By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - LG gets injunction against PS3 sales in Europe!?

Kasz216 on 02 March 2011
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?  Also, that Blu-ray is essential.  Afterall, they don't force liscensing of drugs do they?  That seems... more essential.

As far as I know, for it to be an "Essential Patent" it needs to be for the Industry standard.

Which Blu-ray is not.  DVD still is.  Even if it is considered and Industry Standard you'd have to prove those patents are essential and can't be worked around.



Around the Network
Booh! on 02 March 2011
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.



Kasz216 on 02 March 2011
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!"



Booh! on 02 March 2011
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

That it's essential for the 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!"

But the Bluray is, since it's a standard, and these patents regard the Bluray player.



Kasz216 on 02 March 2011
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
Booh! said:
Kasz216 said:
 

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.

That it's essential for the 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!"

But the Bluray is, since it's a standard, and these patents regard the Bluray player.

It's a standard, but it's not the Industry Standard.

Again.  Gamecube discs were a specific standard.... just like Blu-ray... and they were patented.



Around the Network
welshbloke on 02 March 2011

To chip in, I believe that if LG win that patent dispute they can force Sony to remove the infringement or they can choose to license. I do not think they can be forced to license the patent. It may have some legal wording wrapping around that and one of those may be term "essential" but we can already see two definitions in this thread.

I am inclined to believe they would have to prove essential and I do not think a single product would be considered essential but that is for the legal beagles to work out. What I would say is that this scenario is unlikely but then that was before this whole thing became personal and LG upped the ante.

 



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
justinian on 02 March 2011

@kasz216, booh, welshbloke and the rest who pitched in from page 23.

Brilliant stuff, you guys saved me a lot of research (of which I simply didn't have the time to do).

It makes a refreshing change when some of you have a intelligent discussion without the underlining company bias that is dominant in so many posts by certain members.

Damn good read.



drkohler on 02 March 2011
welshbloke said:

To chip in, I believe that if LG win that patent dispute they can force Sony to remove the infringement or they can choose to license. I do not think they can be forced to license the patent. It may have some legal wording wrapping around that and one of those may be term "essential" but we can already see two definitions in this thread.

The problem is not that easy. The patents essentially apply to _ANY_ Blu-ray drive. LG singled out the PS3, because it is somewhat "the device" and they solely want to piss off Sony for the cell-phone lawsuit. Why doesn't go LG after all the other 211252524 makers of Blu-ray devices who very likely also infringe on (some of) the specific copyrights? What happens if LG "wins" (there is no winning in such lawsuits) to the other 211252524 makers? Will LG lose by default because they singled out one specific device of a competitor? Only the courts will tell, and as usual with the court system, the results will be unpredictable.



Alby_da_Wolf on 02 March 2011
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?  Also, that Blu-ray is essential.  Afterall, they don't force liscensing of drugs do they?  That seems... more essential.

As far as I know, for it to be an "Essential Patent" it needs to be for the Industry standard.

Which Blu-ray is not.  DVD still is.  Even if it is considered and Industry Standard you'd have to prove those patents are essential and can't be worked around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

LG is founding member and member of the board of directors of the Blu-Ray Disc Association. This makes things different, as if those patents were essential for the standard, LG would have committed a "patent ambush". But as it filed a lawsuit, most probably this is not the case, so those patents must be used only in Sony's implementations. But in this case the infringing parts can be replaced, although it would take some time and a lot of money (not only for design and implementation, but also because damages already suffered by LG shold be compensated) to Sony to get out of troubles this way, so an agreement is the most probable outcome.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Alby_da_Wolf on 02 March 2011
drkohler said:
welshbloke said:

To chip in, I believe that if LG win that patent dispute they can force Sony to remove the infringement or they can choose to license. I do not think they can be forced to license the patent. It may have some legal wording wrapping around that and one of those may be term "essential" but we can already see two definitions in this thread.

The problem is not that easy. The patents essentially apply to _ANY_ Blu-ray drive. LG singled out the PS3, because it is somewhat "the device" and they solely want to piss off Sony for the cell-phone lawsuit. Why doesn't go LG after all the other 211252524 makers of Blu-ray devices who very likely also infringe on (some of) the specific copyrights? What happens if LG "wins" (there is no winning in such lawsuits) to the other 211252524 makers? Will LG lose by default because they singled out one specific device of a competitor? Only the courts will tell, and as usual with the court system, the results will be unpredictable.

If it's like you say, LG will lose for the reasons I wrote in my previous post, at least in EU where patent ambushes aren't allowed.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!