LG's trying to stop sales of PS3s in the US

eddhorse

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-07/lg-files-patent-complaints-against-sony-over-tvs-playstations.html

LG Electronics Inc., facing patent- infringement claims brought by Sony Corp., fired back with complaints seeking to block sales of Sony Bravia televisions and PlayStation 3 consoles in the U.S.

LG claims Sony’s high-definition TVs infringe four patents, while products with Blu-ray players including the PlayStation infringe four others, according to two complaints filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington on Feb. 4.

The case increases tension that began when Sony, Japan’s biggest exporter of consumer electronics, brought cases to the ITC on Dec. 28 against Seoul-based LG, the world’s third-largest maker of mobile phones. The two companies each get more than 20 percent of their revenue from North America. The ITC has the power to block imports of products that violate U.S. patents.

The ITC is investigating claims that LG mobile phones are infringing seven Sony patents. The LG phones named include the Lotus Elite, Neon, Remarq, Rumor 2 and Xenon. A civil lawsuit Sony brought targets LG Blu-ray disc players.

LG also filed civil suits against Sony in federal court in California, making similar claims and seeking cash compensation for the unauthorized use of its inventions. The ITC doesn’t have the power to order financial damages. LG and Sony are the world’s second- and third-largest TV makers, trailing Samsung Electronics Co.

Blu-ray Technology

The patents in the TV case relate to high-definition receivers, and receiving and processing signals. The Blu-ray patents are for a way of dealing with multiple data streams, such as different camera angles, as well as a system to reproduce data that’s stored on a read-only device.

The ITC cases are In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions, Complaint No. 2785 and In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices Having a Blu-Ray Disc Player, Complaint NO. 2786, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

Sony’s ITC case is In the Matter of Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems, 337-758, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington). The civil suit is Sony Corp. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., 10cv9967, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Los Angeles).

Fight Fight Fight :mad:

Myrddin

Fight? What if LG are correct & Sony have used copyrighted things illegally? After all, they'd be no better than the evil hackers who play Super Mario world on the PS3 would they not?

You'd think there be less support for them, given the potential for human rights/privacy of information they are violating with this latest farce - Link

Sony want the names, account info & ip address of every single person who watched or commented on GeoHot's youtube video where he demonstrated an exploited firmware 3.55. There was no techno babble in this video, no secrets revealed, no download links, and yet apparently it's a crime to watch a video on youtube of modified electronics. That poor PR team of theirs. Why they want this info I've no idea, and I don't see why it should be given to them either. Fair enough GeoHot's account info is relevent to their case, and they'd already have viewing figures to demonstrate how far his video reached. But why they want individual identities I've no idea.

eddhorse

What if LG are correct & Sony have used copyrighted things illegally? After all, they'd be no better than the evil hackers who play Super Mario world on the PS3 would they not?

True, good point.

Sony are like a dog with a bone now as they are backed into a corner.

Otacon

EnterNow wrote: »

Fight? What if LG are correct & Sony have used copyrighted things illegally? After all, they'd be no better than the evil hackers who play Super Mario world on the PS3 would they not?

You'd think there be less support for them, given the potential for human rights/privacy of information they are violating with this latest farce - Link

Sony want the names, account info & ip address of every single person who watched or commented on GeoHot's youtube video where he demonstrated an exploited firmware 3.55. There was no techno babble in this video, no secrets revealed, no download links, and yet apparently it's a crime to watch a video on youtube of modified electronics. That poor PR team of theirs. Why they want this info I've no idea, and I don't see why it should be given to them either. Fair enough GeoHot's account info is relevent to their case, and they'd already have viewing figures to demonstrate how far his video reached. But why they want individual identities I've no idea.

What exactly has this to do with patent infringements?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but I bet it will just end in a 'behind-closed-doors' agreement between the two.

Myrddin

Otacon wrote: »

What exactly has this to do with patent infringements?

It's there to remind folks that there's always two sides. Why does watching a youtube video warrant disclosure of personal information?

You are correct though, in that this will undoubtadly end via a settlement.

RangeR

Otacon wrote: »

but I bet it will just end in a 'behind-closed-doors' agreement between the two.

These things are an almost daily occurrence. Nine times out of ten, this is just a pi$$ing contest. "You sued us, so we will sue you". Both for infringing each others patents. Both companies already know the outcome. Both will sign up for a cross licensing deal and end the dispute.

Why both don't just sit down and talk without the pi$$ing contest and keep it out of the courts, I'll never understand. Money to burn?

Varik

RangeR wrote: »

These things are an almost daily occurrence. Nine times out of ten, this is just a pi$$ing contest. "You sued us, so we will sue you". Both for infringing each others patents. Both companies already know the outcome. Both will sign up for a cross licensing deal and end the dispute.

Why both don't just sit down and talk without the pi$$ing contest and keep it out of the courts, I'll never understand. Money to burn?

They're trying to get into a better position for their side for the eventual deal, a few lawyers won't matter if one side can get a 0.1% better deal when it's on this scale.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

They're trying to get into a better position for their side for the eventual deal, a few lawyers won't matter if one side can get a 0.1% better deal when it's on this scale.

Just a shame how theft for one man can be sorted out with dollars, while another man loses his livelihood.

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Just a shame how theft for one man can be sorted out with dollars, while another man loses his livelihood.

The bans are only done when the company can't make amends or a deal.
if you pay the correct amount and to the correct person it's not theft.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

The bans are only done when the company can't make amends or a deal.
if you pay the correct amount and to the correct person it's not theft.

Well given that LG have filed civil cases in a Federal court, I'm going to assume Sony did not pay for said rights to the technology, so stole it & used it anyway.

That youtube farce above is all over, the judge has denied Sony's request for expedited discovery :rolleyes:

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Well given that LG have filed civil cases in a Federal court, I'm going to assume Sony did not pay for said rights to the technology, so stole it & used it anyway.

And Sony have filed action against LG before hand, getting a patent is expensive as a lot of work has to be done to make sure it's not patented and how specific the wording is on any patents already around. Companies look at the competition and see if anything even remotely resembles a patent they have to see if they can make some profit.

If a patent is too vague it can be thrown out and if too precise another person can make something that does the same thing but with the smallest difference.

The was 2 devices that had the same internal working and same function but 1 used a rotating spring while the other used a rotating rubber double helix. the spring one came first but as it mention the use of a spring specificity it this was not infringement.

the patents in question

file on 20 April 2010

Recording medium haveing data structuture for managing reproduction of data streams recorded therson and recoding and reproduction methods and apparatuses

example they give: multiple camera angels.

18 august 2009

Recording medium with a linking area thereon and apparatus and method for forming, recoding and reproducing, the recording medium.

Single player to read and reproduce medium without any additional hardware or software needed.

17 November 2009

Read-only recording medium and reproducing method thereof

Writeable and read-only are made the same.

july 13 2010

Recording medium and method and apparatus fo reproducing text subtitle steam for updating pallette information

Font/changing font


The patents don't include the systems, designs or method to do any of what they want to protect, only the function. They also don't mention blu ray specificity so any comparable medium would be infringing, DVD.

EnterNow wrote: »

That youtube farce above is all over, the judge has denied Sony's request for expedited discovery :rolleyes:

the use of expedited mean that the court would force Youtube and others to give the information, Sony can still get it if Google agree.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

And Sony have filed action against LG before hand, getting a patent is expensive as a lot of work has to be done to make sure it's not patented and how specific the wording is on any patents already around. Companies look at the competition and see if anything even remotely resembles a patent they have to see if they can make some profit.

If a patent is too vague it can be thrown out and if too precise another person can make something that does the same thing but with the smallest difference.

The was 2 devices that had the same internal working and same function but 1 used a rotating spring while the other used a rotating rubber double helix. the spring one came first but as it mention the use of a spring specificity it this was not infringement.

the patents in question



example they give: multiple camera angels.




