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?

[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?

[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" :-)

Patent Link

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

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?"

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?

[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]

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:hah

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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: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: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: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.