Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
hehey said:
siphillis said:
hehey said:
Ok, i dont know jack shti about pattents or any of that stuff, but if LG wins what happens?, Sony wont be able to sell PS3's ever again? or is taht even possible?
|
sony has to pay royalties for every ps3 sold or a defined amount one time.
|
but they can still make and sell them?
|
If LG wins? Only if LG lets them. If particularly vindicitive they can force Sony to pay them money for every PS3 they sold, then force Sony to discontinue and destroy any unsold PS3s.
|
No, a patent holder must licence its IP at a reasonable price by law. They cannot force Sony to discontinue its products by any means, that would be against the progress, hence the purpose of IP.
|
Then why did Sony have to stop making inversion based motion sensors after they lost their lawsuit? You can totally choose to not liscense your technology to other people if you want.
Heck, look at Nintendo. They are the only ones who Produced gamecube discs, and also the only ones who produce wii discs.
They don't liscesnse that technology, and will sue and prvent you from using it if you try too.
It's the same with the old NES cartridges. It's the same reason every PS3 game HAS to go through Sony.
|
No, you cannot.
You're mixing copyright infringement (NES cartridges, PS3 games), with patent infringment. The licence for PS3 or NES games is not a technological licence, it's a copyright licence.
|
Show me where your forced to liscense pantents.
Everything i've read on patent law says otherwise. Note that Drugs are patented... and those rights are not liscensed.
The patent monopoly can be used to exclude others from producing your product, or you can make money by licensing your monopoly rights to others.
http://www.tannedfeet.com/patent_law.htm
"Patents protect specific design innovation or way of doing things (That summary may be lacking). They are stronger than copyright, in that independent development is not an excuse. The patent holder is also allowed to refuse licensing the patent (even if they don't use it themselves). The term for patents are also shorter: less than 20 years; whereas copyright lasts for at least 50 years after the death of the author (by berne convention). Patents are also supposed to be granted only for novel ideas not obvious to somebody skilled in the art."
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=41550&start=40
Companys are free to withold liscensing to whoever they wish. If you've got proof to the contrary, feel free to bring it up.
|
http://www.iprstrust.org/page/basics-faq
Essential patent and essential facility, if you cannot build Bluray player without the LG patents, than those patents are essential. You cited US law, European law is quite more liberal. The difference is that Europe enforces anti-monopoly law, while US never did lately.
|
Prove it's essential?
|
If they're not essential, Sony can build ps3 without those patents.
|
You miss the point. The PS3 isn't essential.
You can make videogame systems without those patents. See the Wii or 360.
You can make movies without Blu-ray technology. see DVD, a still supported format... and really the more "essential" of the two.
That it's essential for the specific product Sony wants to make is irrelevent. What matters is if its essential for the industry.
Otherwise there is no such thing as a "non essential" patent. Since all anyone would have to do is say "I want to make a product that involves their patent, and since that's the product I want to make, it's essential!"
