News

Comment by: eatsushi (Jul 31, 2007 14:39)

What's puzzling is that this lawsuit didn't name the 2 other co-developers of the Cell Microprocessor: IBM and Toshiba.

IBM already has blade servers running on Cell procesors. Toshiba has been reportedly developing HDTV's based on the Cell. They've demo'ed a system that simultaneously decodes 48 SD MPEG2 streams that's based on the Cell.

Comment by: Riotard (Jul 31, 2007 14:47)

EatSushi, they are sueign because Sony have infridged upon "synchronized parallel processing with shared memory" IBM or Toshiba might not have infringed upon this cpoyright, or might be paying to use the licence. Still this will spark from FB chat!

Well i think this would be better for Sony having their brand destroyed by a patent is better then the consumer saying its crap!

Comment by: pirkster (Jul 31, 2007 14:49)

Something smells very fishy about this suit.

Where are IBM and Toshiba? The Cell was a joint venture developed by Sony, IBM, and Toshiba. In fact, many IBM servers sold today use the cell processor.

Sounds alot like a Lemelson gold-digging suit to me. Google Lemelson for some fun with bogus lawsuits/corporate shakedowns.

Comment by: eatsushi (Jul 31, 2007 15:07)

Originally posted by Riotard:

---

EatSushi, they are sueign because Sony have infridged upon "synchronized parallel processing with shared memory" IBM or Toshiba might not have infringed upon this cpoyright, or might be paying to use the licence.

---

If they're suing because of "infringement upon synchronized parallel processing with shared memory" then IBM and Toshiba should also be named. All three of them designed and developed the Cell processor. If anyone else uses the Cell processor in their product then they pay royalties or licensing fees to all three. In other words, IBM and Toshiba also get a cut from the proceeds - not just Sony.

Added: There may be a reason why they didn't sue IBM first:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...s-sony-ps3.html

Quote:

---

Speaking of IBM, it's a bit strange that Parallel didn't go after Big Blue first. After all, IBM designed the Cell and sells it in any number of blade servers. Perhaps Parallel was daunted by the difficulties another company has had in extracting a settlement from IBM.

---

Comment by: hankchill (Jul 31, 2007 15:35)

Heh. Another company wanting to find any way to make a quick buck from one of the big guys.

Comment by: armorthis (Jul 31, 2007 15:47)

This is crap, they would have gone after IBM and Toshiba aswell if this suit had any good backing to it.

Comment by: SProdigy (Jul 31, 2007 16:47)

I think it's funny how these so-called "patent holders" come out from under their rocks, typically after a product that "infringes on their patent" is on the shelf for several months. The same thing happened with that company that said Nintendo ripped off the Wii controller from a similar input device they designed.

It's all crap. For as long as the Cell processor was in development and all the people that get to see white papers on it (along with the overhype of the PS3) how could these morons, I mean "patent holders", not know that their "patent" was being infringed upon? Oh, because they don't really hold a patent for that technology. If they did, then why were we playing SNES and Sega Genesis instead of PS3, back in 1991, when this "patent" was issued?

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jul 31, 2007 17:36)

Originally posted by SProdigy:

---

I think it's funny how these so-called "patent holders" come out from under their rocks, typically after a product that "infringes on their patent" is on the shelf for several months. The same thing happened with that company that said Nintendo ripped off the Wii controller from a similar input device they designed.

It's all crap. For as long as the Cell processor was in development and all the people that get to see white papers on it (along with the overhype of the PS3) how could these morons, I mean "patent holders", not know that their "patent" was being infringed upon? Oh, because they don't really hold a patent for that technology. If they did, then why were we playing SNES and Sega Genesis instead of PS3, back in 1991, when this "patent" was issued?

---

sometimes when contrcts are put together when it comes time to get paid some don't because of paper work missed, it should be interesting if this "goes away" or not.

Comment by: xtago (Aug 01, 2007 04:45)

A patent can go in at anytime for anything, if it's approved then you can sue, otherwise you can't sue.

The problem is that people try to name patents to other names that sound like something else so they can sue for it.

My dad knows some guy whos running around the places saying they have come up with a system of access bank accounts etc via SMS, but to me this has already been done by other companies and they are looking to sue other companies for cash as they apprantly have a patent on their system.

Comment by: navi1199 (Aug 01, 2007 06:24)

OMG AGAIN!!! first it was their emotion engine on the ps2 now this geez man!!! are they like a joke or soemthing? they must love getting sued.. why not do a patent search before producing...

Comment by: REAM (Aug 01, 2007 09:20)

Originally posted by navi1199:

---

OMG AGAIN!!! first it was their emotion engine on the ps2 now this geez man!!! are they like a joke or soemthing? they must love getting sued.. why not do a patent search before producing...

---

or how about, maybe they did nothing wrong, and a small company just wants to make some big bucks quick?

Comment by: dblbogey7 (Aug 01, 2007 09:27)

In the business world being sued is a sign of success. You haven't made it until you get your first lawsuit. That's why every business worth its salt has its own legal department or they have a big-time law firm specializing in business law.

Comment by: vinny13 (Aug 01, 2007 18:29)

Lol destroy the PS3. What a bunch of chumps.

If they were to do that, everyone would be wanting their money back. And Sony would point at them.

Comment by: borhan9 (Aug 02, 2007 19:24)

Can i be so bold in saying "Only in Texas" :)

Comment by: gmontalc (Aug 03, 2007 17:04)

Sony gets sued for Cell processor:
----------------------------------
man, that's crazy enough... I can't wait for a giant asteroid to hit Earth.

Comment by: wetsparks (Aug 03, 2007 21:04)

Quote:

---

"synchronized parallel processing with shared memory" technology

---

I'm a bit confused here, doesn't Intel and AMD and other companies that make processors do the same thing? Or do dual core processors not "synchronize" in the same way the cell processor does. And this copyright was approved in 1991? Hell, the graphing calculators we all have nowadays are probably supercomputers compared to what was around back then.

Comment by: plazma247 (Aug 04, 2007 07:50)

Ummm it maybe that they other two help with other parts of the chips design.

I had always though the reason that IBM largely came on board was their knowlage of distributed processing using farms etc, surely IBM has a something that relates to parallel processing that pre-dates that.

Ummm might be an intresting to watch !!

Comment by: scottz29 (Aug 06, 2007 11:25)

amazing how many 15 year old lawyers there are on this forum...

Comment by: morguex (Aug 07, 2007 17:24)

Originally posted by scottz29:

---

amazing how many 15 year old lawyers there are on this forum...

---

That was funny scottz29, but be nice now.

Peace all

Comment by: Unfocused (Aug 14, 2007 19:23)

Where were these people when the PS was originally being developed and splashed all over the pages of the major video game magazines?