Dbrand pulls PS5 "darkplates" from sale entirely then goes on a Twitter rant

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Not sure why Sony won't settle like they did with the one company and work with them as they'd profit from it.  There's literally a following already.

For sony it would simply be outsourcing the custom side of it and it could be a win win for everyone.

[Jito463]

Quote

recovery of our client’s lost profits and damages, and statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work.

I'd love to see Sony's case for their "lost profits and damages", from a company offering aftermarket parts.  Is Sony in the business of selling customized plates for the PS5?  That's the only way I can see them justifying this argument.

[Jito463]

On 10/18/2021 at 4:32 AM, LAwLz said:

1) Sony is not "using the legal system to harass DBrand" since sending a C&D is not "harassment".

I'm not saying it is in this case, but it certainly can be 'harassment', or more accurately 'intimidation'.  There are certainly instances of companies or individuals, who abuse the legal system to attack others and intimidate them into backing down.  Again, not saying that is necessarily the case here, just that it can happen.

On 10/18/2021 at 4:32 AM, LAwLz said:

2) Sony aren't suing DBrand. 

Yet.

On 10/18/2021 at 4:32 AM, LAwLz said:

3) This is in no way shape or form "fraud".

On this I concur, though I question whether Sony has a legal arm to stand on.  Part of their suit was for lost profits, but the only way they could be losing profits is if they intend to sell customized replacement plates, which we've heard nothing about before now.  This will be an interesting case to follow.

On 10/18/2021 at 4:32 AM, LAwLz said:

You've used that term 4 times in this thread and I don't think you know what it means. Sending a C&D is not "strong arming".

Again, I refer back to my previous argument.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Sony has a history of patent theft, though.  Nintendo and MS do as well, and Sony simply made an allegation that this is infringing on their's.  But, Sony has yet to provide any evidence that they actually were first with this design and patent.  Again, that's the point you're missing.  Now, I highly doubt DBrand created it either.  All 3 have gotten patents granted on things they had no right to, and lawsuits have proven that.  Not sure why Sony won't settle like they did with the one company and work with them as they'd profit from it.  There's literally a following already.

Your apparent lack of understanding of the laws surrounding patents/trademarks/copyrights really makes me question whether your claims "had no rights to" is even valid.  Sony's stance on aftermarket side-panels has been pretty clear.  I bet dBrand has hardly made enough money to offer a settlement that Sony would want...because Sony wants to be able to create special edition PS5's later (and get more hype for the console)...or that is my guess anyways.

 

To be clear patents in the US since 2011 have been first-to-file, so being granted patents means they don't have to show anything really.  Although again, it's an unique contour shape...not just like a rectangle.  The side panel patent also covers those clips that hold on the side panel (which arguably might start being in the realm where I could justify a patent being issued...and dBrand was stupid enough to copy that 1:1 without any modifications).  If someone wants to claim it's invalid then they have to take Sony to court and it's the burden on them to provide evidence that it's an invalid patent (when a patent is granted, the burden of proof swings to the other side).

 

Lastly, it has no relevance of "past thefts".  If a prolific drunk driver gets hit by another drunk driver (while sober), that doesn't invalidate the fact that they deserve justice.  Also, if you are referring to things like the dualshock controllers, I still think Sony was operating in good faith.  They had licensed a patent from Logitech regarding rumble devices, which they used as a defense.  It's very much possible that Sony had no clue about the other patent.  Actually a lot of time, I think large companies don't realize about patent infringement because they develop things independently and it just so happens it violates a patent (and unlike copyright, that can't be used as a defense)

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

"I bet" so, you're assuming with no proof, like Sony.  That wasn't the point.  If people are buying a product and following it then it would be logical for Sony to do outsourcing as that's a logical win-win.

