Sony loses $18.5M PSP patent suit

Electronics giant's portable game system and other products determined to infringe on patent for sorting music on a memory chip.

Sony is being stung by a lawsuit once again, as a Texas jury this week found the PlayStation Portable and a smattering of the company's other electronics in violation of an Agere Systems patent for storing headers in music files on a memory chip. As reported by the Tyler Morning Telegraph, the jury found that Sony willfully infringed on the patent, and it awarded Agere compensatory royalties of $18.5 million.

When the suit was originally filed in March of 2006, it included infringement claims for seven other patents, with the slate of complaints being whittled down over the intervening years. Also since the filing of the suit, Agere Systems has ceased to exist, having merged with silicon and software tech firm LSI Corporation in 2007.

Sony is no stranger to the penalties of patent infringement. In 2005, a judge ordered Sony to fork over $90 million to Immersion Corporation for infringing on patents the company holds in creating the vibration function of its DualShock controllers for the PlayStation and PlayStation 2. While Sony opted to leave rumble out of its original Sixaxis PlayStation 3 controller, it eventually repaired its bridges with Immersion and licensed the technology for the DualShock 3.

198 Comments

  • Smoolander

    Posted Dec 29, 2008 2:27 am PT

    It amazes me how many people can read, but not actually comprehend the meaning of the words, possibly because it does not come with pretty pictures.

    The company who sued Sony existed in it's own right at the time of filing the suit. Before the judgement was made, they merged with another company. That would mean the patent's and intellectual property now belong to the merged entity. Therefore, the suit still stands and the action can continue.

    People who are saying that they 'can't believe a company who does not exist can sue Sony'......please go back to school and learn how to comprehend a language.

  • RoC1909

    Posted Dec 10, 2008 9:52 am PT

    @CrushedGroove

    FTW!!!! My thoughts exactly!!!

  • RoC1909

    Posted Dec 10, 2008 9:42 am PT

    This patent crap gets WAAAAYYY out of control. Similar to the guy who patented the way pixels are moved around on a monitor. Figure if his lawsuit would have stood up in court what we would be paying for games!! Also similar to when SCO unix filed their lawsuit against pretty much every company who created a linux OS. Yup, great job. I say that if the person / company who filed the patent ARE NOT using the patent in some manner, they need to step aside and let others have it. This 'agere' company has a habit of suing so expect more down the road! LAME!!

  • snowman9

    Posted Dec 2, 2008 10:51 am PT

    lol @ teknics
    another bad hit for Sony. that money could of gone to try and compete in the games markets...

  • teknicz

    Posted Dec 1, 2008 3:34 pm PT

    Good to see how many of you don't understand patents. Keeps lawyers in business.

  • KSigMTSU

    Posted Dec 1, 2008 12:24 pm PT

    Patents do expire. I think the standard was 50 years on patents, but it would not require new law to make a change.. although most patent holders WANT to sell their patents, I would say it would be quite rare that you would encounter people with new technology where they do not want to actually make money using it. It seems like the duration of patent is actually shorter or longer depending on what it was issued for, and I am nearly 100% certain that they were origionally to expire on the death of the origional filer, but I think since corporations are now extended the same rights in basis as human beings its a little different. Trademarks are similar. The problem sony has gotten into is that they just steal existing tech rather than lisence it, then refuse to pay royalties. The situation with the dualshock controllers had the company that was forced into suit actually lisensing their tech to logitech, microsoft and a couple other companies at the same time that sony just ignored the patent. I think sony has determined a couple times here that it will work out cheaper for them to just ignore paying the royalties than honoring them, or took the risk that it wouldn't happen.

  • CrushedGroove

    Posted Nov 30, 2008 2:51 pm PT

    There should be legislation in place to prevent someone from sitting on a patent. Not only for these situations, but situations where new fuel cells are patented, but they get bought out by oil companies, and they do nothing with them because it would hurt their own business. Put a time frame into place that forces the patent holder to move forward with either the R&D or manufacturing of a product, and if someone just sits on a patent, they lose it after that designated period of time. I agree with those who say we, the consumers, should take more responsibility for these things. Let's contact our Represenatives and get something done. The internet is great, but it doesn't get laws passed.

  • necronaux

    Posted Nov 30, 2008 11:03 am PT

    On one hand, great minds think alike, it wouldn't be unheard of for two different companies or people, to come up with simmilar technologies. On the other hand, where this has happened to Sony before (yes, they're so large, everyone is gunning for them), ya think they'd have learned their leson and just involve these other companies they're 'borrowing' the technology from in the first place.

  • slimdavy55

    Posted Nov 30, 2008 4:23 am PT

    @evilr34 are you an idiot "the only good thing sony makes is gaming consoles" haha what about their bravia television's which are widely believed to be top of the market. if you are going to go on a site and run your mouth at least make sure you know what your saying.

  • wyme2

    Posted Nov 29, 2008 8:24 pm PT

    lol... sony sux at keeping their money...

  • evilr34

    Posted Nov 28, 2008 10:51 pm PT

    @osxgp

    nah PIONEER make better electronics than Sony (especially in-car entertainment where X-Plod sucks a$$). The only thing good Sony makes is gaming consoles and should also check what they are doing more often to avoid lawsuits..

  • PrinceofSarcasm

    Posted Nov 28, 2008 5:46 pm PT

    I have just decided to move south and get a panent on " using nano chips within a device used for media purposes including but not limited to video, game, music and photo play back". We know it will happen some day and I'm going to be rich ...................I wonder if anyone has patented air.......hehehehehe

  • PrinceofSarcasm

    Posted Nov 28, 2008 5:40 pm PT

    Americans your legal systems messed NOW GO FIX IT

  • biggy887766

    Posted Nov 27, 2008 11:47 am PT

    im not gonna lie sony makes great tv's consoles on the other hand...if they don't improve they might as well stop.

  • osxgp

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 7:53 pm PT

    I feel bad for Sony. Not because they have to pay more money in a ridiculous lawsuit. It's because if Sony were to go out of business from continued lawsuits, it would be a devastating blow to the electronics industry.

  • DeadlySpartanII

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 7:18 pm PT

    Jeez, we cant make progress with all these lawsuits, its ridiculous. I mean, you cant sue a game for example for using the FPS genre, no one owns it.

  • onthe_dl

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 5:35 pm PT

    wow, people have to stop writing novels for their posts. seriously, no ones going to read what you have to say if your writing books down there.

  • ecs33

    Posted Nov 26, 2008 11:44 am PT

    "ecs33 obviously doesn't know much about how technology works.

    All files (other than plain text) carry headers to identify their content. Check the source of this page because it too has a header. Take the header out and the file most likely won't play.

    Technically every company that allows you to store your music on a memory chip (which has an ambiguous definition - hard drive? SD? MMC? MS? SSD?) is in violation of this patent.

    Ideas are great to protect but when it comes to infringing on universal standards and concepts (storing data for example) patents just go too far."

    Yes I understand how the technology works. But I am defending the patent process in general. It does more benefit to our society than harm. I took a class last semester on entrepreneurship and patents were a subject. If I remember correctly the idea is judged by a panel of people and the terms regarding length and whatnot are given according to the project.

    A fix in the loophole which people take advantage of in the patent process is to lower the amount of time a patent lasts. But this would damage those who have a legitimate reason to have a lengthy patent. It would also lower incentive for invention since invention could become less profitable. Perhaps they should be required to act, and have evidence thereof, in a period of 2 years.

  • sparkypants

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 7:27 pm PT

    wow another desperate attempt to get a dime from Sony...and from a company that has "ceased to exist" no less. I want to read this guys patent because Im willing to bet his idea was only a vague concept he claims sony "stole" I find it funny that " the slate of complaints is being whittled down over the intervening years."
    this is starting to get annoying

  • fightingfish18

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 6:02 pm PT

    @rarson:

    I think, that out of all the comments i read, your's was the best. You hit the nail on the head with that one.

