backtop

Gadgets Sony Sued Over Cell Broadband Engine
Marcus Yam (Blog) - August 1, 2007 9:25 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by MisterChristop.. on Aug 8 at 4:51 AM

The Cell Broadband Engine as it resides in the PS3  (Source: DailyTech)
Calif-based company claims that the PS3 CPU infringes on its 15 year-old patent

Sony is yet again a target for a patent infringement lawsuit, this time regarding the centerpiece of its latest games console.

Newport Beach, Calif.-based Parallel Processing Corporation claims that the Cell Broadband Engine, the innovative processor that powers every PlayStation 3 and several IBM servers, infringes upon a patent that was filed more than 15 years ago.

Patent number 5,056,000, titled “Synchronized parallel processing with shared memory,” describes “a high speed computer that permits the partitioning of a single computer program into smaller concurrent processes running in different parallel processors. The program execution time is divided into synchronous phases, each of which may require a shared memory to be configured in a distinct way. At the end of each execution phase, the processors are resynchronized such that the composite system will be in a known state at a known point in time. The computer makes efficient use of hardware such that n processors can solve a problem almost n times as fast as a single processor.”

Parallel Processing Corporation filed the suit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Sony, stating that the use of the Cell Broadband Engine in the PlayStation 3 “are causing irreparable harm and monetary damage” to the company. The lawsuit is seeking damages, attorney fees and an injunction against the Japanese electronics company.

It is unclear why Parallel Processing Corporation chose to only file suit against Sony when the Cell Broadband Engine was a joint development project with Sony, Toshiba and IBM.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What a $*!* patent
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 9:31:19 AM , Rating: 5
What exact IP is protected by that patent?

Do they need a patent on knowing how to fucking breath in and out too?




RE: What a $*!* patent
By Cobra Commander on 8/1/2007 9:38:01 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with potty-mouth here. The patent is too vague and broad. It fundamentally prohibits fair competition amongst the real players of semiconductors, let alone some pissant company.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By omnicronx on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a $*!* patent
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 11:14:42 AM , Rating: 3
They didn't think of the "idea" first.

Indeed, the thought that breaking up a problem into several smaller chunks to get it done quicker could constitute an "idea" is silly.

When the eygptians built the pyramids, did they cut one pyramid sized stone from the mountain and trail it down the Nile to Cairo?

Maybe they should have got a patent on that huh?


RE: What a $*!* patent
By Oregonian2 on 8/1/2007 2:34:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Indeed, the thought that breaking up a problem into several smaller chunks to get it done quicker could constitute an "idea" is silly.


I'm sure it's not that which is in the patent, or if it is, I'm sure it's in a clause of it's own (with the proper verbage that makes each claim separate). As to writing things generically, that's the job of a patient attorney (I've two) else the patent can be gotten around by just slightly twisting one's implementation of your idea as to not match the verbage -- but still taking the idea.

Idea of having multiple processors to break up something big has been around forever. Having an architecture where it would actually work and be faster and not be even slower than one processor (due to added overhead that skyrockets as the number of processors increase) has been the award winning problem to be solved.

The key to their claim (from what I've seen) is the bit about synchronized processor activity, the special memory handling and resyncing. All that can be complicated and would be the heart of their IP -- and something not so obvious.

It's like asking why an NFL QB is paid so much when all they have to know is to throw the ball to the person who is open. So simple! It's the details of implementation where the value is gained.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By rtrski on 8/1/2007 9:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this kind of 'garbage' being defined as "IP" by being given a patent is what makes the proposed law strengthening for violating IP (or even attempting to do so) scary.

I see no real issue with considering a failed attempt at doing something illicit just as culpable as being successful, e.g. both attempted murder and murder are crimes. But when "IP" can get defined so haphazardly, it opens the door for all sorts of abuse by those 'squatting' on ridiculously vague "IP" and could squelch innovation as well as protect it.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By Adonlude on 8/3/2007 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is definately a fine line but patent protection is necessary for a safe innovative culture to thrive. There are companies out there that are working hard to come up with tomorrows ideas with the sole intention of patenting it so that they can make money when someone with the means to realize their vision does so.