You are the one who has been making claims saying that Sony has to prove things (which they don't at this point, they have a patent) and just for your information it's simple enough to do the napkin math to realize that it's not really in Sony's interest to offer a settlement.  As I've mentioned, having 3rd party skins would dilute press/hype from them releasing special PS5's with custom looks (like they have done with their prior products).  For Sony, the later in life attention can mean millions in additional sales (not of PS5's but of games, which they take a cut of)....anyways I did a bit of napkin math to come up with my guess anyways.  10 million units sold to date, but I can almost guarantee that dBrand has had less than 1 million skins sold (my guess would be a few hundred thousand, but lets run with a mill).  That is $49 million of revenue at max, which would be less than what their Spiderman game has made in revenue.  So yea, I doubt they would be jumping at the bit for a few million dollars.

 

8 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not a unique contour shape.  This "contour" shape has been on Seagate external hard drives years before the PS5 was even a concept.  Same with tower fans in the past 10 years.  Same as parts in the automative industry for decades

Not going to respond to you anymore, as you obviously can't wrap your head around the simple concepts that people have been.  Let me say this very clearly.  The patent covers the specific contour shape, and also covers the mechanism to hold the plate to the PS5.  No Seagates "contour" shape is not the same as the PS5...I seriously don't know if you are trolling or can't grasp the concept that the shape of the PS5 is unique and dBrand went as far as copying the hooks the PS5 side panel uses which is part of the patent.  Prove to me then one other patent that covers the same contours as Sony then...guess what there won't be one.  Sony was granted a patent, which means if someone is using what their patent describes it's up to the defendant to sue to get the patent thrown out.

 

8 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm not even sure who the first one was, but I've seen this shape on products for decades now

You might have seen similar shapes, but similar does not equal the same shape.

 

So I am done discussing this with you.

[LAwLz]

46 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You and the others still haven't proven they created that first.

Like I've told you like 10 times already.

It's not up to Sony to prove that they created it first. It's up to the defendant to prove someone else created it first.

 

It's damn near impossible to prove that someone *hasn't* done something before. It is way easier to prove that someone *has* done something. That's why the laws are the way they are.

Asking Sony to prove that nobody else has created it before them is like asking you to prove that you didn't hit someone. It's impossible.

[mr moose]

I'm just going to say that apple didn't get their rectangle with rounded corners design patent upheld even if it was a special ratio of squircle.     It'll be interesting to see if a court would uphold a hyperbolic shape as unique or not found elsewhere.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'm just going to say that apple didn't get their rectangle with rounded corners design patent upheld even if it was a special ratio of squircle.     It'll be interesting to see if a court would uphold a hyperbolic shape as unique or not found elsewhere.

The patent covers the design of holding the plate to the PS5, so yes I think it very much would hold up.

 

Also as a note, Apple lost their patent 618677 not because the entire patent was overly vague but because the USPTO ruled that the prior patents that Apple had relied upon in the filing, and since those older patents didn't describe the features in 677 well enough that moved the patent date from early 2007 to late 2008...but between 2007 and 2008 Android phones already began having rounded corners like Apple which invalidated the patent.  Effectively had Apple created a more airtight filing back in 2007 (or had they filed that 2008 patent back in 2007) then the patent would still stand.

 

i.e. Apple lost the patent, but not in the way most people would assume.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The patent covers the design of holding the plate to the PS5, so yes I think it very much would hold up.

 

Also as a note, Apple lost their patent 618677 not because the entire patent was overly vague but because the USPTO ruled that the prior patents that Apple had relied upon in the filing, and since those older patents didn't describe the features in 677 well enough that moved the patent date from early 2007 to late 2008...but between 2007 and 2008 Android phones already began having rounded corners like Apple which invalidated the patent.  Effectively had Apple created a more airtight filing back in 2007 (or had they filed that 2008 patent back in 2007) then the patent would still stand.

 

i.e. Apple lost the patent, but not in the way most people would assume.

 

A design patent cannot include a utility function.  The method to hold the cover on will be covered by a separate patent.

 

Also generic shapes are not covered by a design patent, it has to be a unique shape or embellishment.   Which is why I said it'll be interesting to see if the courts decide a hyperbolic shape is unique enough.

 

EDIT: relevant info here:

https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide

 

I think it would be pretty hard to argue the curves are essential to the way the cover is fixed or form a unique fixing method and is a designed ornamental. 

