2007-02-24, 07:54 PM
A U.S. Federal Court has ruled that Canon Inc. breached a nanotechnology licensing deal, which is expected to further delay the company's plans to launch a new type of flat-screen TV.
Canon and Toshiba began working on surface conduction electron emitter display (SED) TVs in 1999, missed a 2005 launch and then did so again in 2007.
It looks like SED is dead; a tragedy, considering the picture quality that might have been.
2007-02-26, 12:01 PM
If that turns out to be case, then Nanotechnology gets ZIP, rather than half of what they thought they deserved. How is this in their best interest?
2007-05-25, 11:26 AM
By Greg Tarr -- TWICE, 5/25/2007 6:50:00 AM
Tokyo — Toshiba and Canon sent out official notices Friday that they have postponed the launch of surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) TVs, which were originally planned to launch in the fourth quarter of 2007.
In a statement, Toshiba said “the decision is based on information provided by Canon, indicating that Canon will not be able to provide SED panels to the original schedule.”
Canon said Friday that “prices of flat panels are declining more rapidly than expected.” The company said it has to institute new production techniques to improve mass production efficiency.
Both Canon and Toshiba said they could not give a specific timeframe for the launch of SED TVs at this time.
Plans for mass production of 55-inch 1080p SED TVs — which are flat-panel sets designed to produce extremely high contrast, black level and color saturation levels — were dealt a blow, by Nano-Proprietary, a company that developed a key piece of technology that Canon was to license to produce the sets.
Nano-Proprietary claimed that Canon broke an exclusivity agreement by sharing information related to electron emissions from carbon nanotubes with Toshiba.
As a result of the suit, Toshiba ended its role as a equity partner with Canon in the SED production company in order to satisfy Nano-Proprietary's complaints.
Last February, a Federal Court ruled that Canon had violated its agreement with Nano-Proprietary by forming a joint television venture with Toshiba.
On May 3, a jury ruled that no additional damages beyond the $5.5 million fee for the original licensing contract were due.
And the winner here is .... nobody! Such a shame that they could not work out something equitable.