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."
not quite outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Do they know who they are messing with? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:What's next? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:How would that work? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that this is even possible is further proof that the patent system is really useless.
Re:California + Tokyo = Texas? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers (Score:2, Interesting)
This only works if this company suing Sony has any business activities in this field. Even if they did, the company can stop it and Sony's claim for damage is small one.
Then if this small company win, it is huge financial damage to Sony. So the company are hoping Sony may negotiate terms. This company is like trrorist taking hostage.
The only way is to crash the company's IP position using all available legal means including method to induce huge drain of money for this small company. If expense gets too big, this small company will be broke before finishing the case. That is modern big company strategy dealing with these IP terrorists. Nasty, yes. But these IP terrorists are nasty too.
Re:You don't get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:California + Tokyo = Texas? (Score:2, Interesting)
I can also attest that there is no interest in Intellectual Property Rights as mentioning IP is a great conversation stopper (as opposed more interesting topics such as hunting, fishing, trucks, or weather).
But the real reason has to do with the expidited and cheap legal process set up in neighboring Marshall, TX (frequently and well covered in slashdot) that gives patent trolls the most bang for their buck.
The plantiff can raise suit anywhere Sony sells their PSP's so naturally they don't want to do it on Sony's home turf.
Re:Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory IBM v. Sun [forbes.com].
Re:Impractical (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Impractical (Score:3, Interesting)
Since Polaroid makes money from film (the cameras are loss leaders) I never understood why they didn't work out a deal with Kodak by which they (Pol) would make film and Kodak could continue making the cameras, but was enjoined from the film side (obviously Kodak would shortly quit making the cameras on their own).
-nB
Re:What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:hah (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't mess with IBM's IP Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately the defensive patent portfolio only works if you're not being sued by a patent-holding firm. If they're not actually doing anything but litigating, chances are they're not violating any patents, I think (IANAL). I'm not sure that's the case here, though.