Anyone buying a TV right now knows that the newest buzzword is 4K, but another new technology is getting ready to steal the limelight for 2015: quantum dots. LG kicked journey quantum-dot madness earnestly on Monday with a sneak peek at its 2015 distinctive line of quantum dot-equipped TVs, which boast a broader color palette. Oh, and so they’ll have 4K UHD LCD panels, too.
Quantum dot TVs piggyback away from current LCD technology, which employs a backlight that shines by way of a combination of shutters to emit a graphic. However, as LG explains it, quantum-dot tech works by “harnessing nano crystals that zero in size from 2 to 10 nanometers.”
Once you shine light using a quantum dot, it glows, thereby emitting a light. The color which a quantum dot emits is directly linked with its size, and is particularly extremely stable. In this way, using quantum dots ends in a broader array of colors which are brighter and even more accurate than existing LCD TVs will be able to produce.
By locating a film of such little crystals in front of an LCD backlight, LG claims it’s improved its Lcd television’s color reproduction rate by more than 30 percent. The machine can be beneficial to our environment, as a result of elimination of cadmium or other toxic pollutants within the manufacture of quantum dots.
“Quantum dot’s vibrant and vivid color reproduction capabilities brings LG’s LCD TVs one stage further in relation to display quality,” said In-kyu Lee, senior vp and head in the TV and monitor division with the LG Electronics Watching movies Company.
Which will somewhat be true, but our excitement for the new quantum dot 4K UHD TVs remains tempered. Quantum dots you aren’t, the TVs still employ LCD panels, taking along the inherent limitations of the technology, including difficulty creating rich contrast and deeper black levels, along with poor off-axis viewing.
Related: How Quantum Dot LCD TVs work
For now, we’ll the stand by position the astounding picture quality of LG’s own OLED TVs, which forego an LCD backlight for displays that employ compounds that generate his or her light, as opposed to make use of an exterior source of light. While OLED tech has met with its own challenges in stability and affordability, LG is leading those at this time, and the company’s 65-inch EC9700 OLED 4K UHD TV is truly a wonder to behold.
Regardless, we’re still very intrigued to go eyes lets start on LG’s latest quantum dot creations at this year’s show. And you could bet your lunch money that today’s announcement is only the beginning, being a stable of manufacturers bring their particular quantum dot displays to carry.
Stick with us even as we ramp up for CES next month, bringing you the many latest on these new TVs, and an ocean of other technologies that could make their way to the show floor in Vegas.
flexible Printed Circuit
The Seventh Circuit’s Nov. 26, 2014, decision in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. FN:1, like its prior (now vacated) decision in the same case could substantially limit the ability of some plaintiffs to recoup damages inside the U.S. from participants in a overseas cartel. This decision interpreted the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) to bar Motorola’s claims for damages based on its foreign subsidiaries’ purchases of price-fixed LCD panels. However, the court’s most up-to-date decision, unlike its prior decision, makes clear that this ruling does not limit the government’s power to prosecute participants in overseas cartels.
There isn’t any dispute that U.S. antitrust law applies to “import” commerce. You will find there’s general consensus the Sherman Act is true of a distant cartel engaged in fixing the of goods the members then import in to the United States. It is consistent with the Supreme court’s ruling in Hartford Fire Insurance v. California how the Sherman Act pertains to foreign conduct “that had been designed to produce and did the truth is produce some substantial effect in the states.” FN:2
The supply from the FTAIA at issue concerns the reach of U.S. antitrust statutes regarding non-import foreign commerce. It offers that U.S. antitrust laws do not apply to non-import foreign commerce unless the overseas conduct at issue has: (1) a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce and (2) a result that “gives rise” to the U.S. claim. FN:3 These four elements are often called the “domestic effects exception.”
The conduct at concern is the well-publicized LCD cartel involving allegations of “crystal meetings” in Asia to correct the prices of LCD panels that later join televisions, monitors, laptops, and mobile phones. These meetings generated sprawling investigations, criminal prosecutions, and civil suits inside U.S. and round the world. Motorola brought suit against alleged participants inside LCD cartel (AU Optronics yet others) based on the purchase of price-fixed LCD panels by Motorola’s foreign subsidiaries.
