Gotta love how patents can hold back technology...

[Orstio]

The CEA (Atomic Energy Commission) are instituting, in Japan, new proceedings against Samsung for infringements on patents relating to Liquid Crystal Display-LCD screens

The CEA brought action against Samsung on 8th November in Japan (Court of Tokyo) for infringement on two of its basic patents in the LCD field pertaining to VA (vertically aligned) technology.

Samsung currently sells products (television sets and computer screens) using improved high contrast VA technology to obtain a wider viewing angle and improved image quality, thereby inciting many LCD screen manufacturers in the world to turn to this process.

These are the third proceedings instituted by the CEA against the South-Korean manufacturer, Samsung.

The CEA has indeed already brought action against Samsung in the United States in May 2003, then in July 2004 in France where it obtained a summons at a fixed date at the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris on 23rd November coming in accordance with proceedings of exceptional urgency.

Furthermore, the proceedings initiated in the United States (District Court of Delaware) also relate to the other main LCD screen manufacturers: the Japanese companies Sharp, Fujitsu and Sanyo and the Taiwanese companies Chi Mei and AU Optronics. On the American Judge’s initiative, mediation should be taking place in the weeks to come.


About the CEA :

The CEA, a public research organisation, conducts its missions in the fields of energy, information and health technologies and Defence.
Armed with the expertise of its 15,000 research workers and employees, the CEA can namely boast advanced European research in microelectronics, microtechnnologies and nanotechnologies. In 2003, it registered 292 patents ranking it the number one public research organisation in France.

The law firm representing the CEA in France is MIZRAHI Associés in Paris, assisted by the Regimbeau law firm.
The law firm representing the CEA in the United States is McKENNA, LONG and ALDRIDGE in Washington.
The law firms representing the CEA in Japan are OHBA, OZAKI and SHIMASUE as well as Sonoda KOBAYASHI in Tokyo.

[Mentor]

to be honest I don`t see that as holding back technology  , if they spent the time and money developing a wide angle display system then they are entitled to some return, not just having some Asian manufacturer ignore their patent rights and get rich on the back of their work, it`s not even as though it`s the only tft wideangle technology possible, and the others are patented too, thats the whole idea of patents, and it`s not even a serious technological advance, my monitors work just fine the way they are, I don`t see where the problem is.

Mentor.

[Bikerman]

My view is compatible with both of yours.
Yes, it is undeniable that patent law can be a bad thing.  Take the AIDS drugs (or, more currently, avian flu drug). Patent law forbits the production of cheap generics for a period of time which means that many African countries cannot afford the market price of the drugs needed.  (Before anyone from Glaxo-Smith-Kline gets to reminding me of their new socially-aware policy of making these drugs cheaper for developing countries..yes I know and approve of the move - shame it took you so long but let's not be bitter - the move is a good one and deserves recognition. It doesn't answer the underying problem though. Are we always to be dependant on the altruism of corporations?  I hope not).

It is also true that the development of such drugs costs a huge amount - sometimes measured in billions, and the company must recover these costs or go bust.
So what we have is a paradox. Any attempt to solve it without addressing the underlying cause of the paradox is simply plaster-sticking.

And the underlying cause ?  Obviously the system used to support the development of the drugs is the underlying problem, UNLESS it can be assumed that all consumers within the system have equal buying power. The latter seems very unlikely within the present scope of geo-politics (one again please don't imagine that moves like the 'freeing of world markets' under GATT are actually addressing this, that is demonstrably not the case, and nor, I would argue, is that their real point). 
The implication ? The problem is insoluble in an unmodified market-driven capitalist system.
The solution....ahhhhhh.....thats a REALLY big question...

Chris.