If this system of patents was not in place than many many ideas would be hidden and possibly never acted upon unless said ideas just happened to come from one of the few big boys capable of doing the prototyping, manufacturing, and marketing.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By MisterChristopher on 8/8/2007 4:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is a good comment. How do I moderate so I can rate this up?


RE: What a $*!* patent
By Screwballl on 8/1/2007 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 3
I thought most patents became public domain after 7 years??? Either way there is no way to only sue this one company when Intel is working on a 80 core processor that works much liek the one described in the patent... and I am sure other companies are as well.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By leidegre on 8/1/2007 1:02:29 PM , Rating: 3
I accidently down rated you, sorry for that. I totally agree, soon there will be a patent for how to exhale, so people have to pay to not hold thier breath, becuase it's a novel and sound invention called breathing...


RE: What a $*!* patent
By rdeegvainl on 8/3/2007 2:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I have a patent pending on holding your breath.


RE: What a $*!* patent
By ira176 on 8/1/2007 11:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's time to file another just in case patent. Just in case a company out there who actually has understanding of technological applications and designs something on their own, and the product takes off, I can get rich suing them! Why, because I can. I can't be bothered actually making the item for which I patented, (though I admittedly don't know how to make it, nor ever intended on making it, or selling the idea).


Toshiba was part of the Cell?
By GreenyMP on 8/1/2007 9:39:45 AM , Rating: 3
I find it interesting that companies like Toshiba and Sony can be bitter rivals in the HD format wars and still work together on a project like the Cell. Good for them.




RE: Toshiba was part of the Cell?
By killerroach on 8/1/2007 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yep... Sony, Toshiba, and IBM have (had?) a joint-venture in semiconductor research and development.

As to why only suing Sony... Sony's proven that they'll settle. The patent holder-troll hopes to use some quick cash from a settlement from Sony to go after IBM and Toshiba, and, after that, they probably hope to pursue Intel and AMD. That being said, various other tech site lurkers have been showing more than a few examples of prior art to the patent, which should hopefully mean that this gets tossed out of court in a hurry.

Tech patents have gotten so absurd that it's getting to the point where almost any code more complex than "Hello World" is infringing on numerous patents...


RE: Toshiba was part of the Cell?
By Griswold on 8/1/2007 10:44:34 AM , Rating: 1
They will hit a concrete wall when they try to pull this stunt on IBM, considering IBMs history of dealing with such lawsuits.

Thats also the reason, as you mentioned, why they knock on sonys door first. Sony will put the money down and we'll never hear anything of this again.


RE: Toshiba was part of the Cell?
By Moishe on 8/1/2007 10:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why wouldn't Sony and IBM both stonewall them? I would think the lawsuit would necessarily target everyone involved in designing Cell and not just one party.

The patent is truly applicable, and it's granted, but it's been so long unenforced that this seems like a money-grab.


By thereaderrabbit on 8/1/2007 1:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Between Sony, Toshiba, and IBM, I'd say Sony is the weakest link. They have the most to loose and the have the least experience between each of these companies with computer chips.

Attacking IBM would be the worst move they could make. IBM has an excellent track record when it comes to patent disputes, and they are the most likely of the three to be able to demonstrate prior art.

I think this case will come down to Toshiba and IBMs willingness help back Sony up (and defend the Cell BE chip). If this case is won, this upstart will have a patent on the groundwork for the next generation CPUs.

-Reader


RE: Toshiba was part of the Cell?
By oTAL (blog) on 8/1/2007 11:31:44 AM , Rating: 5
You wrote a "Hello World" program?
I believe you are infringing on my patent for "Hello <any planet>" code!!!


By rdeegvainl on 8/3/2007 2:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
but they aren't choosing a planet, but all planets and everything else as well. You think to small.
All your IP are belong to US!!!


That will cover all processors soon
By mdogs444 on 8/1/2007 9:38:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Patent number 5,056,000, titled “Synchronized parallel processing with shared memory,” describes “a high speed computer that permits the partitioning of a single computer program into smaller concurrent processes running in different parallel processors. The program execution time is divided into synchronous phases, each of which may require a shared memory to be configured in a distinct way. At the end of each execution phase, the processors are resynchronized such that the composite system will be in a known state at a known point in time. The computer makes efficient use of hardware such that n processors can solve a problem almost n times as fast as a single processor.”


