On Aug 2, 4:48 am, "Skwisgaar Skwigelf" <Skwig....RemoveThis@dethklok.org> wrote:
> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/75498-Sony-Faces-New-PlaySt...
>
> "Sony is the target of another lawsuit centered around its PlayStation 3
> console, this one filed by Parallel Processing Corporation.
>
> Filed in Eastern District of Texas, the suit alleges that the Cell processor
> used in the PlayStation 3 console infringes upon patent 5,056,000, for a
> "synchronized parallel processing with shared memory." The patent was
> granted in October 1991 to a company called International Parallel Machines,
> but Parallel Processing Corporation has filed the suit as the "exclusive
> licensee" of the technology.
>
> Typically, the suit claims that Sony's use of the Cell processor is "causing
> irreparable harm and monetary damage," and seeks fees and damages as well as
> the recall and destruction of any and all Sony products that use the
> technology. Sony has thus far refused to comment.
If this company had a case (big IF) they would need to jointly sue
IBM, Toshiba and Sony as the cell processor's design was a joint
effort. IBM actually manufactures the processors here in the US and
sells them to Sony for the PS3. (Unlrelated tid-bit IBM also
manufacturers the 64-bit PowerPC CPUs found in the XBox 360). Since
IBM filed for most of the patents on cell and IBM is the company
manufacturing the processor and selling the processor, they should be
the ones to be sued.
>
> The Cell microprocessor, developed jointly by Sony, Toshiba and IBM,
> combines a general-purpose processor core with various specialized
> coprocessors, resulting in greatly enhanced performance in multimedia
> applications and other forms of computation. The PlayStation 3 was the first
> mainstream commercial application of the processor, and both Toshiba and IBM
> have announced plans to use it in their own hardware in the future.
>
I have to add this next paragraph because I'm tired of hearing about
the overhyped cell technology in general.
The architecture of cell itself is cool in that it allows IBM to scale
the processors power by adding additional cores, with a master
processor up front. This is distinctively different than say an Intel
Core 2 Duo or an AMD Turion 64x2, to put simply because of the
marshaling processor up front. But cell's power lies in it's ability
to scale not in a specific implementation, the implementation of cell
in the PS3 didn't quite live up to expectations by Sony in terms of
its promised ability to multi-task audio, video and general CPU
related task. Sony had to contract NVIDIA at the last minute to paste
the architecture that became the PS3 hardware we have today together
and the results.... well read these articles and decide for youself:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32171
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/14/riiiiiiiiiiidge-racer-xbox-360-vs-ps3-screens/
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/playstation3.ars
> "Patent trolling" is a derogatory term for companies or individuals who
> launch opportunistic lawsuits based around technologies they have no
> intention of developing. The Eastern District of Texas has developed a
> reputation for favoring plaintiffs in such suits, which often leads to
> out-of-court settlements even in lawsuits that lack merit."
>
> " ...the recall and destruction of any and all Sony products that use the
> technology." Wouldn't bilgemerk and its apes just love it if that
> happenned?
There would probably be mass suicides considering some of the post....
Regarding "patent trolling", its a bullshit term. Let's so you're a
brilliant mathematician and physicist and you invest something
extraordinary like a anti-gravity device or something. You get just
enough funding to build a working prototype that proves your concept,
but your prototype is lacking several features that it would need to
be refined into a product. So you then patent your design and the
whole thing gets shelved for lack of funding and other reasons outside
of your control.
Ten years later a giant company like IBM comes along and they "invent"
something similar, they just cite your patent as a reference and
submit their own patent, their approach borrows heavily from yours,
but the US Patent office doesn't see it as an infringement and grants
them the patent. This happens sometimes. The US Patent office makes
mistakes. Unfortunately all an inventor can do is to sue the company
producing the infringing product. This whole scenario happens anytime
big company A sues big company B, no Fortune 500 company is going to
put out a product without a patent in place, so the US Patent office
apparently makes mistakes more often than is publicized. When they are
wrong, the original inventor can win the case and they should win the
case.
>> Stay informed about: Another day, another PoS3 lawsuit 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
