MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Jul 07, 09 - 04:44 pm Comment from: Wandering Joe

And they just thought about this two years after the fact...???

Jul 07, 09 - 04:46 pm Comment from: Burlyman007

Ridiculous claim.

Like trying to say that I patented the steering column while everyone else was busy making them.

Jul 07, 09 - 04:53 pm Comment from: ID Argyll

Isn't this one of those sue everyone and hope to get some big money to avoid scandal type lawsuits?

Jul 07, 09 - 05:09 pm Comment from: Lilochris

Damn, even Sony gets sued for Patent Infringements on a game console thats been around since 2000. 9 Years??

Nintendo Wii Since 2006

Apples iPhone since 2007

And they wait until the products are a world wide success to then sue.

Jul 07, 09 - 05:14 pm Comment from: db

I find this all a little fuzzy...

Are Apple, Sony and Nintendo really the ones who should be sued? Shouldn't it be the company that designs the component that gets sued?

When Apple et al. say, "We want a chip that can do this, can you make it for us?" isn't it that chip company's job to look up the patents?

For example, if I buy a camera that has very precise specs i need to run my business, and it turns out that camera infringes a patent, I shouldn't be sued. It should be the one that made the camera without checking patents that gets sued.

I'm not saying Shared Memory Graphics doesn't have a legitimate case... I'm just saying I think they're attacking the wrong guys. Yes, it would drive up component prices if the chip company actually had to pay licensing fees, but that's not really Apple, Sony or Nintendo's problem, really, is it? They can choose to buy or not buy from that company.

Are there some law afficionados here that know more than I do on this that might be able to clear this up?

Jul 07, 09 - 05:42 pm Comment from: alansky

There should be a statute of limitations on how many years can elapse between a product's release and the filing of a lawsuit for patent infringement in connection with that product.

Jul 07, 09 - 06:05 pm Comment from: MizuInOz

@alansky
There is a statue of limitations - it is called the life of the patent in the issuing country.

@et. al. others in the thread.
FYI - When you file an infringement lawsuit, you file on every possible violation. You cannot pick and choose. Otherwise, it can be argued that you are not fully protecting your patent. that is why the end suppliers (in this case) are being sued.

Jul 07, 09 - 06:08 pm Comment from: RamaFan

@alansky

Amen. Yet another case of 'we had the same idea first...awww we didn't make as much money as you so we'll sue you'.

This type of thing has BS written all over it.

Jul 07, 09 - 06:29 pm Comment from: Gordon Horne

From the original article:

The technology initially was patented by Alliance Semiconductor, although it was eventually sold to a holding company. Shared Memory Graphics was formed just last month and received rights to both patents.

Despite the availability of each product for years, the filing does not suggest the companies were previously notified of the infringement or provided an opportunity to negotiate privately.

The article does not mention if the component manufacturers are also being sued, nor does it provide links to allow readers to determine this for themselves.

You never know what has gone on behind the scenes in these types of cases. The problem that is going to keep cropping up again and again is a patent filed for some broad, very general use (i.e., delivering data over a wireless network) and someone suing over it.

The real problem is that the patent system just isn't set up to handle the rapid pace that new technology is being developed, particularly in the software/computer hardware industries.

I think we're going to see some restrictions placed on patents which have already been granted but which are so broad that they basically include anyone looking at a computer or putting together anything resembling a computer. Otherwise the courts will be locked in endless patent suits, and companies may wind up being unable to innovate or having to raise the prices on their products due to licensing fees, which will be passed on the the consumer.

Jul 07, 09 - 08:57 pm Comment from: Krioni

@MizuInOz:

Actually, you are wrong about having to sue everyone. That kind of diligent defense is more applicable to trademarks. Generally, patent holders can pick and choose whoever they think has the deepest pockets or is most willing to settle.

Jul 07, 09 - 09:25 pm Comment from: alansky

@MizuInOz:

I mean a reasonable statute of limitations. What we have now is patently insane, as it were.

Jul 08, 09 - 04:34 am Comment from: Macdoc

More lawyers looking for a payday!

Jul 08, 09 - 04:32 pm Comment from: db

@alansky

"What we have now is patently insane, as it were."

No pun intended?

Jul 13, 09 - 07:08 am Comment from: TA

@ db

Well, look at it this way.
You buy something, you don't know how the guy you bought it from got it. If it's stolen, then it's both you and the seller that get's in trouble, it's both you and his responsibility to know if it's legal or not, it's not just the seller that gets the law on his neck, it's also the buyer.