  • ldonyo

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 5:20 pm PT

    Typical Sony. Steal some ideas, drag it out in court, lose the lawsuit.

  • Asm92784

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 12:52 pm PT

    this is why the ps3 is still so expensive, Sony has to pay for all these lawsuits they keep losing.

  • LK9988

    Posted Nov 25, 2008 11:43 am PT

    Erm... this is totally dumb. Basically, from what I can understand, a no longer existing company sued Sony over that you can store music on a memory stick on a PSP?! The jury must of been so dumb. I reckon the jury didn't even know what this dumb, non-existant company was going on about. Anyways, 18.5 million dollars is pocket change for Sony

  • sublimeambition

    Posted Nov 24, 2008 9:45 pm PT

    Man that comment down 2 from this one is way too long.

  • bassman1986

    Posted Nov 24, 2008 8:37 pm PT

    Whose the dirty hands are behind the event? yeah~M$~
    crap360 is struggling.

  • rarson

    Posted Nov 24, 2008 6:07 pm PT

    "Not quite sure where all this huge love for Sony and Big Corporations is coming from."

    It's not love for Sony or "big corporations" but a distaste for bad legislation. I bet you're the kind of person who thinks the solution to every problem is more laws. Patent and copyright laws ARE there for a reason, but their usefulness expired such a long time ago that they are obsolete. Arguing that we need patent laws doesn't absolve you from providing evidence to support the claims of effectiveness for the ones that we currently have.

    "The corporate world is full of sharks. It's not so unreasonable to imagine a huge corporation like Sony preying on a smaller one to get an edge by outright stealing technology."

    So? If that's the case, then maybe the consumers should do their diligence and take a more active role in their control of the market, instead of jumping for whatever product is the cheapest. But if you're saying that Sony should be forced to pay out every time another company claims that Sony is infringing upon their intellectual property rights, just because "it's not so unreasonable to imagine", well that's just ludicrous.

    "Furthermore, I really doubt *anyone* can get a clear understanding of the case and all of it's major legal points without having followed it regularly."

    I was not commenting specifically on this case, but patent and copyright in general. They both have been harming innovation for years. They both have been allowing people to profit off of others' work for years. You mention the "sharks" stealing technology, but what about the people and business entities which sit on patents and copyrights for years without ever having done anything than lay out some cash for it? Explain to me how exactly that a 70-year copyright benefits an artist after they are already dead?

    "Call me crazy but it seems to me you might need a little more than a quick read on patents from Wikipedia and a lot more meat in an argument than simply discounting the jury because it's from "Texas" before running to Sony's defense."

    Again, the problem is not this one singular case, but the history of such cases for decades. I have been making this same argument for years. What exactly is it going to take to enact an overhaul of patent and copyright laws? Or do you prefer that we continue sitting on technology and restricting inventors while the consumer pays every time Sony is forced to pay out for a patent that isn't even being used?

  • MagicOneUp

    Posted Nov 23, 2008 11:20 pm PT

    I'm surprised that sony only received a slap of $18m for "infringe on patent" look at all other stuffs they've copied over the years...

  • AkanniMD

    Posted Nov 23, 2008 4:58 am PT

    Not quite sure where all this huge love for Sony and Big Corporations is coming from. It's almost like the majority here have stock in the company. Patent laws and copyright laws are there for a reason. The corporate world is full of sharks. It's not so unreasonable to imagine a huge corporation like Sony preying on a smaller one to get an edge by outright stealing technology. Just because it's fairly common doesn't make it right..or legal.

    Furthermore, I really doubt *anyone* can get a clear understanding of the case and all of it's major legal points without having followed it regularly. The case was filed over 2 and a half years ago. I seriously doubt you can know enough to judge its merits simply by relying on a few Gamespot paragraphs. The initial brief alone citing the grievance would probably be about 20 pages long. Sony's rebuttal brief might be 40 pages long. Then who knows how many key twists and turns there were during the trial.

    Call me crazy but it seems to me you might need a little more than a quick read on patents from Wikipedia and a lot more meat in an argument than simply discounting the jury because it's from "Texas" before running to Sony's defense.

