Toshiba sues everyone over "DVD-related" patent infringement

Joining the (unfortunately) growing fray of companies tossing out blanket lawsuits like it's their job, Toshiba is now requesting that a whopping 17 companies, mostly manufacturers and importers from Hong Kong and China, have their imports barred from entering the United States. Reportedly, Tosh feels that a number of "DVD-related patents" have been infringed upon, and doesn't want to see any more of those taboo "DVD players, DVD recorders, and other digital video disc products" hitting the States. As if banning the items from sale wasn't enough, it also filed a lawsuit "demanding an undisclosed amount of monetary damages to the same companies." We sure hope Toshiba wasn't looking for any partners for joint ventures anytime soon, as it just made enemies with a whole horde of potential allies.

[Via JapanToday]

[Tim @ Apr 10th 2007 4:48AM]

Just taking a stab in the dark: Would Toshiba WANT to allies whom infringe upon patents?

[Bruce @ Apr 10th 2007 5:30AM]

I hope they find a way to revoke whichever patent is the cause of those lawsuits, this whole sue-happy society is really starting to stifle competition.

[supermeerkat @ Apr 10th 2007 5:45AM]

Ah, capitalism at work!

[Gaines @ Apr 10th 2007 6:02AM]

Capitalism at work? Think before you speak. This copyright crap is actually the antithesis of competitive capitalism. No matter what purpose copyrights are MEANT to serve, they are being used to centralize control of specific economic markets.

Milton Friedman argued that centralized control of economic activity is always accompanied by political repression. In his view, transactions in a market economy are voluntary, and the wide diversity that voluntary activity permits is a fundamental threat to repressive political leaders and greatly diminish power to coerce. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive.

Every time the government creates laws and intrudes on business to serve a single company or conglomerate we take one step closer to Friedman's fears.

[supermeerkat @ Apr 10th 2007 7:59AM]

I see somebody got out the wrong side of bed this morning!

[JL @ Apr 10th 2007 7:24AM]

Uncontrolled/unfettered capitalism is a nightmare unto itself. If you want a world in which how you think, feel and act are controlled by corporate interests, thats fine. Myself, I'd rather have some sort of legal mechanism in place that offers some protections from the whims etc of corporate interests. Sounds like that Friedman guy was an uber-capitalist who believed corporations could do no wrong. Sorry, they can be just as corrupt as any government. Why not leave it up to the legal system to determine if Toshiba's case has any merit? Yes, lets do something about "frivolous" lawsuits but I think that term is thrown around sometimes a bit too much when it comes to the wrong-doings of corporations. In some people's perfect world Microsoft would be able to strong arm everyone into using windows, Apple could sue everybody to kill off competition in the digital media player arena and Walmart could exploit its workers till the cows come home. Now if you want that kind of world that's on you. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.

[Gaines @ Apr 10th 2007 8:37AM]

"I'd rather have some sort of legal mechanism in place that offers some protections from the whims etc of corporate interests."

Who do you think pays for the "legal mechanism"? Check out http://www.opensecrets.org/ The government doesn't work for you, they work for the companies who pay for their campaigns and perks.

I admit that there are circumstances where government oversight can be beneficial such as public utilities. I just don't think that any of the recent issues have qualified.

[BigD @ Apr 10th 2007 9:24AM]

So I shouldn't be allowed exclusive rights to a technology I designed and spent billions doing? I should be nice and turn it over to someone who didn't spend a dime and can ultimately put me out of business by not having any initial overhead (R&D) cost?

[saboola @ Apr 10th 2007 1:53PM]

I asked Captain Sarcasm about the post you replied to. He said "Yup, he was being sarcastic".

[Jeff @ Apr 10th 2007 7:29AM]

Suddenly, rooting for Blu-Ray doesn't seem so wrong, does it?

[Castle @ Apr 10th 2007 7:39AM]

Actually, this isn't a blanket patent infringement lawsuit; and I'm saying this as a person who hates patents.

There are a LOT of bootleg Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers that make un-licensed DVD players; what's worse is that they make DSPs and other reverse engineered DVD-player components that they make and put into major brands DVD players (they usually just scratch out the company name on the chips so they don't have to pay royalties on the copied goods).

[Ed @ Apr 10th 2007 7:53AM]

What Toshiba needs to forbid BluRay Players from playing ANY type of DVD disc that's what they need to do.

[austin @ Apr 10th 2007 8:01AM]

@Gaines; that is a totally cromulent argument.

Sadly, this one is about patents, not copyright.

[Jason Smith @ Apr 10th 2007 9:09AM]

Well, who are they suing? Which 17 companies?

If they're going after Sony, Panasonic, etc... then it's probably a frivolous cash-grab, but if they were, I think the names would be included in the article. If they're going at 17 "unnamed" companies, they're probably going after the third-rate knock-off manufacturers who sell things like "Tosiiba" and "Suny" brand DVD players.

Which, if they really are doing something illegal to keep their costs down, is not frivolous.

[ssuk @ Apr 10th 2007 9:43AM]

Haha, owned.

[publicemail @ Apr 10th 2007 10:02AM]

Obviously the people that write these anti-copyright, anti-patent emails haven't created something unique that they want to protect... talk to me after you've invented something and let's see how your tune changes.

[demo21 @ Apr 10th 2007 10:49AM]

So many socialists, so little time.

Obviously the people that write these anti-copyright, anti-patent emails haven't created something unique that they want to protect... talk to me after you've invented something and let's see how your tune changes.

I have, and my tune hasn't changed. I trust the market. I don't trust socialists.

So, according to your line of thinking, you must be campaigning against all the companies who have clearly 'ripped off' ideas like the TV and DVD player and cell phone to make their own, rather than enforce some kind of fairness law that ensures that there's only ONE brand of any of these things available for us to purchase in the stores. It would be only the one offered by the company that actually invented the thing.

Because, the company that invented it clearly can't make a profit or stay in business when other companies come up with their own versions and sell them along side of the original in the stores. Right?

[John @ Apr 10th 2007 11:27AM]

Most things like cell phones, DVD players, TVs, etc, are patented but those patents are widely licensed, and the people who invented them make money (until the patent expires) from those licenses. A good portion of patents are logical and have good reason to exist, and those are not the ones that people have to sue about - as a rule - because those are clear cut cases of infringement when they arise, along the lines of third rate hacks trying to pretend to be another company. Which brings us back to what Toshiba is going after these companies for.

[dunkyboy @ Apr 10th 2007 11:37AM]

Wait, are you saying that intellectual property rights are somehow a socialist and not a capitalist concept?? What planet are you from?? Capitalism *needs* IPR or there's no longer any incentive for people to invent things - and the companies/individuals that do invent things have no protection! It's the capitalists that *want* (nay, *need*) IPR! Generally, socialists are more aligned with the "open source everything" ideal, though I wouldn't say it's especially tied in with the socialist ideology one way or the other.

[demo21 @ Apr 10th 2007 1:40PM]

dunkyboy,

dunkyboy,

I would not necessarily agree with you about IPR, though it is certainly going to be a murky subject for a while as far as the law is concerned.

I was using myself in my other comment in a comparison of a potential small business owner trying to get an original product to market. I know enough about the market and its self-regulatory properties to trust it when I get out there and begin marketing my product. The problem arises when the government gives a foothold to those who would legally steal my idea and monopolize it for themselves.

Now, if someone went and copied my idea, possibly innovated on it further, and took it to market under a different name without getting any kind of licensing agreement from me, would I go and sue them for some kind of IP infringement? Well, under the current legal construct, that would be an option, but I don't think I would unless it was absolutely necessary for some reason (which I can't imagine off the top of my head). I don't operate that way. My solution is to decimate any competition in the free market alone (which is entirely possible unless the government begins to meddle with things). I think I can out-market them, out-manufacture them and out-brand them in a way that keeps me on top of the competitive pile. And I would continue to flourish, even if there was another product out there exactly like mine with a different name.

Because, for all the pushing of the socialist concept of a 'finite pie' which we are all vying to get a larger slice of, there are a LOT of customers out there who might like to buy my product. And there will be many customers for my competition, too. But them making money off a product stolen from me won't necessarily be equal to money being stolen directly out of my pocket. For whatever reason, maybe my competitor's marketing campaign appealed to their customers in a way that mine wouldn't have and those customers wouldn't have bought my product either way. In such a case, I didn't lose money. I didn't have my customers 'stolen' away from me to my competitor. And, quite possibly, due to my competition's marketing efforts, maybe they've reached a whole market segment that I didn't reach with my marketing, and those folks are now researching the product on the internet, finding mine and ending up purchasing from me. That's money MY COMPETITION spent that brought ME profit.

But, in terms of what you mentioned about socialists being all about the "open source everything" concept, you have to remember that more than the "everything belongs to the community, no individual can own anything" concept, they are even more interested in government and court-based regulation of the free market. They believe that the government can do a better job of regulating the free market than the free market itself. IPR isn't necessarily an inherent part of the free market. I would argue that it's another socialist mechanism created in order to help create 'fairness' where some imagine there isn't any. Which is what we're discussing here.

The market is a funny thing. It isn't very cut and dry at all. Here are a couple great articles regarding this subject:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4656
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3488

[demo21 @ Apr 10th 2007 12:00PM]

This is true regarding Toshiba and why they're doing what they're doing. The problem lies in the ideology that if any 'theft' of an idea by another entity is allowed to occur, that a company like Toshiba will not be able to thrive, to profit from their innovation, or even to continue to exist.

Now, in my case, let us just say that I have an idea for a product that I would like to take to market. If it is in fact patentable, what risks do I face in NOT patenting it? In the socialist mindset, I risk someone coming along and 'stealing' my idea and doing something with it in the same market in a way that prevents me from ever getting off the ground. And due to the concept of patenting, I now risk someone else not only copying my product, but patenting it right out from under me so I can't even produce it anymore, the competitor now having a monopoly over a product that I invented.

But I say in the truly free market (which abhors a monopoly), I am confident enough in my abilities as a business owner that I can sell my product effectively enough that it won't matter if I have copycats. And if I can't, then the free market has just regulated me out as it always naturally does, in favor of a better business. So, though I would rather not have to patent to sell my product, unfortunately I now must in order to be sure I can continue to do business.

And likely, even if Toshiba wins this case against companies that can be proven to be copying and selling Toshiba's stuff, others will still come along and do the same thing. And even if Toshiba doesn't pursue the new copiers, Toshiba will be fine and continue to flourish.

[tekdroid @ Apr 10th 2007 12:29PM]

in other news, Toshiba is taking Microsoft to court for Zuning it's Gigabeat :p

[Jeff @ Apr 10th 2007 2:52PM]

Of course this is the company that sold computer technology to the Russians so they could build quieter screws on their submarines back during the cold war. How about a class action suit for endangering Americans and friendly people around the world?

[shimman @ Apr 10th 2007 7:51PM]

oh dear...maybe toshiba is trying to force those chinese companies to produce el cheapo hd-dvd players..if that's not the intention, toshiba might fail on the hd-dvd format war

[nan @ Apr 11th 2007 11:27AM]

it's not everyone. it looks like the chinese sweatshop DVD players. the only one i recognized was daewoo. the whole list is at toshiba. none of the traditional brands, like sony, denon, or panasonic.

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2007_04/pr0901.htm