Firm Sues Sony Over Cell Processor 330
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."
Patent Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl (Score:1, Informative)
link to actual patent (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl (Score:4, Informative)
At least read the headline and figure out who's holding the patents.
Well let's pick it apart. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Transputer? (Score:4, Informative)
Transputers date back to the early/mid-'80s and patents therefore are out of date.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:California + Tokyo = Texas? (Score:4, Informative)
Not like the Immersion rumble case (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's next? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Well let's pick it apart. (Score:4, Informative)
The claims you have listed all apply to the Cell. I haven't read the patent, so I don't know about the others.
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Impractical (Score:5, Informative)
Polaroid v. Kodak. All of Kodak's infringing cameras had to be recalled and destroyed.
Re:California + Tokyo = Texas? (Score:5, Informative)
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=11035497289
Re:Patent Link (Score:4, Informative)
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." ?
Re:not quite outrageous (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
submarine patent (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Irreparable Harm (properly formatted) (Score:3, Informative)
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 reasonable compensation than to attempt a more rational-sounding "pay me $5 million, and ten cents per unit henceforth" approach which would get laughed off and negotiated down to $50 and a cup of coffee by Sony.
Perhaps for the lawyer paid by the hour. Most lawyers don't go into these things blind, they have a good idea of their chances and how much litigation is going to cost and the trade-off point for settling. The ask for the sky strategy only drags things out and increases your costs paying lawyers to bounce offers off each other. The only time outrageous claims would be a positive is if they places a trade-off far higher then you expect and come back with a counter offer far higher then you really wanted. That virtually never happens and usually starting with a high but reasonable offer would yield similar results. Regardless it's fine an good (but may not be smart) to ask for the moon when negotiating outside of court. This ceased being negotiation when they filed a lawsuit. The lawyers will need to present this to a judge with a straight face and have quite real possibility of pissing of a judge or jury with the absurdity of damanges. It's a bad strategy all around.
Re:Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers (Score:3, Informative)
The blue suits stand up and say, "Well, we can go back to our vault and find another patent."
Sun took out a license.
Moral of the Story: Walking up to IBM and suing them for patent infringement is a dumb idea.
Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:1, Informative)
The AC
Sony Knew? (Score:2, Informative)
"Oddly enough, Sony's own patent, filed in 2001 and issued in 2007, actually lists the 1991 patent as a citation. In other words, Sony's own patent lawyers have already seen the old patent and deemed it not to be a threat, and the U.S. Patent Office apparently agreed when it issued Sony the patent in June."
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/13725/ps
There may be very little ammo in this suit.