  • Darth_DuMas

    Posted Nov 22, 2008 7:43 am PT

    jimbo102671 It was Sony who were sued, not soley its Playstation Division. So the 18m wouldn't have gone into any further development of Playstation games, game systems or the PSN, as it is unlikely to have come from their budget.

  • jimbo102671

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 6:31 pm PT

    To those saying $18M is nothing to Sony: It's still $18M that could've gone somewhere else like, maybe, R&D for their next big game? Games today have multi-million dollar budgets. Having to pay $18M for this garbage is $18M that's no longer available for their game budgets.

  • KhanhAgE

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 4:25 pm PT

    All I can say is, don't trust a Texas jury. They're out to get you no matter what.

  • DarkBiegus

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 3:08 pm PT

    It's called a very lucrative bride. One in which a company that has been sued for a similar act get sued again and again because other judges have profitted. This is Texas we are talking about. A state where they believe in gouging everyone for gas a product we aren't even scheduled to run out of for another 200 years. Rhetorical question. If we have enough gas to last us for 200 years then why did the price spike to the highest in recorded history. It's because gas is actually traded on the stock market as oil. While the United States has it's own oil it is traded to other countries such as.... Yep you guessed it China. Oh no!!!

  • WeWerePirates

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 11:42 am PT

    I think there is very little to be said on this that hasn't already been said on the various similar news stories but I'll try. In every almost every other country in the world these cases would be thrown out and the plaintiff would have their patent invalidated. There is a massive problem with the patent system in the US; every state can have it's own laws but a decision in any of those states applies nationwide. Patents will always be filed in Texas because it has the laws most in favour of patent holders. It's a ridiculous system just because a single state has set the law for the entire nation, but not only that the reason that a set of states patent laws render the rest moot mean that those laws will be particularly poor.

    It's not that I particularly like Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo and I'm upset to see them lose money. In the end the bill will be passed on to us, the consumer. The people who bring these actions have abused the system to be awarded vast sums of money, which in the end comes from out of our pockets, it's an outrage.

    There is a ridiculously obvious solution to this problem and there can be little argument from any side against it being fairer system. If a law is effectively national it should be set in Washington, there should be a national patent law. US citizens need to contact their local politicians about this issue.

  • Rect_Pola

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 8:22 am PT

    I respect the role patents are intended to play, i.e. protect the originator from other parties stealing their idea and making profit without paying respects. However, I'm also realistic that these things are flawed because there's no solid way to tell outright theft from developing the same idea on their own.

    Unless they have a specific record of viewing the patent or reverse engineering it (good luck), the only evidence is how the product's design follows the patent's description (bear in mind there's no guarantee there is another way to do the same thing, or that the idea simply isn't the most natural choice). By this point it can boil down to one party's word over the other.

    All this said, I find it... interesting... everybody keeps stealing technical features from the same company. Or rather, to make my point more clear, the OWNER of all these patents. Even if theft is done, it's hard to believe anyone in the industry would keep trying to tap a company they know is on guard because Immersion has already found something, fought, and won before.

  • flyingteddy

    Posted Nov 21, 2008 2:45 am PT

    not another law suit! probably could have bought the company for less.

  • BlueFlameBat

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 9:41 pm PT

    I couldn't even finish reading the article. This is a load of crap, whether it's happening to Sony, Nintendo, or MicroSoft!! Come to think of it, I'm sick of Texas!

  • Ze_das_coves

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 4:29 pm PT

    Well, since I didn’t know that much about patents, I look it up at Wikipedia to know some more about it and I got to say it was a somewhat an insightful reading, especially the criticism part, where there’s a lot I agree with. I will transcript what I found most interesting: “A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention. Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, which is usually 20 years from the filing date.” After I read this, I was thinking to myself how limited the concept is and the article further on putted it just the way I was thinking it: “Patents have also been criticized for conferring a negative right upon a patent owner, permitting them to exclude competitors from using or exploiting the invention, even if the competitor subsequently develops the same invention independently.” and “Patents may hinder innovation as well in the case of "troll" entities. A holding company, pejoratively known as a "patent troll", owns a portfolio of patents, and sues others for infringement of these patents while doing little to develop the technology itself.”

    In conclusion, I think the patent concept just as it is today is a complete joke. Sure it’s helpful because otherwise R&D people would just sit there doing nothing instead of wasting money in breakthrough innovations. But if the patent gives you the right to exclude its use by other people it should also give you the obligation of putting it into use. You should have a time to implement it (which of course would be higher for more complex ideas) and if you realized you couldn’t you should sold it to someone or a company who can in order to really benefit society, which should be the objective of patents. Really, if you don’t want people using your discover but you don’t want to have the trouble of making something useful out of it, you should just make a secret out of it, not getting a patent. That just stalls society’s development.

    sorry for the long post btw

  • brendanhunt1 posted Nov 20, 2008 3:32 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    brendanhunt1

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 3:32 pm PT (hide)

    $18.5 million is nothing to sony

  • rarson

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 2:53 pm PT

    "While genuine patents help the original person get rich and protect their tech."

    The fact is that in a free market, no one is guaranteed to get rich. Whoever provides the best product at the best price will be the most successful, and that's how it should be, regardless of who invented what. Inventing something shouldn't guarantee a person or company the right to hoard that invention from everyone else; after all, humans do sometimes come up with the same ideas on their own.

    Patents are essentially useless. Even if a copycat comes along and produces an exact replica for half the price, there are still the incentives of product quality and customer service which the originator can focus on to maintain their business.

  • skullboy950

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 2:30 pm PT

    I'm guessing most companies in Texas are fake and are just groups of morons trying to take money from people.

  • fauljosh

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 2:03 pm PT

    It's always Texas where these suits are won. In fact companies file suits in Texas because for some reason jurors down there are more sympathetic to patent holders down there. But these laws need to be changed. This is getting out of hand.

  • xatman911

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 1:56 pm PT

    While genuine patents help the original person get rich and protect their tech. Once they expire they should be allowed to be used openly - not renewed unless in use. If patent tech was not put to main stream use in a decade then it is pointless to have its patent protection extended. IT STOPS INNOVATION.

  • matrixman2k

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 1:09 pm PT

    But then look agere are dead and were probably on their last leg and thus the only way to survive was to try and sue someone else.

    Sony should just have some heavy guys visit the other company and you know...

    This is America after all. If you are having trouble just sue people, there's no honest business and as such no more - so called - breakthroughs because someone might have patented what you have invented... basically you produce something while the other guy benefits for free.

  • Gamingcucumber

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 11:45 am PT

    Of course they are going to survive. It's just that those are 20 million they could have found use for somewhere else. I mean, it's still money.

  • Timstuff

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 11:21 am PT

    Rarson: agreed and agreed!

  • rarson

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 11:12 am PT

    While I'm all for compensating inventors for their inventions, copyright and patent laws are hilariously outdated and obstructive to the development of technology in today's world. It needs to be completely overhauled and replaced.

    And besides, if another person takes your invention and finds a way to reproduce it (or even better, improve upon it) and sell it for cheaper, then they have outsmarted you. Patent laws limit competition and stifle technological advances and the consumers are paying the price.

  • DDR_Midian posted Nov 20, 2008 10:55 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    DDR_Midian

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 10:55 am PT (hide)

    "they'll make that up this week with ps3 and game sales. next month is xmas too...they'll be just fine people. "

    Good luck with that.

  • sgt-hawkins

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 10:54 am PT

    i think i will patent reproduction that should bring a good lawsuit

  • sdkingsht

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 10:46 am PT

    they'll make that up this week with ps3 and game sales. next month is xmas too...they'll be just fine people.

  • Kruegmeister

    Posted Nov 20, 2008 10:44 am PT

    storing headers in music files on a memory chip???

    Wow... I'm gonna patent using Drums in Music...
    How did such a General Patent stand up in court???

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Tags

agere systems   psp   sony

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs