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]

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

Cheers!

Re:Impractical

[toQDuj]

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.

You don't get it.

[LWATCDR]

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.

Concept

[jshriverWVU]

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]

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.

Re:What's next?

[Frothy Walrus]

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.

I am no fan of Sony, but...

[Bullfish]

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.

Re:Use it or lose it

[AndersOSU]

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:What's next?

[AKAImBatman]

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?

[jd]

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 thirty years, albeit mostly in research labs and Universities. Prior art is prior art, however, and Sony needs only one example that is close enough to invalidate the patent.

It is just possible that this lawsuit is funded by Microsoft or some other console manufacturer, in an effort to throw legalistic mud at Sony's console and thus boost sales of their own. Same way SCO tried to boost their sales by throwing legalistic mud at Linux. I would not rule that out just yet, as this may well impact sales. People aren't going to want to buy a console they can't do anything with and will have to destroy a few weeks later under court orders.

having read the claims...

[PatentMagus]

Recall that the claims define the patented invention. Always start reading at the claims, then look to the specification to determine what the claims mean (if necessary). Reading the abstract or specification gives little clue to what is actually patented.

So, I read the claims.

The only semi-unique thing there are the synchronization signals combined with standard MIMD architecture circa 1989. Yes, the transputer predates this patent and is likely to void it. There was a lot of other parallel 'puter research in the mid 80s including hyper cubes and other interconnection schemes. This is when "threading" was introduced into unix (versus the heavier process level stuff). They all used signals to report back that they were done, dead, or ready. The old math coprocessors in IBM PCs might be prior art.

Sony can get this patent tossed, but is more likely to throw the plaintiff a settlement to make it go away. Patent litigation is very expensive. It's often cheaper to just settle.

Why wait so long? The patent is almost expired! gotta use it before it's gone. Also, how much of the engineering level prior art still exists?

Why ask for every infringing device to be impounded/destoryed? Why not? It's within the law to seek that remedy even if it can't be reasonably performed. Since it can't be performed, they'll take money.

Oh yeah, the "impound 'em all" and "irreparable harm" stuff is boiler plate.

Re:What's next?

[dup_account]

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:How would that work?

[mr_matticus]

A court order requiring that businesses destroy what you yourself admit are usually unsafe items is proof that the human system is really useless.

You play at the level of the field. Humanity doesn't set the bar very high for an enlightened legal system.

Divorce yourself from the idea that patents shouldn't exist for a moment and accept that they do (you can return to your normal anti-IP machinations in a moment). Given that basic assumption, the conclusion is reasonable. If you enforce patents with a "don't do that!" notice, nothing happens. The company must either pay enough to be discouraged or it must be punished in some other way--destroying the unsold product and forced to mount a costly recall, for example. Capitalist companies respond more or less only to money; taking money away from them is the most effective way to get them to stop doing something wrong. In point of fact, strong consequences are a prerequisite to a functioning system, precisely contrary to your statement.

Violating a controlling law, be it a safety law, import law, consumer protection law, or even a patent makes a product unfit for sale. That's true even if 99.9% of your cans of chili are perfectly good. You might find patents absurd, but I'll bet that there's a group of people who think consumer protection laws are absurd, too. They could make a compelling case about free markets and personal responsibility, but at the end of the day, consumer laws aren't going anywhere and neither are patents, and all for good reason.

Re:What's next?

[Intron]

Back in the 70s C.mmp used a crossbar switch to connect multiple shared memory to multiple processors with local memory. It covers claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 but claims 4 and 5 appear to allow a processor to simultaneously write data to multiple memories (local and shared). I can't think of a parallel architecture that did this.