In australia Samsung had a MASSIVE price cut recently-ish. They went from 699 to 499 for a lot of 32" lcd's. I am now thinking they did this becasue them and sanyo for that matter seem to be pushing LED tv's hard in australia. Sony is just finally starting to so maybe we will see heavier price cuts soon.

Also I heard on the grape vine that Samsung got a price cut here coz too many people are buying tv's over seas considering our dollar is actually more powerful than the us dollar for example and gaining slowly over the others.

Sony in the worst case, LG winning and not wanting to license its patents, could be forced to develop its own workarounds or license the implementations of some bits from companies different from LG, while paying LG a big compensation for the damages already done. This could take some time, though, and units already produced should be modified. But if Sony has money plus its patents for that cellphone lawsuit and settling it too to offer, the only reason for LG to refuse would be having as main goal to damage PS3 and stop its sales for months. Or maybe to make Sony's value drop and take it over for less?

I still think it is a ploy to make sony see that what they are doing is wrong, wrong enough for their stock to be stop getting shipped in. 

Sony probably thought like many others that this would be a simple joke of a case and over before you know it. LG is making a statement. A brave brave statement. I just hope it doesnt backfire for them.

people couldnt believe that Europe of all places made such a decision, most peoples reasoning is a case that didnt make sense for a solution which was decided in Europe. Makes sense really. 

Taking Sony over and making it become part of a LG giant would be even braver.   

And with console wars being eventually fought by USA, Japan and South Korea, the only industrial giants still missing would be EU and China...

The two cases aren't even comparable, BTW, MS was offered a way out before stopping Windows sales, and having to offer a version without IE and making the users choose which browser they prefer, being given more than enough time to comply, is a totally reasonable solution, solving the antitrust issue in the consumers' interest, or at least it could have been a lot more, had the EU forced MS to price the version without IE less.

Sony has been hit a lot more harshly, at least in the short term, but on a completely different issue, a patent lawsuit.

So the only issue linking the two cases could be Sony being treated harsher than MS, but the organizations that dealt with them and inflicted the penalties aren't the same.

That's impossible: a patent holder must licence its intellectual properties at a reasonable price by law, otherwise it loses its patents. So the worst case for Sony is paying a fee to LG. The most likely case is a mutual licence agreement between Sony and LG. But the worst case for LG is Sony winning the litigation: in that case not only LG would lose its IP, but also it would have to pay alot of money to Sony for the illegal seizure of its consoles. That's the strangeness of this lawsuit: only 4 patents, with the chance to have to compensate Sony with a large amount of money.

As BBC reports:

"It will have to pay an astonishing amount of money if a judge rules that its patent is invalid. When a firm seeks to have goods seized they make an undertaking to pay for storage and compensation," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12607370

IE banned in Europe is a joke. There is no valid reason for it. Antitrust has nothing to do with it. The people that care that much know how to change it. There should not be an issue in this. But in Europe and only Europe there was.

It's nothing like that. It's simple strategy to get in a better bargaining position in the cellphone patent case against LG. The only one making a statement here is the judge who probably thought, what the heck this has gone on long enough, injunction granted, now kiss and make up.

That IE is banned in EU is a joke because it was never banned. Forcing MS to make a version of Windows without it besides all those including it, and to offer the user the choice of the default browser at installation time or when using the PC with Windows preinstalled for the first time isn't banning, it's only MS' FUD that likes to define it so. And the undeniable demonstration, if it was ever needed, is that IE is still around here, it just lost a lot of market share now that the same effort is needed to get it or its competitors.

Edit: this said, I agree that Sony suing everybody and his dog was just looking for what happened...