Wouldn't this pretty much cover all dual core, quad core, etc processors in the near future when applications are going to be multithreaded, allowing each core to do a equal portion of the work to potentially save proportional amount of time?




By FITCamaro on 8/1/2007 9:57:40 AM , Rating: 3
The short answer. Yes.

It covers any multi-core CPU operating in a threaded environment. If this suit were allowed to go through they could also sue Microsoft, Linux, or anyone other threaded OS. Not to mention Nvidia and AMD-ATI since their GPU architectures are nothing more than massive parallel pipelines.

I kind of agree with the first poster. Having a patent on this is like having a patent on 1s and 0s. We can thank our brilliant patent office who doesn't know anything about what its allowing to be patented for this kind of patent being issued.


RE: That will cover all processors soon
By masher2 (blog) on 8/1/2007 11:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "Wouldn't this pretty much cover all dual core, quad core, etc processors in the near future when applications are going to be multithreaded, allowing each core to do a equal portion of the work to potentially save proportional amount of time? "

No. You're simply reading the abstract, not the invention itself, which deals with a very specific organizational method of the processors and the shared memory between them. The abstract itself is, of course, far too general to ever receive a patent. It's simply a "mission statement" as it were.


RE: That will cover all processors soon
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
The detail is:

A controlling CPU connects a slave cpu to memory - that memory then assigned to that slave cpu for the duration of the process. The cpu also has its own dedicated memory (see cache). The cpus can simultaneously access and write to different sections of memory.

A generic description of any parallel operation follows. Master node assigns jobs, slaves perform jobs independent of each other, report back to master node who can wait for all nodes to finish, or dynamically assign new jobs to finished
slave nodes.

The only possible avenue they may have for a successful case is arguing that their timing of events is the same as the cell (IF it is the same!). But, since that isn't exactly a big deal in terms of technicalities, it isn't a high value piece of IP.

Bottom line - I would have it thrown out of court... and the weasel lawyers (the patentholding company doesn't actually exist) that bought the patent to try and make some quick money... I'd prefer to have them shot, but failing that, they have to pay for court expenses for both parties.


By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 12:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
edit: Sorry should have said the timing thing is essentially a software patent, and a weak one at that.

Wasn't there stories on here about how software 'patents' aren't often even recognised.


By ThisSpaceForRent on 8/1/2007 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Patent number 5,056,000, titled “Synchronized parallel processing with shared memory,” describes “a high speed computer that permits the partitioning of a single computer program into smaller concurrent processes running in different parallel processors. The program execution time is divided into synchronous phases, each of which MAY require a shared memory to be configured in a distinct way. At the end of each execution phase, the processors are resynchronized such that the composite system will be in a known state at a known point in time. The computer makes efficient use of hardware such that n processors can solve a problem ALMOST n times as fast as a single processor.”

How can you use words like may, or almost, in a patent? Does this mean I can make a bogus patent for an anti gravity machine based on semi-conductors? I mean after all it may work, right? If I had enough semi-conductors I could almost negate the weight of an object.


Parallel Processing Corporation
By InsaneGain on 8/1/2007 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Parallel Processing Corporation was incorporated in Delaware on June 15, 2007, presumably for the purposes of suing Sony. It is based in Newport Beach, which coincidently is also the location of a IP company named Acacia Research Corp that lists "parallel processing with shared memory" as one of its properties. Their sole purpose is to acquire patents and demand royalties.




RE: Parallel Processing Corporation
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 12:27:54 PM , Rating: 3
In other words, leech off the system.

A shotgun to both knees is too good for such people.


By InsaneGain on 8/1/2007 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
yeah I definitely have to agree that there is an element in society that is unscrupulous but intelligent, and look for weaknesses in the system where they can make a lot of money quickly. The most obvious weakness is the legal system with it's option for an average citizen jury, who will be overwhelmed by the complexities of technical cases put before them, and will be susceptible to the sophisticated persuasions of the seasoned trial lawyers. In this regard, there is not much difference between trial lawyers and con artists.


By RogueSpear on 8/1/2007 12:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their sole purpose is to acquire patents and demand royalties.

Much the same as Forgent Networks. They scout out failing companies and purchase patents / IP in order to hunt for victims. Their entire business model is based on winning court cases.


