I have no idea whether or not the IP / Patents in question have other applications that the licensee (Canon) and illegal licensee (Toshiba) could take advantage of and use for other purposes . . . but this very much looks like Nano Propriety is cutting off their nose to spite their face. I mean I understand the LEGAL desire to not give away your IP, but the commercial implications are that in preventing someone (i.e., Toshiba) from being able to participate in the JV with Canon, and then taking Canon to court, there's a high likelihood that no commercially viable product will EVER come of the technology that Nano Proprietary is so intent on protecting. What that says to me is either: a) Nano Propriety has either far too much faith in their IP or no understanding of how much catching up SED has to do, or b) Nano Proprietary doesn't believe their IP was ever going to result in a product and consequently is trying to recover some of their R&D costs by suing the pants off of Canon. Either way, SED looks like yet another promising technology that is going to be stranded by the side of the road while other, less-promising technologies flourish because their IP is either "open" or the commercial entities that own the IP in question understand the commercialization process.
mostly likely a bit of A and B there. Of course, maybe the contract isn't a "per unit" deal and thus it doesn't matter if SED's are every sold, the licensing is still paid for.
Next step should be Canon suing NP for preventing them from bringing the sets to market and making money on their licensing investment.
Propriety sucks, and this a textbook case as to why. No one wins.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
david @ Feb 23rd 2007 10:39AM
I have no idea whether or not the IP / Patents in question have other applications that the licensee (Canon) and illegal licensee (Toshiba) could take advantage of and use for other purposes . . . but this very much looks like Nano Propriety is cutting off their nose to spite their face. I mean I understand the LEGAL desire to not give away your IP, but the commercial implications are that in preventing someone (i.e., Toshiba) from being able to participate in the JV with Canon, and then taking Canon to court, there's a high likelihood that no commercially viable product will EVER come of the technology that Nano Proprietary is so intent on protecting. What that says to me is either: a) Nano Propriety has either far too much faith in their IP or no understanding of how much catching up SED has to do, or b) Nano Proprietary doesn't believe their IP was ever going to result in a product and consequently is trying to recover some of their R&D costs by suing the pants off of Canon. Either way, SED looks like yet another promising technology that is going to be stranded by the side of the road while other, less-promising technologies flourish because their IP is either "open" or the commercial entities that own the IP in question understand the commercialization process.
Chris @ Feb 23rd 2007 11:36AM
mostly likely a bit of A and B there. Of course, maybe the contract isn't a "per unit" deal and thus it doesn't matter if SED's are every sold, the licensing is still paid for.
Next step should be Canon suing NP for preventing them from bringing the sets to market and making money on their licensing investment.
Propriety sucks, and this a textbook case as to why. No one wins.
SOCOMRAIDER @ Feb 23rd 2007 4:32PM
Great post.