Single player to read and reproduce medium without any additional hardware or software needed.



Writeable and read-only are made the same.



Font/changing font


The patents don't include the systems, designs or method to do any of what they want to protect, only the function. They also don't mention blu ray specificity so any comparable medium would be infringing, DVD.

Nevertheless, they're in court for patent infringement. Tut tut, bold boys :pac:

eddhorse

Norway to probe Sony's PS3 Linux 'downgrade'
(Linkage)

8th February 2011 15:00 GMT

A government agency in Norway has reported Sony to the Consumer Ombudsman after floods of complaints over removal of "Other OS" functionality from PlayStation 3 consoles.

Norway's Consumer Council claims Sony breached the Norwegian Marketing Control Act, by withdrawing a key feature after sale. It says Sony's terms of service are unreasonable and leave the consumer without any legal protection.

The consequence of the Other OS removal, means it's no longer possible to install any operating systems other than Sony's own. With the PlayStation 3 hacked recently, Sony will no doubt claim the removal is a necessary means to tackle piracy.

The company previously said removed Other OS because of "security concerns", though did not elaborate as to what it was specifically worried about, but the company is currently fighting "GeoHot", a well-known hacker, in the US courts, in an attempt to eradicate the PS3-rooting tools he has developed.

"There needs to be a limit to what constitutes a reasonable change to products we buy." says Thomas Nortvedt of the Consumer Council. "When a company uses terms like updates or upgrades, it is reasonable to expect a significant improvement of the product and not the risk of being stuck with a lesser product".

The Consumer Ombudsman will try to reach a compromise between the two parties. If this can't be achieved, the issue can be taken to the Market Council with the power to ban unlawful marketing and contract terms if within the interest of consumers.

Seems they are getting it from all angles this week, moreso than usual :rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

Sony has been sued countless times for patent infringement. They'll settle it outof court for a huge sum. Still think what Sony is doing to Geohot is outrageous and I'll never forgive them for shutting down Lik-Sang and for how they went about doing it.

WolfForager

Apparently LG have won a day 10 blockade on PS3 imports to the EU with their ongoing lawsuit over BluRay patents, could spell trouble for Sony if it gets extended!

From Eurogamer
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-28-playstation-3s-seized-by-eu-customs

Sales of the PlayStation 3 are under threat after South Korean company LG won an injunction to have it banned from entering European countries for 10 days.

European customs officers have been ordered to seize shipments of PS3s, reports The Guardian.

A ruling by the civil court of justice in the Hague means all new PS3s have to be confiscated as they are imported into the UK and the rest of Europe.

The injunction could be extended – if LG wins its case against Sony.

Tens of thousands of PS3s were seized by customs officials in Holland last week. Sony imports around 100,000 consoles a week. Around two to three weeks' worth of PS3s are in stock in Europe, according to the report.

The dispute centres around LG's claim that Sony is infringing its use of Blu-ray technology. If Sony is found to have infringed LG patents, it could be forced to compensate LG for each PS3 it has sold around the world, which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Sony has the right to appeal to the European patents office, but LG could apply to the same patents office to get the 10-day import ban extended.

A spokesman for Sony told The Guardian: "We are currently looking into this matter, and cannot make any comments at this point in time." LG declined to comment.

LG's complaint emerged earlier this month after it demanded PS3s and Bravia tellys be banned from sale in the US.

LG claims Sony is infringing four of its patents in a complaint that broadly relates to "certain electronic devices having a Blu-Ray Disc player and components thereof", but the PlayStation 3 (Model No. CECH-2501A) is the only Sony product to be specifically named in the main document of the complaint.

Reports have suggested LG's action is revenge for Sony's December claim it was infringing seven of its patents relating to LG phones.

Magill

Good thing i have 2 Muahaha !! Ebay for £1000 in a few weeks !

Retr0gamer

There won't be shortage of PS3 consoles but it's going to be settled out of court for a lot of money. Sony should hire a patent lawyer team because they keep ****ing up with patents with almost everything they make.

tonydude

typical of sony, microsoft must be splitting themselves

F1ngers

Merged.

WolfForager

O, didn't know this was here :P

Cokeistan

http://ie.ps3.ign.com/articles/115/1152607p1.html

Electronics giant LG won its preliminary injunction against Sony in a patent battle over Blu-ray playback technology, a civil court in The Hague, Netherlands ruled. This means that all new PlayStation 3 units imported to the UK have to be confiscated for at least the next ten days.

The Guardian reports that in the past week alone, tens of thousands of PS3 consoles were seized by customs officials in the Netherlands. The 10-day injunction could even be extended, causing many consoles to disappear from retailers.

The report suggests Sony has about two to three weeks worth of PS3s left in stock around the continent remaining. If Sony is found to have infringed on LG patents, it could cost the company hundreds of millions.

Sony has stated it's investigating the matter.

Myrddin

The only thing that bothers me here is Sony is actively fighting 'pirates', & yet they're apparently stealing whatever they want themselves. Very much hypocritical if true.

Installing Linux on your PS3 = €1,000,000 fine & being brandished a thieving hacker who steals games & cheats at MW2.

Stealing technology in the hopes it will go unnoticed/because you don't want to pay royalties to who owns the tech = business.

F1ngers

EnterNow wrote: »

The only thing that bothers me here is Sony is actively fighting 'pirates', & yet they're apparently stealing whatever they want themselves. Very much hypocritical if true.

Installing Linux on your PS3 = €1,000,000 fine & being brandished a thieving hacker who steals games & cheats at MW2.

Stealing technology in the hopes it will go unnoticed/because you don't want to pay royalties to who owns the tech = business.

Same with the rumble feature in the earlier PS controllers.
Whoever owns the rights were suing Sony, so they removed it from later controllers.
Can't remember if they paid a fine or not, but they eventually started to pay to have rumble included in their controllers.

johnny_ultimate

A curious case, I must say. An actual halt on shipments suggests there might actually be something to this. Everyone's always suing everyone about something successful, but this one seems more interesting.

Myrddin

In all honesty, LG & Sony are at war with both seemingly stealing patents etc, not paying royalties. But this have indeed taken the case in a new direction. Either the injunction will be lifted very soon, or after it's initial alloted time, or it could be extended if further merit is found.

Cokeistan

EnterNow wrote: »

The only thing that bothers me here is Sony is actively fighting 'pirates', & yet they're apparently stealing whatever they want themselves. Very much hypocritical if true.

Installing Linux on your PS3 = €1,000,000 fine & being brandished a thieving hacker who steals games & cheats at MW2.

Stealing technology in the hopes it will go unnoticed/because you don't want to pay royalties to who owns the tech = business.

Couldn't agree more with ya to be honest! The fact that they made geohot remove his packages and youtube videos is a disgrace, nevermind when they tried to get the ip addresses of everyone who watched a video on installing cfw

Varik

Sony can still get around the PS3 shipment ban thanks to a loop hole in the patent enforcement code as patent enforcement in Europe is still country by country, and with that Sony can work around the Dutch decision by going through entry points outside of the Netherlands.

Rotterdam and Schiphol are the main import points for PS3s for the UK, Ireland and continental Europe. The consoles are being stockpiled in Dutch warehouses until it becomes clear how the case will develop.

While the European Patent Office (EPO) performs the centralised examination of European patent applications, EPO patents are just bundles of national patents, each of which is assigned a national patent number and can be enforced only in the one country in which it is valid.

This is going to change: the EU is in the process of creating a single EU patent and patent judiciary, but as of now has not.

The aforementioned European regulation requires a patent holder to claim an infringement only of a national patent. LG holds some Dutch patents, and didn't have to allege the infringement of patents in any other EU member state.

All this is valid only in the Netherlands and therefore, if Sony ships them directly into other EU member states, the local customs authorities there will not take that seizure order into account but changing to this would be a logistical nightmare for Sony .

RedXIV

Honestly Varik, how the hell do you keep up to date on friggin everything???

I understand the encyclopedic knowledge of Playstation, when you're in to something, you research it, but a master in EU patents policies? Are you part robot???

johnny_ultimate

RedXIV wrote: »

Honestly Varik, how the hell do you keep up to date on friggin everything???

I understand the encyclopedic knowledge of Playstation, when you're in to something, you research it, but a master in EU patents policies? Are you part robot???

http://www.techeye.net/hardware/sony-can-get-around-lg-patent-shipment-ban#ixzz1FNRisZzw

Varik, could you please cite any sites you quote in future? It really isn't fair on the journalist who wrote it in the first place.

Varik

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

http://www.techeye.net/hardware/sony-can-get-around-lg-patent-shipment-ban#ixzz1FNRisZzw

Varik, could you please cite any sites you quote in future? It really isn't fair on the journalist who wrote it in the first place.

Like the journalist who techeye are getting the information from as well.

Original source for that is the same as the original source for all this, The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk

and

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-sony-can-still-ship-playstations.html

RedXIV

.... kinda feel stupid now :pac:

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

Sony can still get around the PS3 shipment ban thanks to a loop hole in the patent enforcement code as patent enforcement in Europe is still country by country, and with that Sony can work around the Dutch decision by going through entry points outside of the Netherlands.

Rotterdam and Schiphol are the main import points for PS3s for the UK, Ireland and continental Europe. The consoles are being stockpiled in Dutch warehouses until it becomes clear how the case will develop.

While the European Patent Office (EPO) performs the centralised examination of European patent applications, EPO patents are just bundles of national patents, each of which is assigned a national patent number and can be enforced only in the one country in which it is valid.

This is going to change: the EU is in the process of creating a single EU patent and patent judiciary, but as of now has not.

The aforementioned European regulation requires a patent holder to claim an infringement only of a national patent. LG holds some Dutch patents, and didn't have to allege the infringement of patents in any other EU member state.

All this is valid only in the Netherlands and therefore, if Sony ships them directly into other EU member states, the local customs authorities there will not take that seizure order into account but changing to this would be a logistical nightmare for Sony .

Is that in the same way people get around the Hypervisor? There's a loophole in GameOS that allows stolen stuff to run also.

johnny_ultimate

Varik wrote: »

Like the journalist who techeye are getting the information from as well.

Original source for that is the same as the original source for all this, The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk

and

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-sony-can-still-ship-playstations.html

True, but word for word copying just isn't fair (and the techeye journalist cites the blog you link above). Just throw in a URL though and we're all grand

Varik

There will be a hearing tomorrow in The Hague at 1PM.

Varik

Engadget wrote:

Well, it looks like there won't be a widespread PlayStation 3 shortage in Europe anytime soon -- the Hague's civil court of justice has just ruled in Sony's favor in its dispute with LG, and ordered that the 300,000 PS3s currently seized by customs be released to Sony for distribution across the continent. LG has also reportedly been ordered to pay €130,000 in legal fees -- and if it doesn't comply, it will face a fine of €200,000 per day until it does. That doesn't mean that the tussle between the two companies is over, however, as this ruling doesn't have anything to do with the patents at the heart of the dispute.

This was all for one country only so LG could still try in the rest of the EU as well as the continuing in the US.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

This was all for one country only so LG could still try in the rest of the EU as well as the continuing in the US.

But the dutch port is one of the main gateways for goods for the rest of Europe. Yeah there are others, but the Dutch one is a main one. Any word on the hearing you mentioned?

Varik

Varik wrote: »

There will be a hearing tomorrow in The Hague at 1PM.

Engadget wrote:

Well, it looks like there won't be a widespread PlayStation 3 shortage in Europe anytime soon -- the Hague's civil court of justice has just ruled in Sony's favor in its dispute with LG, and ordered that the 300,000 PS3s currently seized by customs be released to Sony for distribution across the continent. LG has also reportedly been ordered to pay €130,000 in legal fees -- and if it doesn't comply, it will face a fine of €200,000 per day until it does. That doesn't mean that the tussle between the two companies is over, however, as this ruling doesn't have anything to do with the patents at the heart of the dispute.

EnterNow wrote: »

But the dutch port is one of the main gateways for goods for the rest of Europe. Yeah there are others, but the Dutch one is a main one. Any word on the hearing you mentioned?

In the quote from Engadget

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

In the quote from Engadget

Ah, missed that. So Sony got the order reversed only? Any update on the case itself or is that likely to go on for a bit...

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Ah, missed that. So Sony got the order reversed only? Any update on the case itself or is that likely to go on for a bit...

Both are happy to make a deal with each other.

Sony want 1 big deal to licence their patents and gain licences for LGs.

LG want a single deal for each patent working both ways.

They were never arguing about phones,tvs or ps3s, it all about how many contract they need to sign.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

Both are happy to make a deal with each other.

Sony want 1 big deal to licence their patents and gain licences for LGs.

LG want a single deal for each patent working both ways.

They were never arguing about phones,tvs or ps3s, it all about how many contract they need to sign.

Ah, so when your caught stealing you just make a deal to pay for bits of the stolen stuff? Cool, must pass that on to Hotz & Graf :rolleyes::D

In fairness, we always knew this would end out of court, both parties are just too big.

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Ah, so when your caught stealing you just make a deal to pay for bits of the stolen stuff? Cool, must pass that on to Hotz & Graf :rolleyes::D

In fairness, we always knew this would end out of court, both parties are just too big.

Both had licensed each other tech up to about last December when this all got started off but have been auguring since then about how to work out the new deal and just using bans for the ps3 and lg smartphones among other to get the new deals in their favour.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

Both had licensed each other tech up to about last December when this all got started off but have been auguring since then about how to work out the new deal and just using bans for the ps3 and lg smartphones among other to get the new deals in their favour.

Ok so they both stole, & both have been whinging in court about it. Crazy to see LG's fine for the embargo is a lot less than Graf's fine for installing Linux.

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

Ok so they both stole, & both have been whinging in court about it. Crazy to see LG's fine for the embargo is a lot less than Graf's fine for installing Linux.

That fine is not about losing today, LG and the court did not give Sony any advance warning to object to the ban but the court did it anyway on the condition that LG pay Sony if it was overturned to which LG agreed.
If LG had not insisted that the ban and confiscation be done so quickly then it would not have cost nearly that much, they were pretty sure that the court would side with them.

Myrddin

Varik wrote: »

That fine is not about losing today, LG and the court did not give Sony any advance warning to object to the ban but the court did it anyway on the condition that LG pay Sony if it was overturned to which LG agreed.
If LG had not insisted that the ban and confiscation be done so quickly then it would not have cost nearly that much, they were pretty sure that the court would side with them.

But surely the embargo was allowed by the courts? So how can LG be then held responsible if it's a court decision?

Varik

EnterNow wrote: »

But surely the embargo was allowed by the courts? So how can LG be then held responsible if it's a court decision?

Under the circumstances, LG believes that Sony should be treated like any other patent infringer and not be allowed to sell the PS3 in the Netherlands until it has taken a license to LG's Blu-ray patents. LG therefore asked the court for a relief that is a specialty of Dutch law: a prejudgment seizure order. LG's complaint stresses that if Sony later still collect damages from LG on the grounds of an "unjustified" seizure. In light of that, LG asked the court not to hear Sony before issuing a decision because if LG is wrong, Sony will be reimbursed later, but by involving Sony in the proceedings there would be a risk of the allegedly infringing goods being moved out of the warehouse before they can be seized.

Thrill

Ban lifted.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12702767

A court order, banning Sony from importing PlayStation 3's into the Netherlands has been lifted.


The embargo was put in place in late February after the Korean electronics firm LG challenged Sony over alleged patent infringements.
It is believed that around 300,000 PS3s were impounded as a result.