Wow.
By RyanHirst on 8/1/2007 10:31:16 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't know you could patent the principle of branching.

So, if we start calling the brain a computer, will we have to pay royalties this this company to play chess? Or just to play chess well (efficient use of hardware)?

All bad analogies aside, I do like that this (obviously untenable) patent covers, in principle, every processor with a L1 cache that can issue more than one instruction simultaneously. Sweet.




RE: Wow.
By Treckin on 8/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow.
By Amiga500 on 8/1/2007 11:10:55 AM , Rating: 3
Not all that intelligent considering papers were published on the subject in the 50s.

Gill, S. Parallel Programming, Computer Journal, Vol. 1 April, 1958, pp2-10

See also the work of Konrad Zuse (1956).


RE: Wow.
By Hawkido on 8/1/2007 12:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
That is what is sounds like to me... This shouldn't have been a patent but rather a technical paper published in a tech journal.

All of the patented "Ideas" should go away. A protected idea is called a copyright. Such as a movie a book or a piece of music/lyrics. I feel that if you protect an idea in such a manner and fail to ever produce it (X number of years) then the protection goes away. Else one could claim the patent on paving roads and therefore charge a royalty world wide of X per Kilometer. (There may be one IDK I didn't look it up). Also if you fail to level charges against someone for infringment within a certain period, scalable by scope and notariety of such product e.g. Bob makes and sells something out of his garage for 13 years infringing on your patent, you could sue him 13 years later. However, if MegaCorp mass markets a product worldwide you would need to act fast or else it would be seen as passive consent, none of this sue 20 years later and seek 20 years worth of lost royalties. If you didn't notice MegaCorp using your patented technology for 20 years, then you have assigned a value of zero to your tech and thus it is worth zero. Bon on the otherhand could reasonable have escaped your notice for decades because of scale.

If this company didn't notice the idea of of parallel processing using a shared memory cache till now, well then I believe they have given it away. How far into the future could Coke sue if their "formula" got out and others began making cheaper identical products? Wouldn't they need to react immediately?

<Pure Conjecture>I believe that MS purchased (or paid)this company because they had a vague patent that might be seen as encompassing the CBE processor, and thusly issued the company mission statement to attck Sony.</Pure Conjecture>

Multiprocessor (chips, not cores) systems are covered in this as well are they not? If you look at it on a Macro scale, multiple processors syncronized with a shared memory cache (main system ram) How long have there been multi-cpu servers... MainFrames... mini computers... microcomputers... super computers? Heck I believe the new IPhone would be included in this becaus eI bet the CPU and/or GPU in it is multithreaded with shared memory.

This patent makes a statement but doesn't tell how to accomplish any of it... It is pure science fiction. Just as The starship Enterprice enters warp speed but doesn't give you the technical details as to how to perform such a feat in a reproducable manner, therefore Gene Rodenberry cannot sue someone for making a warp device and not paying royalties.


RE: Wow.
By eion on 8/1/2007 2:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
> A protected idea is called a copyright.
This is so wrong that I felt that I had to comment. Copyrights protect particular expressions of ideas, but never ideas themselves.

> How far into the future could Coke sue if their "formula" got out and others began making cheaper identical products? Wouldn't they need to react immediately?
Coca-Cola's formula is protected as a trade secret. If their trade secret were ever made public, then anyone could use it. Coca-Cola would basically only be able to sue someone who misappropriated the secret, i.e. got it from Coca-Cola rather than the public domain (and anyone who acquired the secret from someone who misappropriated it and who subsequently used it knowing that it had been misappropriated). Trade secret protection is very different from patent protection.

> none of this sue 20 years later and seek 20 years worth of lost royalties.
Which as it happens, you can't do anyway. Six years is the maximum, and in fact there are a number of equitable defences based around the principle that the patentee should have sued earlier.


Everyone an IP lawyer now?
By Melric on 8/1/2007 1:45:24 PM , Rating: 3
There is a substantial amount of misinformed posting going on in this thread - starting with the article. First, the generic description of the patent in the article does not define what this patent covers. To understand what a patent covers, you have to go to the claims. And while the claims in this patent are certainly broad, they are much narrower than the generic description suggests.

