backtop


Print 8 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Feb 17 at 11:10 AM

Vizio and Funai continue to file lawsuits against one another

Although the digital TV switchover is still absorbing a lot of headlines and leaving many Americans confused, TV maker Funai has launched several silent legal attacks against competitors over the past 12 months.

Funai launched legal attacks on companies it accused of infringement on two patents related to HD technology:  patent 5,329,369 ("Asymmetric picture compression") and patent 6,115,074 ("System for forming and processing program map information suitable for terrestrial, cable or satellite broadcast").

One such company targeted by Funai is Vizio, which has filed an antitrust and unfair competition suit in the United States District Court, Central District of California.  Vizio said Funai is "acting alone and in concert with others, unlawfully restrained trade and monopolized the market for the licensing of technology used to interpret and retrieve information from a digital television broadcast signal, as well as the market for digital television sets and receivers."

Vizio believes Funai unlawfully acquired the rights to patent 6,115,074, saying Funai violated the Clayton Act, Sherman Act, and other U.S. federal and state laws related to standards all TV manufacturers must follow.

Vizio's lawsuit comes one day after the International Trade Commission (ITC) enforced a ruling saying Funai's infringement suit related to the asymmetric picture compression patent was invalid.

"Vizio, as America's HDTV Company, has been instrumental in making high quality flat panel TVs more affordable for Americans. Especially in light of the nation's digital TV transition, we won't allow a foreign competitor to divert us from our mission to bring affordable high quality HDTVs to millions of Americans," Vizio co-founder and VP sales of marketing Laynie Newsome said in a statement.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mandatory Patent Post...
By cscpianoman on 2/16/2009 4:53:19 PM , Rating: 3
Again, another testament to the need to rework the patent system.

How many innovations have been placed on hold or sued into oblivion because of this? Countless numbers, I'm sure. I can only imagine the amount of progress we would make if there was an easier, more stream-lined process of protecting the rights of the inventor, but also the rights of the consumer AND other companies. Patenting something along the lines of "using an antenna to allow interface between two devices" is stupid beyond anything imaginable. Who allows these patents through?!




RE: Mandatory Patent Post...
By A Stoner on 2/16/2009 5:26:30 PM , Rating: 3
Patent # 6,115,074 says everything you need to know. They hire people who have no scientific background and expect them to process hundreds of thousands of patent applications a year with little staffing.

Patents need to be for things that are revolutionary, not evolutionary.


RE: Mandatory Patent Post...
By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 10:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, another testament to the need to rework the patent system.
While I agree with you here, it is not the job of the patent and trademark office to enforce its patents. Just because someone holds a patent, does not mean it is set it stone. There are various ways to render a patent invalid.


Waaah, waaah....
By Ordr on 2/16/2009 8:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why create a breakthrough product or service of your own when you can cry "ANTITRUST!" and get a piece of a market that doesn't want you in the first place? Pathetic.




RE: Waaah, waaah....
By PhoenixKnight on 2/16/2009 10:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
I take that comment to mean that you are in full support of patent trolls filing very obvious and overly vague patents?


RE: Waaah, waaah....
By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 10:57:15 AM , Rating: 2
What breakthrough product is this? They merely patented existing technology when they realized digital transmissions of TV signals would be the next big thing. They patented the technology in 1994, can you name a product or anything coming from that company that actually implemented their own technology? (especially when ATSC tuners have been mandated by the government for all new TV's.)

You are right, its pathetic, but only because the flawed patent system allows it.


RE: Waaah, waaah....
By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 11:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, upon further reading, I didn't realize the scope in which this patent covers which is far more than the ATSC spec.

It actually covers pretty much any device that supports more than a fixed output. I.E anything in the digital realm in which compression techniques are used between different aspect ratios. The most basic use I can think of is the technology behind DVD's that allow a 16:9 image to be squeezed into a 4:3 and vice versa. PC gamers may be familiar too with the way 16:9 output works on a game that is normally 4:3 in which a 4:3 signal is outputted, but with each pixel squished so that when expanded to 16:9, objects are the correct size and shape.

So thew company in question is not merely a patent troll, Vizio just feels they have overstepped the bounds in which the patent applies.

This is probably why Vizio feels they have an argument as they still have a valid case with the ATSC spec.


standards
By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 10:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Basically they are claiming they own the rights to anything that uses ATSC technology. I think the problem here lies in the fact that technology behind nation wide standards should not be patentable. Whether this means selecting technology that is freely owned, or by disallowing patents that infringe on such standards. My guess this is basically Vizios entire argument, in which they should not be paying money for following the ATSC spec.




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki