SED televisions delayed, again -- possibly forever

Damn, not another SED television delay. Yup, Canon and Toshiba just announced the postponement of the "late 2007" launch of their SED televisions citing the prolonged patent lawsuit with Nano-Proprietary as the reason. Presumably, Canon is in no mood to strike a new licensing agreement with both Nano-Proprietary and Toshiba as required by a previous ruling which sided with Nano-Proprietary. Wait, it gets worse. Not only has the litigation delayed the launch of Toshiba's 55-incher with 100,000:1 contrast, Canon also announced that they've stopped work on the technologies required to bring production costs down to that of LCDs and plasmas. That calls into question the commercial viability of the technology in the long run. Whatever, we've had it, we're turning our attention to OLED -- hear than Sony and Toshiba? You'd better not let us down.

[Alex @ May 25th 2007 7:28AM]

Yet another example of the crap patent system getting in the way of growth and production.

[andy @ May 25th 2007 9:54AM]

You're right. We should do away with the patent system because all innovation inherently belongs to "the people."

Maybe then we would finally become an innovative powerhouse like China or North Korea.

[Alex @ May 25th 2007 10:09AM]

Andy, not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I disagree. I think the patent system is right and necessary. Without a patent system there would be much less incentive for people to invent and innovate, since the monetary rewards would be not nearly as great. Business success would become even more determined by marketing and prior establishment than it is now, since anyone could steal anyone's ideas.

I just think that the patent system needs reform. I think the defenition of what can be patented needs to be tightened. So much stupid stuff is patented, and while you could argue that it spurs innovation by necessitating that people find new ways to do things, it also hinders peoples' ability to build on old ideas to develop new ones.

[Boof @ May 25th 2007 7:38AM]

SED has had vaporware written all over it from the beginning.

[gromit @ May 25th 2007 7:49AM]

That and, well, "Engadget HDTV of the year - 2005." Nice how that one worked out. Strong work.

[Crayola @ May 25th 2007 8:23AM]

Actually... Who Cares? What the consumers want is cheap, cheaper, cheapest, preferably free... With ever better improvement in quality and ever reducing cost, if SED doesn't delivery that objective against competitions, it is the dustbins anyway.

[Ezequiel Rodriguez @ May 25th 2007 9:03AM]

Sed's dead baby...Sed's dead...

[andy @ May 25th 2007 12:34PM]

@ Alex

Dripping with sarcasm as suspected. Has China ever produced anything original? They're pretty good at ripping things off but I don't know of anything they've acutally come up with. And another point of fact: their IP protection efforts are in lockstep with the growth of their economy. Everything you said is accurate.

Have you ever read a patent? There are many things that seem obvious after reading a patent. The problem is, you didn't think of it until you read that patent. And all patent systems bar the use of hindsight to render an invention invalid, for just that reason. The light bulb is obvious after you see how it works, so is the wheel, the internal combustion engine, etc. Improvements to these devices are also obvious once someone explains them to you.

Everyone says "reform", but what they really mean is "how do I get the upper hand here?" The big boys all sponsor "reform" because they see an easy way to steal IP, and then only pay damages based on the a portion of the add'l value added to the final product of the portion of the final product affected by the invention (see the draft patent reform legislation, that's exactly what it says). If you want to see IP theft on a scale unheard of in modern society, then let's do this "reform" stuff heralded by big business. I work for the big guys in IP, but the "reform" plans are nothing more than compulsory licensing and an invitation to steal other's inventions.


To anonymous: Get informed. If no one has made any money, you can only get an injunction to make them stop, no money. That's the way damages in the US work. You can ask for anything you want (so ask for control of the entire planet while you're at it), but what you get is always quite a different story. There are formulas for figuring out damages, once you look them up, you'll know why your comment doesn't make any sense.

[Alex @ May 25th 2007 2:46PM]

I just think they somehow need to separate true innovation from little changes. There's a difference between inventing the electric light bulb, or using a different gas in the bulb to increase efficiency, and deciding that pancakes taste better with one egg instead of two. You feel me?

[Revrant2394 @ May 25th 2007 11:04AM]

I don't blame them for losing interest, this company threw a totally unnecessary hissy fit to try and gain some cash, both companies, realizing their error, undid what displeased the company - but they went ahead with the lawsuit anyhow. Just goes to show you how greed and patent-companies hurt progress, a company is allowed to patent such vague and rough things, and then hold the technologies hostage until they expire and reach the consumer.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ May 25th 2007 11:42AM]

"possibly forever"

Did you read the article Thomas?

[anonymous @ May 25th 2007 12:11PM]

It all total hog wash. patents should not be able to be sued upon unless money was made by the infringer. All that should be allowed prior to that point is the infringer's must cease and desist and destroy all.

[Rick Lyon @ May 25th 2007 12:33PM]

We need a patent system, but we don't need the system in it's current state. Where someone can pull something out of their ass in very vague, general terms and apply that to a product or service 10 years later. Thanks Nano-Proprietary, it's nice to know greed is alive an well. If not, I'm sure an agreement could have easily been reached.

[andy @ May 25th 2007 12:38PM]

btw, Copyrights last for the life of the author plus 70 years.

If you want to talk about stifling innovation, etc., set your guns on that monstrosity.

Patents are 20yrs from the filing date, which means about 15 yrs of enforcement.

[Synergy6 @ May 25th 2007 12:54PM]

@andy,

Yeah, after all, who needs paper. Gunpowder wasn't much use. The compass didn't help anything. Rockets, cast iron, and the abacus kinda passed the world by. :rollseyes:

Of course, they, among other Chinese inventions, underpinned the modern world. But, they weren't patented, so I suppose they don't count. Right?

[andy @ May 25th 2007 2:09PM]

@Synergy6

And the 2000yr development time of those inventions is so much shorter than the 50 years it took the US to go from smooth barreled hand fired muskets that literally couldn't hit the side of a barn to fully automatic rifled sidearms with fully self-contained cartridges.

The founding fathers were correct; allowing one to profit from their innovation (for a limited time) encourages one to innovate and promotes the progress of the useful arts.

[boe @ May 25th 2007 2:05PM]

If they had released SED by this year it would have taken the industry by storm. As they put off the release date due to stupid lawsuits, they shot themselves in the foot, groin and then head. Plasma is still progressing impressively even though less manufactures are currently involved. The Pioneer plasma shown this year at CES was very impressive but still a bit screened/pixelated. DLP is making huge strides and LCOS is back with a vengence. SED could have had a significant place in history, now it will have that in law books about technology suits gone awry.

[andy @ May 25th 2007 2:11PM]

You're correct. The real lesson of this case:

If you're just trying to profit from a patent instead of bringing the invention to market yourself, take the money and run.


Or more simply: Take the money and run.

[trang.thomas @ May 25th 2007 2:50PM]

@ Andy

"And the 2000yr development time of those inventions is so much shorter than the 50 years it took the US to go from smooth...."

It didnt take 2000 years for the Chinese to develop gunpowder, paper, etc. We've just been using them for 2000 years. And the whole analogy with U.S. guns, for argument's sake, those guns are based off a simple ancient Chinese idea.

[AC @ May 25th 2007 6:29PM]

andy says: "Has China ever produced anything original? They're pretty good at ripping things off but I don't know of anything they've acutally come up with."

Synergy6 says: "Yeah, after all, who needs paper. Gunpowder wasn't much use. The compass didn't help anything. Rockets, cast iron, and the abacus kinda passed the world by. :rollseyes:"

andy says: "And the 2000yr development time of those inventions is so much shorter than the 50 years it took the US to go from smooth barreled hand fired muskets that literally couldn't hit the side of a barn to fully automatic rifled sidearms with fully self-contained cartridges."

andy, how is that a rebuttal of Synergy6's point?
Synergy6 just proved how ignorant you are.

