Firm Sues Sony Over Cell Processor

An anonymous reader writes that earlier this month, Sony received word of a lawsuit from a Newport Beach company called Parallel Processing. They've filed against the electronics giant alleging that the Cell processor, used in the PlayStation 3, infringes on a patent they own. They've made the somewhat outrageous demand that every infringing chip (and console) be 'impounded and destroyed'. From the article at Next Generation: "The patent, 'Synchronized Parallel Processing with Shared Memory' was issued in October 1991. It describes a high-speed computer that breaks down a program 'into smaller concurrent processes running in different parallel processors' and resynchronizes the program for faster processing times ... Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused 'irreparable harm and monetary damage' to the company."

What's next?

[vigmeister (1112659)]

Are they going to go after AMD and Intel for their multicore CPUs?

Cheers!

Re:What's next?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

No. Their patent appears to be directed at a specific subset of multiprocessing known as MIMD (Multiple Instruction Multiple Data) [wikipedia.org] processors. The key to their "invention" is a processor that sits in front of the various processing elements and divvies up the chores to ensure that all processor elements are well fed.

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM. I suppose it's probably tactical, especially since Sony is actually selling the chips as opposed to IBM who's mostly talking about them at this point. (IBM fabs the chips on Sony's behalf.)

It's hard to be sure, but this sounds like a patent troll case. The only thing that muddies the waters a bit is that this "International Parallel Machines, Inc." actually exists and sells products:

http://www.ipmiplc.com/ [ipmiplc.com]

Re:What's next?

[Frothy Walrus (534163)]

look at the site -- they make PLC's [wikipedia.org], not general-purpose processors. they're not losing a goddamn cent to Sony or IBM.

Re:What's next?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

Which makes little to no difference to patent applications. If you own a patent, the damages are in lost licensing fees for the patented technology. That's how inventors get rich. They patent an idea, then sell the rights to use the patent. Meanwhile, they get to stop working on their invention and rake in the dough.

My point about their business muddying the waters is that their business adds a certain amount of legitimacy to their claims of owning the rights to and licensing such technologies. It does not matter if they produce the tech themselves or not.

Re:What's next?

[rizzo320 (911761)]

look at the site -- they make PLC's, not general-purpose processors

Yes, it does seem they make "Patent Lawsuit Cases" :-)

Re:

[jd (1658)]

I'll give you an excellent reason for them suing Sony and not IBM. IBM is an 8000 lb. gorilla that has an army of vampiric lawyers so skillful they can not only draw blood from a stone, they can even draw blood from SCO. Sony's lawyers, on the other hand, have trouble with lawsuits against preteen fileswappers and computerless grannies. If you want to leech money, it's perfectly obvious which one you're more likely to leech successfully from.

And, no, the patent is not valid. Such devices have existed for

Re:What's next?

[jd (1658)]

Sequent's SHRIMP architecture was quite nice for this kind of work. (And you won't hear me say a whole lot nice about Sequent, having worked under Tim Witham - yes, the former OSDL guy - for some time.) The DoD was also developing with DARPA the iWarp [dtic.mil] engine. Download a copy of the report before it gets deleted by paranoid Homeland Insecurity guys! :)

I also saw a lot of self-organizing work on the Transputers. These were fairly low-power processors (but respectable for the time) that could be trivially wired into a mesh as large as you like. Processes could be divided by the hardware pretty much as the hardware liked. Both code and data could also be declared MOBILE.

Weird list of some historical events in parallel processing [vt.edu] - there's a few other examples in there.

Re:What's next?

[russotto (537200)]

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM.

IBM has been involved in the parallel processing field for a long time. I'm sure they have plenty of patents which pre-date and overlap this one and probably quite a few that International Parallel Machines is arguably infringing on.

The stuff in Claim 1 of the patent (5,056,000) is basic multi-processor stuff which certainly wasn't actually novel in 1989 (when the patent was filed). And the Cell doesn't seem to violate it anyway. It appears to be Claim 6 they are suing over. Claim 6 describes a particular way of partitioning processing power in a MIMD system, but again I doubt it was novel in 1989.

They may not be trolling. But if they go against IBM, or if IBM intervenes, I don't think they can win.

Re:What's next?

[*weasel (174362)]

My guess is that their addition to multi-core processing, and the meat of the alleged infringement, revolves around dynamic, exclusive assignment of chunks of shared memory to each worker core.

Setting up and stacking shared memory so that each worker core doesn't have to copy-in its working data set, nor copy out its results and still maintain data integrity gives a huge performance advantage. That is, core A is assigned shared memory chunk M1 exclusively, and when it's done processing, the control core assigns exclusive control of M1 to core B, so it can continue processing; Rather than core A copying in the contents of M1, then processing and then copying back out its results.

