had to pay Immersion Corporation in a dispute over the rumble functions in Dual Shock controllers.

While the two companies have since patched things up, Sony opted to leave rumble by the wayside when it was designing the PlayStation 3's motion-sensing Sixaxis controller. The electronics giant couldn't avoid patent headaches entirely, however, as Irvine, California-based Target Technology Company filed suit earlier this month, seeking damages for alleged patent violations relating to the Blu-ray technology used in the system.

The suit, which names Sony Computer Entertainment America, Sony Pictures, and Sony DADC, claims that products marketed under the Blu-ray name infringe on a patent it owns for reflective layer materials in optical discs. 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 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.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171498.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;9

[SCDVD]

Given Sony's passionate zeal for intellectual property protection, they should just cease and desist and pay up with a smile on their face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and Sony is a big, fat bloated goose.

[tgm4883]

Given Sony's passionate zeal for intellectual property protection, they should just cease and desist and pay up with a smile on their face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and Sony is a big, fat bloated goose.

Wouldn't they be the gander in that scenario?

[SCDVD]

Given Sony's passionate zeal for intellectual property protection, they should just cease and desist and pay up with a smile on their face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and Sony is a big, fat bloated goose.

Wouldn't they be the gander in that scenario?

The gander is the one that "does it" and the goose is the one that "gets done". In this case, Sony would be the one that "gets done."

[tgm4883]

Given Sony's passionate zeal for intellectual property protection, they should just cease and desist and pay up with a smile on their face. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and Sony is a big, fat bloated goose.

Wouldn't they be the gander in that scenario?

The gander is the one that "does it" and the goose is the one that "gets done". In this case, Sony would be the one that "gets done."

I disagree. The gander is the one that "does it". But what it's saying is what ever is good for the goose (ie the companies that sony sues for patent infringment) is good for the gander (ie sony)

Since sony sues other companies for patent infringment, then it must be good to sue sony for patent infringement

[edDV]

Just another patent lawyer trial balloon. As much as I see problems with Sony, every "Good Guy" in technology has to deal with these mostly trivial lawsuits.

Most times there is no merit but the plaintiff make themselves so much a pain in the ass that they get a settlement to go away. It amounts to a wealth transfer from productive entrepreneurs who have their life on the line to greedy parasite lawyers who are rewarded for being obnoxious. The costs of this to the entrepreneur is about 10% of business expense going to "his own" lawyers for their efforts at defense.

The money would better go to hiring more development engineers or even support staff but the scam lawyers get the money first.

Why are the tallest buildings in Silicon Valley filled with lawyers? Think about it.

BTW: You pay for all this in product prices. Many good companies go down during slow sales periods. They are done in by all the overhead cost associated with doing business in the Golden State.