[iJavaJoe @ May 28th 2007 2:38PM]

"The founding fathers were correct; allowing one to profit from their innovation (for a limited time) encourages one to innovate and promotes the progress of the useful arts."

The founding fathers had a great idea, but it is being bastardized by patent squatters! Companies with the sole goal of buying patents, holding them until someone "steals" them, then bringing law suites to bring in profits.

When a patent is applied for it needs to be with the intention of actually producing something, or at the very least selling/licensing it to another company so they can produce something. To "sit" on an idea/technology just to make profit through lawsuits is an abomination of the ideals of property rights. Creators of ideas should be given money appropriate for their contribution to further idea generation. However, what we are seeing, in ever increasing numbers are "Pirates of the Patent process" who are stifling industry and reducing the value of ideas.

[Plaid @ May 25th 2007 2:19PM]

Hmm. A lesson, perhaps, for Nano-Proprietary:

You can have a smaller piece of a much bigger pie.
Or you can have NO PIE AT ALL.
Your choice.

[andy @ May 25th 2007 4:46PM]

@alex

No, I don't. Why would someone ever lay out the money to experiment with putting different gases in bulbs to increase life and efficiency if their competitor could just wait for them to make the discovery and then copy it? Doing any R&D at all would be a retarded business model. Let someone else make that "incremental improvement" and then just copy it, that's a far better business model.

[Erin @ May 26th 2007 11:47PM]

...That wasn't what he was saying at all. He was saying the light bulb stuff should be patented and putting two eggs instead of one in pancakes shouldn't. Work on your reading comprehension.

[bothered @ May 25th 2007 7:04PM]

Andy,

my friends dad no longer invents things primarily because his patent lawyers have ripped off his ideas and taken them to industry to be exploited, after he has paid the lawyer thousands of dollars to write him patents that apparantly were compromiseable within the law. This guy has made some incredible stuff for the auto industry and medical fields. Now he is bitter and makes pee shooters out of junk for fun. Sad loss of inspiration and drive due to German, Asian, US, etc.. business tactics. You can't push the effectiveness of a system if the leaders are corrupt (business men). I'm not blaming the system, i am just stating that your confidence in it cannot be justified merely because you do not know the whole of humanity and economy and how they have been compromised verse the good it has done. There's no way you can say the trade off is better other than to push an image of what you have seen. It seems that your "business model" has pushed you away from your humanity in order to accomodate the beast. Funny thing is though, it seems your position is necessary for a public that cries over tragic human events, but spends their dollar on the companies that spur those events even further. I guess that makes humans or at least civilization in America hypocritical, and your job indispensable to them. Fortunate for you anyway, don't know why your stirring the waters for yourself, your industry is not in Jeopordy, in fact the more people we have the more it will thrive. You may do more harm brining attention to it. As for future inventors, business has always done a good job of exploiting the youth and their ignorance. Maybe they have burnt bridges with those they have infrindged on. It just means somehow business will have to find a way to provide the youth with an enviornment that allows them to become creative again, so they wont be dependant on those creative individuals who have experience in fields that our youth are no longer legally allowed to be exposed too. That just means whoever has the knowledge has more leverage and the ability to stop things when it feels it is being exploited. Take Nano-Proprietary for instance. As much as i would love to support American companies, they currently have a reputation for selling out our economy. However it is sad to see the loss of technology but none the less I side with Nano-Proprietary over Cannon and their breach of contract due to Cannons supposedly lack of integrity handling their relationship with Nano-Proprietary. You however should just consider it a casualty of business and I'm guessing are not concerned with business relationships outside of production. Do you do well in negotiations of sentiment? I'm guessing you have too many years developing otherwise to have a feel for it. You should consider this before you retire and drive your wife insane if you haven't already.

Koopt

PS. its not beyond peoples ability to change, its usually a matter of desire or enviornment. For your people, maybe outside motivation if they have breached too many relations around them to feel life in others outside of the pocket book. None the less integrity should still be attainable. Hardly anything for the business world at this point though.

[bothered @ May 25th 2007 7:05PM]

Last post was directed to Alex, not Andy.

[bothered @ May 25th 2007 7:19PM]

Well that is actually to several people sorry to target just you two Alex and Andy. That would make this just a rant.

By the way Andy, China has done quite a lot. A current form of speed math that a six year old can learn and effectively outperform a calculator is based on the functionality of the abacuss alone. It's concept is hardly obsolete, not to mention all the years of families and doctors testing different herbal remedies.

[Travis @ May 26th 2007 2:42PM]

Laser TV, all the way - I can't wait! Yes, I know about Arasor's IPO debacle, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the market for larger sets and projecters will be OWNED by Laser Displays in the not-too-distant future. The Novalux displays had a great showing at CES...

[Glenn @ May 26th 2007 9:37PM]

So, Is this a case of the Goose(Nano-Proprietary) that laid the Golden Eggs committing suicide. As in, now they don't get any royalties at all.

[dave @ May 27th 2007 11:29AM]

yet another prime example of a company that owns a patent and doesn't do anything with it

[KL @ May 27th 2007 8:44PM]

The most hilarious comment so far has to be the guy that said "our founding fathers" (of the US I assume) invented patents. Do you have education over there at all I wonder ?

You put a man on the moon did you ? Not without german engineers and a V2 rocket to copy.

And you wonder why the rest of the world think you are arrogant ? It's amazing.

[TouchSky @ May 28th 2007 8:06AM]

The intellectual property created by the Nazi government was legally divided between the allies at the end of the war. However, the real race was to get control of the intellectuals who created that property which was the birth of the missile race and the space race of the subsequent Cold War.

Intellectual property is the cornerstone of any economic system that rewards the individual (or corporation) for the efforts of their intellect. The current system of protecting intellectual property with patents and copyrights is flawed for this society as the original founders never envisioned the technological/corporate state that evolved in the United States and most of the industrial world. The US system has been tinkered with several times, but a major overhaul is difficult as protecting intellectual property is built-in to the US Constitution.

[Jay @ May 28th 2007 6:56PM]

Did someone say Duke Nukem Forever?

I could have sworn I heard that somewhere. ;-)

[bothered @ May 29th 2007 6:22AM]

I think we are definately coming to a point where people are less valuable than the lawn mower they operate.

[Gurs @ May 29th 2007 12:47PM]

Interesting debate on the merits of patent protection, but allow me to turn the conversation back to the topic of SED televisions. I think the author of this Engadget piece has mis-stated an important fact.

Engadget states that Canon has "stopped work on the technologies required to bring production costs down to that of LCDs and plasmas."

But the article in the jump says that Canon is delaying the launch "to develop the technology to cut production costs, a step necessary to compete with LCD and plasma TVs."

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what was reported by Engadget. So it looks like there's hope for SEDs yet (if you believe what you read, that is, which this post indicates is increasingly misguided).

[ShadowVlican @ Jun 1st 2007 12:43AM]

SED, it will ALWAYS arrive next year!

[wonderbread @ Jun 4th 2007 10:34PM]

This is the kind of thing that boggles the minds of consumers.

Obvious questions are not being answered here.

#1 If nano tech's deal was for cannon and cannon only to produce the TVs then WHY oh WHY does cannon insist on Toshiba being their bed buddy? Just make the damn tv sets your self? What's wrong with cannon here?

#2 Why is nano tech insistant on only cannon producing the technology? Were they sure from the start that cannon could not do it alone and thus made the deal hoping they could then sell the idea to other producers? Why not sell it to Toshiba also? What is nano tech's goal here?

#3 prictease