Judge Susan Illston within the Northern District of California, who presided over the LCD Multi-District Litigation, first ruled on whether or not the FTAIA permitted Motorola’s claims regarding the panel purchases overseas. She figured that Motorola could proceed with its damages claims, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. She emphasized that there was clearly substantial evidence that defendants had “targeted” Motorola in the states and figured this evidence raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Motorola could fit its claims inside the domestic effects exception. FN:4 The case ended up being transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for trial. Motorola brought a motion for reconsideration of Judge Illston’s ruling. Judge Joan Gottschall granted the motion. She held that Motorola could not fit its claims within the domestic effects exception, rejecting Judge Illston’s acceptance with the “target” theory of antitrust liability. FN:5
The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion authored by noted antitrust scholar Judge Richard Posner, issued your third opinion on Motorola’s claims, affirming Judge Gottschall’s ruling. The Seventh Circuit found that Motorola cannot meet either prong of the domestic effects exception: Motorola can’t show a “direct” or “substantial” effect and, separately, cannot show the effect “gave rise” on the Sherman Act claim.
How it happened next was unusual. Motorola filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The Department of Justice plus the Ftc supported the petition. The Seventh Circuit then issued a number of orders culminating in a order vacating its opinion, ordering further briefing (including several amicus briefs) and oral argument.
The costa rica government then filed an amicus brief suggesting that, in the event the court reaffirmed its dismissal of damages claims depending on the overseas purchases by Motorola’s subsidiaries, it will rule in a way that may not limit the government’s chance to seek criminal or injunctive remedies against participants in the LCD-type conspiracy. That is certainly, government entities argued that the court should rule that plaintiffs met the 1st prong with the domestic effects exception although not the second. FN:6
Last week’s opinion, also authored by Posner, was the 4th ruling on Motorola’s claims. The end result was just like out of all opinions but the first: a legal court found that Motorola cannot pursue Sherman Act claims according to purchases by its foreign subsidiaries because doing so cannot fit its claims from the domestic effects exception. However, Judge Posner’s opinion took the way suggested from the government: it assumed that there is a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce although not this effect “gave rise” to some Sherman Act claim. Quite simply, the consequence inside U.S.—the elevated expense of cellphones from the U.S.—is not the identical to the cornerstone for Motorola’s claims—overcharges for LCD panels in Asia. This ruling therefore does not limit the scope on the government’s criminal enforcement power but does limit the flexibility of some private plaintiffs to obtain damages based on foreign purchases.
Separately, in another departure from its vacated opinion, legal court held that Motorola’s position was not like Illinois Brick FN:7—which by exceptions bars claims by an indirect or downstream purchaser from your cartel. Legal court explained how the “target” theory would “nullify” Illinois Brick must be cartel always considers the value where a direct purchaser would resell. Which is, a cartel always “knowingly causes injury to indirect purchasers” but Illinois Brick nevertheless bars claims by these purchasers. FN:8
Judge Posner’s opinion called care about the government’s decision never to advocate that Motorola could meet both prongs from the domestic effects exception. He quipped the government’s position meant that “Motorola has lost its ally.” FN:9
He also chided Motorola at both oral argument as well as in the court’s opinion for setting up its subsidiaries under foreign corporate and tax law then again having these subsidiaries seek relief under U.S. antitrust legislation. He wrote, “Motorola is pretending how the foreign subsidiaries are divisions instead of subsidiaries. But Motorola can’t just ignore its corporate structure whenever it’s in their interests to do this.” FN:10 He explained that Motorola’s substitute for organize its subsidiaries under foreign law resulted in it couldn’t look to more favorable U.S. law to have antitrust damages according to those subsidiaries’ purchases.
The most up-to-date Motorola opinion joins a number of other recent appellate opinions around the FTAIA, such as Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Minn. Chem., Inc. v. Agrium, Inc. FN:11, the other Circuit’s opinion in Lotes Co. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. FN:12, along with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in U.S. v. Hsuing FN:13. These decisions complicate a currently confusing statute as well as leaving the condition of the law unclear.
It’s possible how the Top court can provide some clarity on the FTAIA which decisions in another opinion on Motorola’s claims. Until then, the most up-to-date decision implies that defendants have a stronger FTAIA defense than before in some cartel cases and plaintiffs will probably be inclined not to ever file price-fixing cases inside the Seventh Circuit.
flexible Printed Circuit