Simply shifting exclusive control saves you the time of shuffling all that data between each core and shared memory and lets do more with the same local-memory and memory bandwidth. Even today, most of the multi-threaded apps I've seen burn a considerable number of cycles copying 'shared' data in to a worker thread/core and results back out.

I would be surprised if that wasn't novel hardware design in 1989, though I'm certainly open to the possibility that it wasn't.
Before 1989 I was a bit more concerned with the health risks associated with exposure to cooties.

Re:

[dup_account (469516)]

Umm... Sounds like the perfect defense, since IBM co-developed it with them.... And IBM's prior art is just as good as anyone else' for invalidating a patent.

Re:

[klingens (147173)]

What chips is IBM making for AMD exactly?

From what I remember, IBM licensed/sold/whatever SOI-technology to AMD. Not actually doing any fabbing. AMD uses their own (Dresden) fabs and has Chartered (CPUs) and TSMC (ATI GPUs) doing some fabbing for them.

How many years?

[Gription (1006467)]

So this was patented in 1991 and a patent is good for 17 years.
They sure waited a long time to be "irreparably harmed...

Patent Link

[by Anonymous Coward]

Patent link [uspto.gov]. Should be in the summary, IMO.

Re:Patent Link

[alexhs (877055)]

Thanks for the link.

I was seeking who were "Parallel Processing Corp." (IP corp or are they actually producing something ?) but having such a generic name doesn't help,
and searching for
"parallel processing corp" [google.fr] / "parallel processing corporation" [google.fr] only gives links related to this lawsuit.

I found the filing [justia.com], and a short but interesting explanation here [edn.com]

Also when searching for "parallel processing" "newport beach", I found the related announcement [allbusiness.com] of Acacia Technologies [acaciaresearch.com].

There also seems to be quite a few events about parallel processing in Newport Beach, like the Seventh International Parallel Processing Symposium (April 13-16, 1993)

So has someone a clue about that "Parallel Processor Corp." ?

in other news...

[yorugua (697900)]

... Parallel Processing receives an undisclosed amount of cash from MS.

Thanks god IBM quit building those RS/6000 SP2 system parallel thingies.

Not like the Immersion rumble case

[tepples (727027)]

Parallel Processing receives an undisclosed amount of cash from MS.

You mean like in the Immersion case, where Microsoft settled and licensed the methods and Nintendo turned out to have been licensing it all along? This case appears very different. Unlike the traditional 3-core symmetric multiprocessor in the Xbox 360, the Cell CPU is a 1-core CPU connected to several programmable DSPs, each of which has its own address space. This asymmetric NUMA scheme is what the first claim of the patent [uspto.gov] appears to describe.

not quite outrageous

[mr_death (106532)]

They've made the somewhat outrageous demand that every infringing chip (and console) be 'impounded and destroyed'.

The US Constitution gives inventors "... the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." If they do win at trial, destruction of every infringing device is within their rights.

Whether they have a proper patent, and if Sony infringes on that patent, is an exercise for the reader and jury.

Re:not quite outrageous

[swillden (191260)]

The US Constitution gives inventors "... the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

No, it doesn't. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to grant exclusive rights (for limited times). The distinction is important, because Congress still gets to decide if such rights should be granted and what their precise scope should be.

If they do win at trial, destruction of every infringing device is within their rights.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I haven't studied patent law much, but I do know that the purpose of patent law is to encourage the use of new inventions, so giving that much power to the patent holder would defeat the purpose. The law and the courts don't look kindly on patent owners who want to lock up the technology and prevent anyone from using it. Instead, what they want to see is patent licensing, so that inventors are compensated for their work and for their decision to publish their invention via the patent process, but so that the invention is used for the benefit of the society who funds the enforcement of the law.

In the case of infringement, courts look for the most equitable way to repair the damage to the plaintiff, and there's no way that ordering Sony to buy back and destroy every PS3 is equitable. It would be unnecessarily injurious to all of the innocent people who bought PS3s and would force Sony to pay amounts that far exceed the value of the processors in the units (since Sony would have to buy back and destroy the entire units, not just the CPUs). Not only that, but it would do little or nothing to make the plaintiff whole, since they wouldn't get a penny from such destruction. It would be an absolutely senseless remedy and if any court ordered it, it would be overturned on appeal.

The plaintiff can ask for whatever remedy they want, but this one is pure grandstanding, and there's no way they can believe that they would get it -- and it's extremely unlikely that they even want it.

Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers

[dreamchaser (49529)]

IBM holds a lot of the IP that goes into the Cell. They have a very good legal department. This little company may just have bitten off more than they can chew.

I can see the IBM lawyers now..."Hmmm, interesting. Yes it may be possible that you have something there on this one patent. Let's see..." ruffles through a huge stack of papers in front of him. "However, we've discovered that you're also in violation of these 127 patents of ours. Now, shall we deal?"

