You plain and simply stated, as quoted above, that Canon does not have "BSI technology". Having technology does not mean it has to be fabricated in a sensor.
What if Canon's R&D team just simulated this BSI technology on their CAD/CAM workstations?
And then filed a patent based on this research.
Would you say that Canon has a BSI technology?
Lets stop mincing words.
A good, common sense definition of 'having a technology' is that you have products based on this technology.
Alternatively, 'having a technology' might just mean that you have filed a single patent based on paper research.
It can be argued that both of these are valid definitions.
So, when I said that Canon does not have a BSI technology, I was actually quite correct - as per the common sense definition above.
Well, I disagree with the notion that a company must be actively producing products based on "technology" to actually "have it". As far as I know, to file for a patent, one must have working prototypes of what the patent describes. Patent's are not generally for purely theoretical ideas, they must be proven ideas. A simple CAD model can't prove the concept, only model it. As such, I would expect Canon to have actually fabricated some prototypical BSI sensor designs in order to be qualified to file for the patent in the first place. Thus, I would still state that they "have" the technology, even if it is not in general use yet.
Sony files for CIS patents all year long, but not all of it has made its way into their regularly manufactured parts yet. They still "have" the technology they have patented...its theirs, and anyone else would have to pay Sony for the rights to use it. Same goes for Canon. Canon FILED A PATENT for BSI technology...they have it, they own it, its theirs...and if anyone wants to use it or infringes upon it, Canon has the right to license or sue. As far as I am concerned, that's a common sense definition of "having technology": When you own the rights to it, you "have it".