Wed 28 Feb 2007
A must read for SED TV fans, full story at Yahoo News
Reuters reported today that Canon‘s loss in the Nano lawsuit could cost it millions more if they decide to continue with SED TV production.
A few excerpts:
“But now that the lawsuit has caused Canon to lose the license, a fresh agreement with Texas-based Nano-Proprietary Inc. could be worth millions of dollars more, lawyers said.”
“It seems strange Canon managed to go all the way to trial and lose,” said Peter Godwin, a Tokyo-based partner at law firm Herbert Smith. “Assuming they were advised they were at risk, you’d expect a company of the size of Canon to have reached a settlement before that.”
“But clearly, it takes two to settle and the patent is a very important one,” Godwin said. “Both Canon and Nano may have taken the view that the legal fees involved were insignificant compared to the benefits should they win.”
A person close to the trial said the parties may reach a settlement before the court rules on damages due the U.S. firm.
The next session of the trial is set for the first available date after April 2.
A new licensing deal between Canon and Nano-Proprietary could be a pay-as-you-use contract and may be priced well above the original one-time upfront contract, Credit Suisse analyst Kunihiko Kanno wrote in a note to his clients.
“That would have an impact on (Canon’s) profitability.”
It makes one wonder once again how such a huge corporation as Canon found themselves this far down an undesirable path.
Â
Â
Technorati Tags: Canon, SED TV
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 am
Whatever happens, who cares now. It appears that the promise of consumers getting their hands on this great technology has been pushed back indefinitely. Time to put our money either on LCD or Plasma, the greediness of Nano has hurt their corporate image, and in my opinion hurt the long term viability of SED technology. It may already be too late.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“the greediness of Nano has hurt their corporate image”??? Nano has every right to protect and defend their patents just like everyone else in the world. I’m sure Nano even tried to work with Canon and solve the issues in the beginning. This is Canons fault for not following their licensing agreement. They could have completely avoided this. And now, due to their greediness, they have jepordized the SED technology.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Amazing how everyone in the US hides behind the veil of patent protection. Nano had a moment of clarity when it realized it had locked into an agreement with Canon that would pay low royalties, only to split hairs in court over Canon’s strategic alliance with Toshiba. The strategic alliance was discussed for quite a while, Nano did nothing then and only decided at the 11th hour of mass production commencement to halt the whole process. In the end my friend you lose and I lose because of Nano’s greed, maybe Nano can make you your SED.
March 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Everyone in the US? How about Japan, Germany and the UK to name a few and it has nothing to do with hiding. Nano was not responsible for doing anything about Canon’s strategic alliance with Toshiba (it’s not illegal) but they did expect Canon to adhere to their agreement. How would Nano know that Canon would be sharing Nano’s technology with Toshiba. Nano doesn’t have privy to what goes on inside Canon and Toshiba. Toshiba should have negotiated a licensing agreement with Nano and everything would have been fine. The strategic alliance has nothing to do with the lawsuit. You know nothing about the agreement between Canon and Nano nor what the royalties would have been so you are merely guessing at what YOU THINK REALLY HAPPENED. Pure conjecture. Do you really think that Nano would have been so ignorant as to negogiate such a poor deal. You also do not know how Nano may have tried to settle before the lawsuit. Nano did not want this deal to go bad, they will totally lose out if no one else is interested in their technology. In fact, Samsung may even be offered a better deal. Yes it would have been nice if Nano just looked over their shoulder and let Canon give away their technology so you and I could have SED display but in the business world that is a big no no that no company can afford do. It would have also been nice if Canon just followed the rules. Nano does not have the means to produce SED displays my friend but Samsung would be fine. BTW, If Nano’s lawsuit has hurt their corporate image then why is Samsung knocking at their door.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Unless you are holding a trump card, I DOUBT YOU KNOW EITHER. But as a lawyer by training I do know one thing; that court room contract battles are borne, by following the money trail, and this is where Nano “got greedy”. Even their name hints at trouble “Nano Proprietary”. Nano’s interests lie in collecting windfalls from every SED sold it seems to me if this venture fails Nano will not reap any benefit. I would not be happy if I were a Nano shareholder right now. In the end I cannot venture what is in the mind’s of Nano’s management but one thing is certain, I doubt they are getting the big picture. Canon can take a loss and be better financially in the long run by dumping this whole venture. The Samsung interest is a pointless issue; if production doesn’t start soon Plasma and LCD’s will have advanced so far that capturing a foothold for SED will be impossible. How can Samsung retool a plant for immediate production? It is extremely important in these situations not to believe the superficial press statements that come out from both sides and automatically defend one particular one. In the end consumers suffer. If you haven’t seen that, no point in continuing. Nuff said.