Re:

[Halo1 (136547)]

Obligatory IBM v. Sun [forbes.com].

California + Tokyo = Texas?

[jedidiah (1196)]

What I find a bit odd and perhaps suspicious about this whole thing is the fact that this case is being filed not where this company seems to be located, and not where any Sony offices are located but in TEXAS. Why isn't this being adjudicated in LA or San Diego?

What do they think the bumpkins in Tyler might gain them?

It also seems bizarre that they are bringing suit only now. This product has been on sale to the general public for quite awhile. This means that it has been available to developers for ages. Why didn't this get nipped in the bud while the units were still game studio prototypes rather than waiting until Sony made and shipped a million of them?

Re:California + Tokyo = Texas?

[catbutt (469582)]

Well it's usually nearby Marshall Texas that patent cases are filed in. They have very patent friendly (and expedient) courts there. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall_texas _patent_central.html [overlawyered.com]

Re:

[mr_death (106532)]

Tyler is a famous federal district where patent holders get better results, on average, at trial.

Why filing here isn't considered "forum shopping" isn't clear, but then again, I don't live in the same universe as lawyers do.

Re:California + Tokyo = Texas?

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is well known in patent and IP litigation. It's frequently called the "second rocket docket" (the 4th District, in Virginia, being the original one) because of its rules for discovery, and very firm deadlines during trials. They also have a jury pool that's pretty conservative, arguably biased towards rightsholders, and judges that are receptive towards patent plaintiffs (certainly moreso than the average jury pool in the 9th District, which includes California).

However some people have speculated that since rolling out the red carpet for patent cases, that they're beginning to become overwhelmed:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=110354972899 8 [law.com]

Concept

[jshriverWVU (810740)]

After reading the patent the one thing that popped in my mind that is "similar" to the Cell concept is the idea of having 1 master node CPU to help direct the remaining CPU's.

While most dual/quad systems, the program or OS itself takes care the threading. With Cell and apparently this patent the master CPU helps take care of that. Still not a very patent. As the concept of a master node and slaves nodes for parallel processing has been around for decades. Just those tend to be 1 computer acting as a master with other slave "computer" nodes. Just in this patents case they're replacing "computer" with "CPU"

Personally I hope Sony wins.

hmmm.

[apodyopsis (1048476)]

from TFA "Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused "irreparable harm and monetary damage" to the company.".

Oh, Really?

Did they mean to say "Parallel Processing said that Sony's alleged actions have caused an opportunity to turn a fairly wide ranging patent that is useless on its own into some solid income via legal means.".

So they waited to see if the console was selling then hit them with a law suit so Sony would be more inclined to settle quick?

I am getting quite sick of IP trolls and patents that are so broadly phrased that they cover anything from toothpaste to nuclear physics. (disclaimer, I have not read the patent yet - but I am assuming that Sony carried out patent searches before building the Cell). And on that subject - why is the suite against Sony in particular not against the other members of the consortium that developed the Cell.

I hope Sony sees them in court instead of folding.

Well let's pick it apart.

[Aladrin (926209)]

1 - "a plurality of multi-access memory modules;"

The PS3 does apparently use 4 RAM chips, but they don't appear to be multi-access. Elpida makes them, and I couldn't find ANY of their offerings that were 'multi-access'.

2 - "2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the number of processors is equal to the number of multi-access memory modules."

Ouch, pretty sure there's 7 cores to that Cell processor, and NOT 7 RAM chips. (There's 4.)

6 - "including a plurality of multi-access memory modules,"

Too bad, guys, you lost your lawsuit before you started. The others are all based on 1 or 6, and losing both of those kills the whole thing for sure.

Re:Well let's pick it apart.

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

The PS3 does apparently use 4 RAM chips, but they don't appear to be multi-access. Elpida makes them, and I couldn't find ANY of their offerings that were 'multi-access'.

This is not about the PS3, it's about the Cell found in the PS3. The local memory of each SPU is multi-access; it can be accessed by the SPU itself and the DMA engines responsible for SPU to SPU transfer and SPU to or from main memory transfer.

Ouch, pretty sure there's 7 cores to that Cell processor, and NOT 7 RAM chips. (There's 4.)

Each SPU has 256KB of local memory. The number of SPUs is equal to the number of SPU-local memory modules.

The claims you have listed all apply to the Cell. I haven't read the patent, so I don't know about the others.

I am no fan of Sony, but...

[Bullfish (858648)]

I think we have to acknowledge once and for all that for too many companies the purpose of a patent is to hide in a blind and wait for someone who has brains to make a go of something similar enough and resources to sue rather than make a product of their own.

It is sheer parasitism.

Just try it!

[Brett Buck (811747)]

They can have my PS3 when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands!

I have a completely fair solution.

[seebs (15766)]

How about this: Let's just award them the full profits Sony's realized from the PS3 up through the date of the lawsuit.