Second, just because something is so utterly obvious now, does not make it the case 19 years ago. And the right date for the patent is June 21, 1988, the priority date of the patent, not the issue date.

Third, patent cases are tried to a jury. In other words, it is the people like those in this thread that ultimately get to conclude whether a patent is infringed or not. If this patent was so abundantly obvious back in 1988, then a jury will find the patent invalid. And hey, be proactive, go find someone else that was doing parallel processing before 1988 and send the information to the defense team.

I hate patent trolls like everyone else in my field (patent litigation defense), but it irks me to see people spouting off about how bogus a patent is when no one (or few as it may be) has even looked at what the patent really covers. The first claim, for God's sake, is written in means plus function language (a very specific claiming type), which drastically limits the scope of what the patent covers.

I certainly believe that patent system requires a substantial overhaul but I'll be shocked to see it happen in my lifetime. Giving someone 20 years of protection in a field like computer science seems obscene to me given the rapid pace of innovation.




RE: Everyone an IP lawyer now?
By Carl B on 8/1/2007 4:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
It bears mentioning that Sony actually cited this patent in the prior art section of their application - something the article fails to mention. So, obviously at least Sony's lawyers and the PTO have both been aware of it for some time - and neither previously considered it a threat.

So... as f'd up as the Eastern District is, I think that PPm is going to have a tough time with this case. Not to mention, I would almost expect 100% that IBM and Toshiba will provide "friend of the court" testimony in Sony's favor, if not even more semiconductor players.


RE: Everyone an IP lawyer now?
By FITCamaro on 8/2/2007 6:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, just because something is so utterly obvious now, does not make it the case 19 years ago


The issue with that is that the idea of this patent was thought up long before 19 years ago.


Just Sony?
By ZeeStorm on 8/1/2007 12:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
What got me is the quote:
quote:
It is unclear why Parallel Processing Corporation chose to only file suit against Sony when the Cell Broadband Engine was a joint development project with Sony, Toshiba and IBM


As such, Toshiba, and IBM especially are very well known companies. The only company listed of the 3 that might have something against Sony specifically is Microsoft. Does anybody have any slight indication that they might be behind some part of this?




RE: Just Sony?
By oTAL (blog) on 8/1/2007 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup! You figured it out!
Parallel Processing Corporation is a front for a company belonging to Bill Gates, created to destroy the world, one console at a time, and then install Bill as a dictator by only selling consoles to people who vote for him and sacrifice their first born for windows beta-testing and violent sodomization (argh! windows beta-testing!).

How about removing the tin-foil from around your head and moving out of your parent's basement?


RE: Just Sony?
By Alexvrb on 8/1/2007 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well put, sir. :D


Incredibly funny!
By eman 7613 on 8/1/2007 5:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
You know what makes this incredibly funny? Most pattents expire after 15 years. So, they are suing Sony for using their expired pattent. Well, ive heard of stupider law suits winning.




RE: Incredibly funny!
By Varun on 8/1/2007 9:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
From the Patent office website: "Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States"

I have not read the actual patent to see how specific it is, but it does seem odd that 19 years into a 20 year patent a new company is formed to sue Sony, and they omit IBM who is likely the biggest player in the Cell processor...

I dislike Sony for their buisness practices but I detest start up companies who's model is to exclusively sue other companies.


RE: Incredibly funny!
By Melric on 8/2/2007 12:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Umm.. patents last from 20 years from filing. If the patent was filed before June 1995, then the patentee can take 17 years from date of issuance if that is longer.


Just a thought
By anonymo on 8/1/2007 1:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just thinking...aside from the underhanded looking recent purchase of the patent...it could be totally possible that IBM and Toshiba have been paying royalties to this company all along and that Sony decided not to with the PS3 and only now have the patent owners built up a powerful enough case against them?

Seems like a stretch but I guess it's possible...otherwise looks like a cash grab to me (barring further information).




RE: Just a thought
By Melric on 8/1/2007 1:51:45 PM , Rating: 3
First, you do not have to sue everyone at once. There is substantial strategy involved over who you sue first and when. In this case, it makes sense to sue Sony in Texas and not include IBM. A Texas jury is not going to be sympathetic to a Japanese defendant - where they might be to someone like Big Blue.