 

I can't see dbrand making the prior artwork argument, but I can see them making the curves are not a new shape argument.   So as I have said several times, it will be interesting to see who the court sides with.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

A design patent cannot include a utility function.  The method to hold the cover on will be covered by a separate patent.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  The design patent included the hooks, which are quite unique.  Although admittedly looking up the patent I guess it excludes the hooks...though there might be a separate patent regarding the hooks (I find it really hard to search through all the patents Sony has done).  I seem to recall back a year ago seeing a patent regarding hooks (might have been an utility patent).

 

Either way, the patent itself for the design was granted anyways, which at this stage means that people defending would have to prove prior art.  On a side note though, would really like to know how dBrand designed theirs, because they pretty much copied the hooks as well

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Sony is planning to, they just haven't yet.  This is the face omate thing all over again.  Sony is refusing competition in their market, and that's an illegal monopoly.

Oh boy... Are you seriously going to try and make a monopoly argument now? This is getting ridiculous. 

A parent is essentially a legally granted monopoly. Sony has the patent. Nobody else is allowed to make the thi g they have patented. Please, just stop... You're throwing around wild accusations without any understanding of how the law works. 

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

A monopoly is fine, but refusing competition is an illegal one. 

No, it's not.

By your logic, patents are completely useless if you aren't allowed to keep them for yourself.

 

Also, you seem very hung up on the whole console market crash and I really don't see how that's relevant. It just sounds like some random fact you tacked on to try and explain something, without any logic behind it.

 

 

18 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Refusal of having competition at all, which is what Sony's Lawyers argued for them to is an illegal monopoly.

It's not.

 

18 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I know you believe Sony can do no wrong, but that is an illegal monopoly. 

Yeah, because I am such a Sony fan... 

All I am doing you is telling you how the law works. I am not a Sony fan who "thinks they can do no wrong" just because I point out that your arguments are bullshit and the law doesn't work the way you think it works.

My first post in the entire thread was me saying I don't think Sony should win. I have a long history on this forum for being against patents. I really don't want Sony to win. But my feelings does not change the facts that we live in a world where the laws look and work the way they do.

 

 

25 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Refusing competition so that only you can profit in that market is an illegal monopoly. 

It's not. Just because you repeat something over and over does not make it true.

 

26 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

It's not just because "meh bs patent I can't prove!  Prove it for me!" 

But that's how it works... I really don't get how you can even think of a second that the one holding a patent is the one who needs to prove that nobody else in the history of humanity has done something similar. That's not how it works. Patents are granted, and then if someone else proves that the patent should be invalid because of prior art then it gets invalidated. You might not like it, but it is not up to Sony to prove that their patent is valid if they have already been granted it. It's up to the people who want to invalidate it that needs to provide evidence for why it should be invalidated.

Also, stop with the bullshit "you have to prove a negative or else it's true" (il)logic. 

 

You asking Sony to prove that nobody else has come up with their sideplate before them is like asking someone to prove that God isn't real and then assessing that if the person fails to prove it, then that's proof in and of itself that he is real. That is not how logic works.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, in this case you or dBrand making the claim that there exists prior art. 

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  The design patent included the hooks, which are quite unique.  Although admittedly looking up the patent I guess it excludes the hooks...though there might be a separate patent regarding the hooks (I find it really hard to search through all the patents Sony has done).  I seem to recall back a year ago seeing a patent regarding hooks (might have been an utility patent).

It is very likely if the hooks are unique that they are patented seperately. And if so that will be more of a problem for dbrand than the curve ( in my estimation).

 

36 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Either way, the patent itself for the design was granted anyways, which at this stage means that people defending would have to prove prior art.  On a side note though, would really like to know how dBrand designed theirs, because they pretty much copied the hooks as well

 

They would have to provide either prior art or successfully argue that the curve is not unique.   Not sure how that would go though.   I mean if it's a design thing there are plenty of curved things, just not many of them are strictly tech items.

[WkdPaul]

- thread locked -

 

... seriously, some of the arguments here are giving me a headache.