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Of course I do not know but I am not the one calling a company greedy and pulling things out of thin air when I really do not know what is going on. I am merely stating the obvious from all the public information gathered from the actual court proceedings, not the press. Following the money trail??? There is no money trail – SED displays are not even in production. This is simply about a blatant violation of a licensing agreement, a legal and binding contract, in which apparently Canon believes that they are above honoring. Nano Proprietary is a very clever and suitable name for their business, especially one of such new technology. Maybe you do not realize how many companies have the word proprietary in their name. How can Nano be greedy when they knew better than anybody from the start that if the venture failed it could mean enormous financial consequences for them. But with interest coming from such a large company as Samsung, and so soon, I think Nano is going to be very successful. I am considering buying their stock and if I were a Nano shareholder I would expect them to defend my interest in the company just as they are doing. A successful company must think long term not short term. Yes Canon can take the loss but what a waste of money and how irresponsible is that – talk about angry shareholders. I do not believe Canon will be better financially in the long run and neither does Samsung. I also believe Samsung is in a much better position than Canon to produce SEDs cheaper, but even if they end up being more expensive than LCD and Plasma that does not mean they will fail. The price range of HiFi gear is huge but that does not stop it from being successful. The same is true of automobiles. With SED it will be no different especially since they look as good as CRTs. Are you not automatically defending one particular company, maybe you should read your three posts above. You still do not get it, the “customer” is Canons customer not Nanos. Nanos customer is/was Canon and hopefully soon to be Samsung.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
What?????? In regards to the word Proprietary and other companies with the same usage, we are not talking about other companies we are talking about Nano here, and we are MOST DEFINTELY TALKING ABOUT MONEY…LOTS OF IT, doesn’t matter if hasn’t come in yet. That Nano feels it is not going to reap as much as it should have negotiated in the beginning is the main reason. Nano knows that Canon and Toshiba have invested huge sums of money in this venture and Nano now wants a better deal. Hiding behind a veil of a violated patent issue is a smokescreen, why you blatantly support the company at the 11th hour of production is beyond me for your opinion and for Nano’s actions. Rather than take though a black and white approach I also think that Canon was arrogant and stupid in this whole venture, they should have renegotiated with Nano and allowed Toshiba to negotiate in the beginning. But I stand by my first statement the long term survivability of SED is at stake.
We now hear a threat from Canon chairman Fujio Matarai that production can go ahead and that a costly court battle can be avoided but if the cost of producing these sets (i.e licensing costs to Nano) is too high and that production cannot be profitable within 3 years then they will pull out. So what does that tell you? It tells me that Canon is now publicly making a statement to Nano regarding their negotiations. So you see it is always about the $$$$
I am not ignoring the patent issue outright you are mistaken but it was used as a pretext to renogiate royalties and that is where they get greedy in my opinion and could do themselves harm. I quote from a financial mag that discussed the issue:
A new licensing deal between Canon and Nano-Proprietary could be a pay-as-you-use contract and may be priced well above the original one-time upfront contract, Credit Suisse analyst Kunihiko Kanno wrote in a note to his clients.
“That would have an impact on (Canon’s) profitability.â€
On the other hand, last week’s ruling sent Nano-Proprietary shares up 17 percent on expectations the firm may earn higher patent-related revenues. Nano-Proprietary, which has close to 200 patents and pending applications, also owns technology in carbon nanotube TVs and carbon nanotube backlights for liquid-crystal displays.
Follow the money trail? You bet it is all about money. As for your other issue regarding the price of these TV’s, if economies of scale allow Plasma’s to be produced in mass quantities with their technology matching SED’s and initial SED runs are very expensive what do you think will happen? Most new technologies take 15-20 years to mature and Plasma’s are getting better and better with 1080p Plasma’s coming this fall and they have been around for guess what around 11 years. Once that happens I am not so sure the market will be able to asborb 3 different types of technologies (Plasma’s, LCD’s and SED?). No, I think the consumer market will wait for the next big paradigm shift and will be perfectly happy with their Plasma’s and LCD’s. History is full of techology that was superior but for one reason or another failed to gain market share; the MacIntosh, SACD, BETA etc. As for the Hi-Fi industry you are right there is a wide price range but the hi-fi industry is hurting and I am surprised you think it is successful, companies like Wadia, Audiolab, Castle Acoustics have either closed down forever or have been reborn from other investors and we are talking about HI-FI not mass market gear. No, great technology is no guarantee that it will win and survive in the marketplace.
You are wrong about Canon’s financial situation, all financial analysts have stated that Canon would be better of taking a one time hit and abandon the project if it means higher fees and lengthy court battles. If Samsung wants to take the plunge let it but I am sure by then as we are already hearing and reading in our belove hi-fi mags that there are other techonogies on the horizon that could supplant SED and it is already happening. So nothwithstanding your prouncements and predictions some of which I don’t understand, you seem to have a pedestrian approach to the whole hi-fi and technology industry as a whole. I do not dismiss the patent issue just that there are other hidden reasons; $$$$$