Second, once they get a verdict against Sony, they can use that to swat IBM and Toshiba later. Lots of the decisions that a judge makes in the first case will carry over to the second case.

Third, the infringing activity has to happen in the U.S. If IBM is making and selling the CELL processor overseas, there is arguably no infringing activity in the U.S.

I do not know the facts of the case, but there are certainly lots of reasons why you pick some defendants and not others. Nothing is to say that IBM won't be a defendant sometime in the future - other than that the patent life is running out.

But a good rule of thumb is that any case filed in the Eastern District of Texas is likely a patent troll case. The District is extremely plaintiff friendly.


What a crock of it
By exdeath on 8/1/2007 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
Bull sh*t.

Where is their product then? Thats right, they don't have one, patent revoked.

You can't patent the wheel and sit on it and hope it becomes common knowledge that even a 5 year old understands 20 years down the road then start suing everyone.

And why are *just now* wanting to sue? Anyone who hasn't heard about Cell in the 5 years before the PS3 came out has either been living under a rock or keeping silent until the were out in volume so they could sue for royalties... oh wait a minute...




RE: What a crock of it
By Melric on 8/1/2007 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where is their product then? Thats right, they don't have one, patent revoked.


That may be how you want it to work, but that is not how the patent system works. A patent gives you the right to exclude someone from practicing the patent. You have no right to actually make a product. These people would run into a thousand other patents if they tried to practice their patent. Not everyone can scrounge up $500M in investment capital to get a product launched.

quote:
You can't patent the wheel and sit on it and hope it becomes common knowledge that even a 5 year old understands 20 years down the road then start suing everyone.


Why not? There are some defenses you can raise with this theory, but the patent is good for the life of the patent. No where does is say that you have to file a lawsuit when you become aware of an infringing product.

The exception is when you lead the industry to believe that you do not intend to file a lawsuit. Basically, the industry relies on your representation that you are not going to file a suit. If you turn around and file a suit, they have a defense. I'd bet dollars to donuts that that never occurred here.

quote:
And why are *just now* wanting to sue? Anyone who hasn't heard about Cell in the 5 years before the PS3 came out has either been living under a rock or keeping silent until the were out in volume so they could sue for royalties... oh wait a minute...


Not everyone is a computer geek. I can walk down the halls here at work and I would be shocked if more than 10% of my co-workers know what the CELL processor is.

Second, it's going to cost the patent holder $5-10M to bring a lawsuit. Why would they ever want to sue until they could at least recover their costs in damages. For all you know, they have been in talks with Sony for the last 5 years before they filed suit.

------------

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate with you. This is probably another patent troll case. But it does irk me that everyone keeps jumping to conclusions without knowing any of the facts. I detest the way that the media leads everyone around by their nose while we just lap up everything they say.


Reason
By AntDX316 on 8/1/2007 12:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
"It is unclear why Parallel Processing Corporation chose to only file suit against Sony when the Cell Broadband Engine was a joint development project with Sony, Toshiba and IBM."

they knew sony would make that technology so they waited until PS3 was out in full force so they can make even more money




RE: Reason
By FITCamaro on 8/2/2007 6:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
No they only sue Sony now because it leaves them open to sue the other two later on. If they sued all three and lost, they'd get nothing. If they sue Sony and loose, they can still sue the other two. If they sue Sony and win, that makes it easier for them to sue the other two and win.

Much the same as many times in a multiple homicide, prosecutors will only charge the killer with only one murder instead of all of them. That way if they loose, they can still come back later and try him/her for the others.


By Oobu on 8/1/2007 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sony should just buy that dinky company out, use all its resources, and then toss it in the trash for being pricks.




This is what I see happening.....
By ira176 on 8/1/2007 11:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
A relatively small and obscure company comes up with a vaguely described, undeveloped idea which could be a machine which makes the perfect hamburger more quickly files a patent on it. Then the previously described company with very little money with their cracker jack box idea sees ACME, a world renowned company with many technological advances to its name, and much of their budget money dedicated for R&D comes up with their own idea which the small obscure company sees as an encroachment on their patent. Small and relatively obscure company sues ACME to make money, fighting hard to show that their advanced hamburger machine was meant to actually be an application for unlimited energy.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki