Lawsuit filed against Sony over Blu-ray discs
by Ross Miller 
{ May 25th 2007 at 4:25PM }
Claiming a patent infringement concerning the Blu-ray format, Target Technology Co. LLC has filed a lawsuit against three Sony companies, including Sony Computer Entertainment America, seeking "a jury trial for damages and an injunction to keep Sony from further infringement," according to IP Law 360.Sony's Blu-ray discs, including PlayStation 3 games, "embody" silver-based alloy thin film used as a coating layer for optical discs, the lawsuit asserts. Target Technology was issued a patent titled "metal alloys for the reflective or the semi-reflective layer of an optical storage medium" on March 28, 2006.
Target Technology has filed two other lawsuits against Williams Advanced Materials Inc. and its customers of infringing ten different patents concerning alloys used in making optical discs.
[Via GamesIndustry.biz]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
ShadowXOR @ May 25th 2007 4:32PM
I doubt that they will win but if they did that would essentially end the PS3 since the entire system is based around Blu-ray. However, it seems these cases rarely have merit.
JodyAnthony @ May 25th 2007 4:31PM
"metal alloys for the reflective or the semi-reflective layer of an optical storage medium"
see: compact discs.
Blizz4l9 @ May 25th 2007 4:34PM
sony will win this one,but i will laugh my ass off if they lose
_spike @ May 25th 2007 4:42PM
why Sony? shouldn't they be going after the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA)??
dork @ May 25th 2007 4:43PM
here we go again
Swift @ May 25th 2007 4:44PM
Man...that [IP Law] 360 is a bitch to Sony
Jay @ May 25th 2007 4:44PM
Re: see: compact discs
bzzzt ... how hard is it in the Internet age to do a little research? Go to the company's Web site, and it states this:
Target Technology Company LLC offers proprietary silver alloy sputtering targets for the semi reflective (Layer 0) of DVD-9. Many DVD replication companies worldwide are using our innovative target material to replace gold or silicon as the semi-reflective layer in the production of DVD-9. Our customers have been producing DVD-9 discs using our silver alloy technology for over six year with very favorable results. The disc quality is consistently better than conventional DVD-9 with gold and aluminum layers and yet the cost is substantially lower.
We are not just another target supplier. An extensive patent portfolio and pipeline demonstrate our commitment to the ongoing development and refinement of silver alloy materials to meet optical disc industry needs: both cost and technical. In addition to supplying targets, we design materials to meet required and desired specifications, as well as accommodating the rest of the material set.
It's a patent on the material used - if Sony is using a patented method/material, they'll lose ... or settle. Remember, Immersion.
Jose @ May 25th 2007 4:47PM
Damn, I guess more than a few ears perked up when Sony lost the lawsuit to Immersion.
Aberu @ May 25th 2007 4:47PM
It's kinda like someone suing the inventors of flash memory because they invented something very similar. It may be similar but due to their incompatabilities it's not the same. Patents on computer technology and media are subject to this fix so that people don't have a patent that holds back all technology.
Ed V @ May 25th 2007 4:52PM
LoloL die sony!!!
Justin U @ May 25th 2007 5:01PM
7. Man...that [IP Law] 360 is a bitch to Sony
Great minds think alike Number 7. I honestly said the same thing in my head, verbatim.
Almack64 @ May 25th 2007 5:05PM
As Jay said,
It really just comes down to if Sony is using a specific material or a method that is patented, regardless of whether or not they knew it, its payup time.
However chances are that's not going to be the case. A patent on such a material is usually very specific listing exact percentages of the individual components. For Sony to be using that exact mix in their process, it would be either a purposeful theft or a major act of chance.
Grey Fox @ May 25th 2007 5:13PM
Oh this could be interesting...
Vidikron @ May 25th 2007 5:15PM
Their patent better say more than "metal alloy". That's too damn broad.
sheppy @ May 25th 2007 5:20PM
And this, ladies and gentleman, is why patent abuse is destroying the industry. It's been stated by the patent office several times that they've awarded patents that they shouldn't have (because it was outside that persons area of expertise) and frankly, judging by the huge number of lawsuits they just took out, they are looking for a payday.
But I do have to wonder, if the patent was finally awarded as of March 2006, after the groundwork of BluRay was established, how could any company protect themselves from this?
Also, this isn't the end of BluRay if they win. They could just use a different alloy, period.
JonnyBoy2U @ May 25th 2007 5:23PM
sony just can't catch a break can they? Honestly I don't really feel bad for them. What goes around comes around...
sheppy @ May 25th 2007 5:32PM
"What goes around comes around..."
Ummm... wha? Seriously, how is this even applicable?
BPM @ May 25th 2007 5:37PM
Sheesh. So many suits are being filed against Sony, they're gonna be bankrupt by the end of the year!
Okay, not really... But it sure doesn't look good. Though, I have some little hope that Sony will come out of this with minimal (legal) battle scars.
redneckvampire @ May 25th 2007 5:43PM
Sheppy, you could also look at this the other way around too. This is how big corporations are destroying small innovators and designers. If these people came up with a new process to create an information layer on disks then they should get paid for their efforts. Instead of big companies seeing an idea and using it as their own knowing that the “little guy” has to spend a lot of money challenging them in court.
It takes quite awhile for patents to be awarded, especially if they are very similar to others. It doesn't matter if the BluRay groundwork had been laid if an application for a patent had been made before it. Once it is awarded then it takes awhile for the company and their lawyers to go through the lengthy process of investigating other companies manufacturing processes.
Sure Sony could use another process if it infringes on an existing copyright. However if they can prove that even 1 disk was made using TTC process then they are entitled to some compensation.
sheppy @ May 25th 2007 5:54PM
"This is how big corporations are destroying small innovators and designers."
I'd tend to agree if the term "patent squatting" hadn't become a common phrase. There are companies that come up with a ton of ideas and rather than trying to focus and develop a single idea, they just patent a huge number of their ideas and hope something eventually comes out using their patent. I said it before and I'll say it again. The US Patent system is being heavily abused. Why Sony? Why not the BDA? Sony wasn't the only one making this tech, you know.
Or as John Carmack said, "Patents in the tech space have a destructive nature. After all, you give 15 different people the same problem and more than likely, majority will reach the same solution. The problem then becomes inherent of not how the problem was solved but rather who did it first. This creates a bottleneck that's counter intuitive to progression in the tech fields."
Rubang B @ May 25th 2007 5:58PM
Thank you redneckvampire. Why would anybody be rooting for Sony in this situation? You either root for the little guy or you're neutral. Rooting for a corporate juggernaut to crush some tiny company isn't cool dudes.
Rubang B @ May 25th 2007 6:04PM
So sheppy, if patent squatting is a problem, do you automatically assume every lawsuit is a case of patent squatting? Has there never been a serious case of patent infringement in the history of the U.S.? Luckily you are not in charge of handling this case, and somebody will get to the bottom of this.
REMEMBER IMMERSION! REMEMBER THE ALAMO!
Vidikron @ May 25th 2007 6:09PM
@21
Please... patent squatters don't deserve anything from anyone. Maybe that's not the case here, but I doubt it.
Vidikron @ May 25th 2007 6:12PM
@22
Immersion is just as bad, IMO. Why did they wait until late in the PS2 era to finally make a stink about their patents when consoles had been using rumble since the early PSX/N64 days? It's lihe that just sat around purposly letting people violate their broad patents.. then when there were enough people to sue to get a big payday that sprung into action. That's the sort of crap that needs ot be stopped.
Vidikron @ May 25th 2007 6:13PM
^ That should read, "It's like they just sat around..."
Abscissa @ May 25th 2007 6:22PM
The conspiracy theorist in me can’t help but think this company has a vested interest in HD-DVD. Think about it: Why go after Sony right now, instead of waiting until PS3/BluRay gains more ground? Just to minimize the damage against Sony? As nice of a gesture as that may be, that’s just not how these patent companies operate. It sounds almost as if they’re trying to specifically damage BluRay. Or maybe they don’t think BluRay/PS3 will do well and are trying to get while the getting’s good.
Of course I’m probably completely wrong about all that, but it does make me wonder.
Sheppy: Excellent Carmack quote. Where is that from?
BPM @ May 25th 2007 6:17PM
"Why Sony? Why not the BDA?"
Sony is, perhaps, the biggest supporter of Blu-ray. And since they've been in a lot of legal trouble, I'm sure Target Technology saw this as "striking while the iron is still hot."
Doesn't make it right, but that's how I see it as.
Ryan LN @ May 25th 2007 6:50PM
Sounds like patent squatting to me, too. A lucrative, but dirtball way to make a buck. Like my idea for the underwater toaster. The minute GE makes one, I'm movin' in for the big lawsuit.
sheppy @ May 25th 2007 6:51PM
@Rubang
First off, what is this "damn the man" stuff you're spouting? So Sony is automatically guilty just because they are the big company and we should be rooting for the little guy? The hell kind of logic is that? Look, if you're going to be all "down with the syndrome," at least realize this company is likely looking for at least $30 million in damages, coupled with the fact that they are suing 3 different branches of Sony as well as 10 other lawsuits. Put that into perspective. You're "down with corporations" with a company that is, in fact, a corporation. AND has been supplying alloys to various companies for six years according to their website. Hardly a small fry. Especially if they are financing 13 lawsuits, 3 of which against Sony.
"So sheppy, if patent squatting is a problem, do you automatically assume every lawsuit is a case of patent squatting? Has there never been a serious case of patent infringement in the history of the U.S.?"
I find the severe lack of details to be a major telling sign. Like this lawsuit below.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/08/nintendo-gets-sued-over-wiimote/
Now, if this was truly patent infringement, the chemical composition of the alloy in question must match nearly 100%. So... where are their patents saying?
"The patent addresses what Target called a need for specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold. According to the patent, the alloys are also more resistant to corrosion than pure silver."
In other words, it isn't even their own alloy but rather the application of the material. Of course, this all based upon what Target Technology has stated. Despite my searching, I cannot find the specific patent (filed April of 2004) the lawsuit revolves around. HOWEVER... I did find Sony unveiled their BluRay tech as early as March 2003. In fact, according to a couple websites, that's when the first recordable BluRay device was introduced.
Target Technologies also seems rather tightlipped on just what titles/movies employed their patented alloy application. While I understand Sonys position of being tightlipped, Target Technologies silence, especially considering they filed the patent AFTER BluRay specs were made available to major manufacturers, doesn't seem favorable.
In fact, Target technologies is remaining overly vague about the whole thing. Meanwhile, in other lawsuits (such as Ralpha Baer vs. Entire video game industry), the patents to be used in the lawsuit were made readily available and even named. Even when Nintendo took Tengen to court over bypassing the Base10 security chip, specifics were named and those interested could look up the technology patents. Sorry, without more information, it shows all the signs of patent squatting.
sheppy @ May 25th 2007 6:57PM
@Abscissa
Quote came from some damn podcat or another. Wish I could remember. I do recall it was during some developer convention though and it was an answer to the possibility of Microsoft suing open-source developers for patent infringement (a possibility that seems to come up annually). Hope that helps... because I paraphrased that quote.
Rod Oracheski @ May 25th 2007 7:13PM
While I'd love to call "patent abuse" like others have, this time the patent holder actually works in the field. They didn't just farm up a bunch of patents, they actively work with it.
This isn't a patent whore company.
redspear @ May 25th 2007 7:31PM
I work in legal tech and have sat through literally hundreds of patent cases including for several companies including but not limited to armado v microsoft, immersion v sony, and several epson ones.
Patents usually protect the process and not neccessarily the composition. I learned this during a human growth hormone case involving UC regents. If the alloy used in the blu-ray disc is made by a specific process that matches the process used by target sony loses flat out. Unless sony can make a case with prior art that pre dates targets prior art. Having seen examples of sony's attitude during the immersion case in oakland I have to say it very well may be that sony is violating this patent through a slightly different alloy or even the same one. Most patent squater cases get rejected even if there is a legitimate case if
a) the company who holds the patent never made any money from it and showed little to no promise of making money.
b) never used the patent and showed little to no evidence that the patent was going o be used.
That said there are many more questions about patents than what I see here. A common error with patents is called double patenting. Patents are allowed to extend if a new patent comes out that relies on an older patent. If this is essentially a new patent that is based of a technique from CD's that expired for example but merely changed the alloys and not the process IE temperture and colling times than sony would have a very strong case.
Such a case as this woudl involve over 1000 exhibits that are very dull and ambigous with some documents containing over 900 pages. It is almost impossible to pass judgement on this from a paragraph snippet you see in anews article.
What I can derive is that this a patent which is both profittable and in use. That to me tells me that the case has a lot more merit than a standard patent squatter case and even though it does not mean that Target is right it does mean that the case will more than likely be heard and not issued a summary judgement.
My experience with Sony tells me that they will most likely not settle. Hopefully I will get tio work on the case. Though if I do I probably would have to sign an NDA and only would be allowed to make very broad non specific statements.
Dave @ May 25th 2007 7:38PM
Target Technology was issued a patent titled "metal alloys for the reflective or the semi-reflective layer of an optical storage medium" on March 28, 2006.
Read: So they were issued the patent MONTHS after Blu Ray discs were already coming off the assembly line?
This is an open and shut case to anyone who knows patent law... hell, anyone who has a half a brain cell.
sleeptastic @ May 25th 2007 7:53PM
Yeah except it takes a year or more from file time to issue time for patents and the date of protection is the date of filing.
redspear @ May 25th 2007 7:53PM
Dave,
There is something called prior art. It is not open and shut. It can take years for some patents to get issued after the application. also if sony does not own a patent on the same thing or challenged the patent during the application process their case becomes much weaker.
While I can see what you are saying do not say anyone who know IP laws woulod see this as open shut. Unless you know something that most law firms and judges don't.
BTW Sheppy in my last patent case in January the materials used by the infringers were different than the materials used by the patent holder they stil last because the process was the almost identical.
Steve @ May 25th 2007 8:00PM
"2. I doubt that they will win but if they did that would essentially end the PS3 since the entire system is based around Blu-ray. However, it seems these cases rarely have merit.
Posted at 4:32PM on May 25th 2007 by ShadowXOR"
Really? that's what people said when the Immersion fiasco began and look how that turned out for Sony.
Rubang B @ May 25th 2007 8:00PM
Hey sheppy, I'm not going to read that whole thing, but I'll just say this:
I did not say Sony was guilty. I did not say Target Tech was a patent whore. I'm waiting until somebody gets to the bottom of this. You're assuming everybody is patent whores with no evidence. I'm saying "Hey, remember Immersion? Sony's done this before, intentionally or not." Going into this case, Sony has a history, and I've never heard of this Target Tech so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I am STILL undecided.
But it would be awesome if Sony loses this just so we can all watch them pull another 180 like they did with rumble and suddenly say Blu-Ray is "last gen." Then they'll settle and put it back in.
tickmenanny @ May 27th 2007 10:51PM
Pretty soon you'll hear from Sony that they had to remove the Blu-ray drive because it interfered with the operation of the cell.
Or was it incompatible with rumble?
Wait, which was last gen again?
Kamizar @ May 25th 2007 8:40PM
As if the PS3 couldn't lose Sony anymore money...
Iridium @ May 25th 2007 8:40PM
Does Sony even stamp any Blu-Ray discs itself? The BluRay association created the disc standard but it doesn't matter what reflective coating was originally in the specs, just what the disc manufacturer uses.
Sorry but this case has patent troll all over it. Immersion was total BS as well. They never even made a haptic controller for video game use. You have to remember that these are Asian companies that are getting Japan and International patents that are supposed to protect them from broad based illgranted American patents.
I wonder if "water as cooling fluid" is patented. Or Silver paint as decorative material. CDs, DVDs, Laserdiscs, and other optical media used metal alloys as reflective layers far before 2006. I don't think Target Tech was working on this since the 1970's and just got a patent issued 30 years later.
Jay @ May 25th 2007 8:58PM
How can they be patent squatters when they actually USE their patent for business? Why would it take so long? Because they'd have to have the discs analyzed repeatedly ... then prepare their case. A year isn't that long in this sort of situation.
mccomber @ May 25th 2007 9:13PM
It's really hard to tell what the facts are in this right now, but the truthiness of it is that this company seems to have heard about what happened with Immersion and decided to go for some easy money. It will be interesting to hear what actually happens, but it just seems like they're hoping for a payday.
Negativecool @ May 25th 2007 9:41PM
Is this just being filed NOW? Blu ray tech has been known for quite some time now. And if it IS being filed now and only now, it is no wonder to me why they are seeking a "jury" trial. Because, people are infact, stupid.
Stupid no-nothing jurors will listen to a small company belch wicked technical terms that would make Sony say "slow down...so..what now?" All these noobs are going to see is small time business being crushed by huge international business. They will get pissed. They will reward TT co. LLC. with whatever they wish.
The patent was issued on March 28th 2006...Blu ray has been in the works for years. I call PATENT TROLLS.
Roland @ May 26th 2007 12:24AM
All,
Dont be dumb. A couple of things to consider:
1.) Patents only last 7 or 9 years so its not like squatters dominate forever.
2.) Target may not have sued earlier because they werent sure if Sony was using their coating technique or some alternate alloy or process.
3.) If target truly developed this coating technique and was issued a pattent for it and Sony is essentially stealing their work they developed through costly R&D without liscensing then Sony's got to pay.
Don't forget that Immersion won against not only Sony but also against Microsoft and Nintendo. Microsoft and Nintendo were smart enough to acknowledge the mistake and pay. Sony went the disrespectful route and it bit them in the ass.
4D is expensive.. lol
redspear @ May 26th 2007 12:33AM
to those of you who say it is just being filed now. I can say with certainity that many legit cases get filed ometimes as long as 5 years after the infringement. such was the case with a lawsuit over msjet.dll. In fact judges tend to be more sympathetic towards these things cause lawyers usually twist out the delay in front of a jury. Most of the stuff I am reading here seems to be people squawking about things they don't seem to know to much about and are just looking at how they think things should work. There a ton of misconceptions on here about how patent cases work but hey that is why we have lawyers. the delay is most likely due to an internal investigation before the lawsuit. Possibly even attempts to communicate the issue between parties which can take a while. Many patent infringements are not intentional some are but still if the issue is not resolved that is when they goto court. patent squatters as you guys call them tend to sue with no comminication before hand and are filed very quickly after the implementation of a succesful product. This suit appears to have a legit basis behind it from what I have seen so far however as I have mentioned there is likely over 50,000 pages of documents in this case at the minimum and no one here can claim to have seen all of it nor can anyone claim to the know the arguments that will be used in court so truthfully no one here really knows anything about it. Apparantely very few people even understand IP laws or even much about the processes in civil court. Hell many people here who have read about the immersion case or claim to have or spoke about that don't seem to know much about that either. Relax and follow the story objectively and make up your mind later. I have a fairly high amount of faith in the system though I have seen some head scratchers.
forgive the typos on my smartphone
Blaster Master @ May 26th 2007 1:21AM
@Roland
Immersion didn't include Nintendo in their law suit because Nintendo created they're own rumble and didn't steal anything from Immersion whatsoever.
John Doe @ May 26th 2007 2:55AM
Interesting. OK worse case. Sony looses and is forced to license the patent from Target. That invariably will go back into disk production and could, repeat COULD, drive up disk prices. By how much is anyone's guess though.
John Doe @ May 26th 2007 3:01AM
Negativecool,
Congrats. You win the most naive person of the year award and tied with a few others for braindead entry of the month award. Really. Do a bit of research before you post. Just because it was awarded in '06 doesn't mean it was FILED in '06. You know that term “patent pending”? No? I'm shocked.
Vainglory @ May 26th 2007 3:56AM
You rock redspear.
Very few people realize exactly how *much* of a hellacious, confusing pain in the ass the legal system is.
Two of my friends have been through law school so far. Whenever we find time to visit, we play a fun little game in which one of them gives me the specifics of a past case. I then use my folksy, straighforward reasoning and "common sense" to guess which way the judge should decide. Then my friend explains to me why I am completely and utterly wrong.
What? @ May 26th 2007 4:01AM
Just in case anyone actually wants to know Target applied for the patent July 20, 2004