Every penny.

I think this would be an eminently fair solution, and I'm confident Sony would accept it.

Sony's response:

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

every infringing chip (and console) be 'impounded and destroyed'.

Fine. But we're not helping you find either of the two we sold.

Re:hah

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's all stroke ours Wiis over this news.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's okay, Parallel Processing could only have found out about the patent infringement by violation of the DMCA and illegal hacking of Sonys PS3 - so they'll be going to jail for a long time.

Re:Impractical

[toQDuj (806112)]

I don't think there ever was an "impound and destroy" precedent in patent law. It is completely ridiculous, and the only reason I see them doing it is so they have a starting point for a haggle-structure. You start with something completely preposterous, and any further proposal will come over as somewhat reasonable.

B.

Re:Impractical

[russotto (537200)]

I don't think there ever was an "impound and destroy" precedent in patent law.

Polaroid v. Kodak. All of Kodak's infringing cameras had to be recalled and destroyed.

You don't get it.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

They don't want to have every PS3 impounded and destroyed. They want MONEY. By pushing for nuclear option they hope Sony will pay them off. They probably know that they don't have a chance to win in court but by making the stakes so high they are hoping that Sony will just give them a few million to go away.
If they where just asking for damages then Sony would without a doubt go to court and beat this case. So they want to push the risk level to a point that Sony will just offer them a wad of cash to get them out of their hair.
If they did recall all the PS3 Son would instantly loose not just the console race but it would also kill Blue Ray since the PS3 is the most popular Blue Ray player on the planet.
My guess is that Sony will smack them down anyway but it is a good gamble.

"Impounding and destorying"

[nurb432 (527695)]

One rule of suits: Demand the moon, negotiate for the sky, but be willing to accept the ground.

Re:

[biocute (936687)]

Do you really think people are going to volunteer to have their PS3 destroyed because you patented the computer processing version of the assembly line?

Yes. That's why we heard people are installing, uninstalling and reinstalling Windows all the times. Now we know it's not because it is unstable.

Re:How would that work?

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

Stuff has been destroyed in the past by court orded (usually unsafe items). They dont go after the end user, they just get warrants against warehouses and then the court makes them dispose of the remaining product. The manufacturer tries a recall/rebate too.

The fact that this is even possible is further proof that the patent system is really useless.

Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl

[Epi-man (59145)]

What are Sony's lawyers going to patent next - using MPP (multiple parallel painters) to paint a house?

At least read the headline and figure out who's holding the patents.

Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl

[sjf (3790)]

More to the point, can we ensure that those who modded this up never get mod points again ?

Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent

[u-bend (1095729)]

Dear brain processor dude: this is God. Cease and desist. I own the patent on brains. Have a nice day.

Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

I believe your patent, filed in 4004BC, expired 5991 years ago.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

but the copyright for the software running the brain (the trully interesting stuff) is still in effect - remember liftime of author + 70 years.

Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent

[by Anonymous Coward]

The copyright expired in 1952, seven decades after Nietzsche pronounced God dead in 1882. The first commercially sold computer, UNIVAC I, was also delivered in 1952. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent

[drawfour (791912)]

2 Peter 3:8 [biblegateway.com] says, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I'm sure He opts for "a thousand years are like a day", so he's had the patent just over 6 days. He still has a LONG time left on His patent!

Re:Transputer?

[maroberts (15852)]

I was asking myself the same question.

Transputers date back to the early/mid-'80s and patents therefore are out of date.

IIRC, each transputer had its own memory; it didn't share it.

Re:Use it or lose it

[AndersOSU (873247)]

No, and no. There is a time honored tradition called the submarine patent, where you patent something, wait for someone else to develop it, wait some more for it to become profitable, and then sue. See NTP v. RIM for case in point, or read about the patent shenanigans surrounding the invention of the LASER (back when it was still capitalized).

Now, I know that some of you are out there saying the enemy of my enemy... But really it is nonsense like this that causes the big dogs to file so many stupid patents. If they don't patent the stupid and obvious, someone else might - and then sue them for it.

More companies need to see the light like IBM and realize that all patents after the first thousand or so are a liability, not an asset, and a cost, not an investment. Soon, after more suits like this start happening (look to the pharma and chemical industries) more major companies will start lobbying for patent reform, and then we might get something accomplished.

Re:Irreparable Harm (properly formatted)

[MadEE (784327)]

Fair question. If you think about it, they aren't going to alienate Sony by their irrational demands; they are already filing a lawsuit, which is enough to alienate just about anybody.

Lawsuits happen most businesses accept this fact and move on, simply getting sued is not something that most businesses take personally. Suing for unreasonable demands and publicizing the suit likely will.

It's much more desirable to negotiate down from "give me the moon, and throw yourself on your own sword" to some reasonabl