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."
hah (Score:2)
Re:hah (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers!
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:What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it does seem they make "Patent Lawsuit Cases"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
How many years? (Score:3)
They sure waited a long time to be "irreparably harmed...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, no, the patent is not valid. Such devices have existed for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Sony's defence would revolve around prior art and the 'plurality of multi access memory modules equal to the number of cores' part. I don't buy their patent infringement argument for a variety of reasons (others have pointed these out and more).
I should have stated that I expected them to try and go after AMD/Intel if they won this lawsuit (highly unlikely- I hope...). Reason I say that is... If the memory module count did not deter them from trying to sue Sony,
Patent Link (Score:5, Informative)
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." ?
in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks god IBM quit building those RS/6000 SP2 system parallel thingies.
Not like the Immersion rumble case (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:2)
Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Infringes my "electronic brain" patent (Score:5, Funny)
multics - prior art - 70s (Score:2)
In a related story (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's within their rights to request, but court precedent tends to favor a more rational approach to damages. They would have to prove that the continued existence of these devices poses some sort of additional potential damage over and above a merely monetary judgment, I think, in order for anything like that to be decided.
In the unlikely event this company wins and their patent remains valid, the most likely outcome is
SmashMyPS3 (Score:2, Funny)
Do they know who they are messing with? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why just Sony? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a patent troll and Sony should to the public service to have this case dismissed (or fight an endless line of trolls) and then sue them out of existence.
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?"
Re: (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 hug
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory IBM v. Sun [forbes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It's very interesting that t
Re: (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 Sto
Re: (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 patent
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: (Score:2)
Re:California + Tokyo = Texas? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To quote the movie 'Sweet Home Alabama', "Honey, just cuz I talk slow doesn't mean I'm stupid."
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
First off, Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc is a Delaware company by its incorporation. I would be interested in knowing Parallel Processing Corporation's incorporation, which could be Texas. It could be a move for a 'dumber' jury, but is more likely a move for an objective vs. a subjective jury.
PPC (I love that name) could be referring to the methodology that IBM is using with the cell processor and since the PS3 is the first prevalent cell processor-based product, PPC might have a better case once
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Concept (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (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: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: (Score:2)
"each of said processors further including local memory, whereby one or more of said processors processes data in its local memory before, after, and during a phase of processing;"
Yes, further including the local memory, which means it is NOT the multi-access memory they are stating.
No infringement here. (Score:2)
Anyone can see that the Cell processor does not infringe this claim. If the computer did the breaking down thingie, then the Cell processor wouldn't be such a pain to program.
I am no fan of Sony, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is sheer parasitism.
Irreparable Harm (Score:2)
How the heck is being utterly unreasonable supposed to help their case? It's one thing to start kicking and screaming 2 years after a product has been rel
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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
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 reasonabl
irreparable harm and monetary damage (Score:2)
copyright infringement? (Score:2)
International Parallel Machines Inc. v. International Business Machines Co.
Probably not illegal, but it sure is fishy.
having read the claims... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Just try it! (Score:3, Funny)
What the hell are they talking about? (Score:2)
I have a completely fair solution. (Score:3, Funny)
Every penny.
I think this would be an eminently fair solution, and I'm confident Sony would accept it.
Sony's response: (Score:3, Funny)
Fine. But we're not helping you find either of the two we sold.
Re:Impractical (Score:5, Insightful)
B.
Re:Impractical (Score:5, Informative)
Polaroid v. Kodak. All of Kodak's infringing cameras had to be recalled and destroyed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since Polaroid makes money from film (the
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more along the lines of making headlines so people will take notice of their crappy company before the suit gets thrown out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I think that with the making of the PS1, Sony started the process of loosing the console race. It was then that we knew that there were multiple manufacturers who could compete with Nintendo, and the race was on.
If this happened it would probably do the opposite - tying the race back down - with everything in the hands of Nintendo again.
Of course, lawyers loose means everyone will lose at least a little.
"Impounding and destorying" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that this is even possible is further proof that the patent system is really useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl (Score:2)
Re:Cray had prior art/implementation a decade earl (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks have a requirement to enforce it or lose it.
Re:Use it or lose it (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
However, a patent is a completely different beast - you have it, and can sleep on it. The so-called submarine patents appear from time to time, and in some cases the infringing company pays (Microsoft and its Internet Explorer versus some company with a patent for active content in browsers ended with Microsoft paying)
Re: (Score:2)
Your only hope is that the patents in my loft expire before I find them.
Re: (Score:2)
Laches (Score:2)
Isn't there some sort of limit to just patenting stuff and then holding it for years before you do anything?
Yes: 20 years after filing, or 6 years after the assignee becomes aware of infringing activity [wikipedia.org], or less if the alleged infringer can prove "prejudicial delay" (that is, the patent holder waited to take action on purpose in order to harm the alleged infringer). Would a judge likely find that the delay between the publication of the Cell architecture white papers and the filing of the lawsuit is long enough to be prejudicial?
submarine patent (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The company in question *does* manufacture and sell multi-processor hardware of the type specified in their patents.