Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement 193
First time accepted submitter yankexpat writes "The patent battles in the mobile communications space have taken another turn, as Apple has asked a court for permission to sue the bankrupt Kodak for patent infringement. From the article: 'Apple Inc. asked a bankruptcy judge for permission to sue Eastman Kodak Co. over allegations it’s infringing patents that Apple says cover technologies used in printers, digital cameras and digital picture frames. Apple said in a filing yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York that it intends to file a complaint against Kodak at the International Trade Commission and a corresponding suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan based on patent-infringement claims. The suit will seek an order blocking Kodak’s infringement, according to the filing.'"
Intersting long term move (Score:5, Insightful)
What's happening is that while Kodak has filed for bankruptcy, they are still working on selling its portfolio of something around 1,100 patents.
So, whoever ends up with those patents will get the legal agreements that come with them, which is why Apple is continuing to try and get court decisions in their favour.
Most likey I'd imagine that Apple Microsoft and may be RIM will join forces again (as in the Nortel acquisition) and try and scoop the lot. (RIM are also being sued by Kodak at the moment)
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks more like Apple wants to be a creditor when Kodak finally folds up, and be paid in patents.
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> They are government-granted privileges, like a drivers license.
Which is in contradistinction to your "Right To Travel." Government granted privileges come from the power of the people.
e.g.
"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so we'll stop calling it a "sale" and instead, we'll enter an irrevocable "license" agreement for the patent to a separate entity, with exclusive rights to use and relicense said patent to other entities; for a one-time monetary payment and the contractual obligation to defend the patent legally.
Happy? It's no longer being sold, though every single use of patent ownership is being transferred.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but you can certainly destroy the value of the original creators idea if you start giving it away for free.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true AFTER you've implemented patent law. Prior to patent law, the original creator's idea has no inherent value since there is no scarcity once he reveals it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I discover a huge diamond mine, I might destroy the value of your diamonds. That doesn't mean I've stolen your diamond property.
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Interesting)
Your land idea isn't totally correct. I've been watching foreclosures in my area lately. Up for court auction was a property worth about $150,000. The HOA claimed that they owned $3,000 in back HOA fees. The property was owned outright by someone in another state. It was gifted twice in the last 10 years between family members, so most likely it was an investment property.
The HOA won the case, and the property was foreclosed on. It sold at auction for $6,000. So, the HOA got their $3k back (the judgement amount). The new owner could sell it easily at 50% value, and make a profit of about $69,000. The previous owner? Well, they have nothing but a foreclosure on their credit report.
You don't own your property. You borrow your property from the government. If anyone claims that you owe them, your property will be taken away from you. If the government decides they want it, it will be taken away from you. If it is used in any number of crimes, it will be taken from you.
In several states, anything used in relation to a drug crime will be seized by the state and auctioned off. So your kid gets a joint from a friend, and leaves it in the car. He (or you) are later stopped and caught with the joint. The car can be seized. The house can be seized. And you'll have a drug conviction on your criminal history. It's not hard to arrange for such things to happen either. I've known people who have been charged, because they had "drug paraphernalia". In those cases, it was an empty plastic baggie.
Yes, you, and everything you think you own, is owned by the government. They grant permission for you to have it, and they can take it away.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem in this case is the continued existence of that useless waste of space called the HOA.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily a choice between a crappy, abusive government that abuses peoples' property and no government at all.
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Interesting)
Dogtanian hit it. The choice isn't between government or no government.
The government should (must) respect the rights of the people and their possessions.
When I worked in a jail, it was pretty simple. Inmates owned nothing. It could be seized at will, but we only seized "contraband". If we needed to seize everything (clothes, bedding, personal hygiene supplies) and throw them naked into solitary confinement, we could. They had absolutely no rights to any sort of "private" property.
The same mentality has been systematically applied to the general public. Many people aren't familiar with "eminent domain". The government can (and will) seize your property if they can show that it is in the best interest of the government. In many areas, what they must demonstrate is pretty slim, basically consisting of "because we say".
A government that respects the concept of private property is what we should have. This was already spelled out in the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. As with most of the constitution, it's now looked at as a curiosity of days past.
But even in an anarchist state, there would be a concept of private property and ownership. While total chaos does imply possession is 100% proof of ownership, it doesn't work in practice that way.
If I know that my property is mine, and I know that your property is yours, if we (the people) don't have the common understanding that this is true, there are problems. If you decide to come to my home and say "this is mine", then I could hop in your car, and drive to your home and say the same thing.
The same applies to intellectual property. We've allowed the government to go way too far with those ownerships. The original laws allowed for a short term, so an inventor could have a period to profit from their innovations, but after that period expired, it would be for the public good.
I haven't looked at the patents in question here. I suspect they're BS that shouldn't have ever been granted. I've been loosely attached to such lawsuits (my employers were involved, and I was informed). One that people will be familiar with was the Acacia streaming lawsuit. Who the hell granted patents on the idea of putting audio and/or video over a network? We'd been doing it for years before their patent was granted. And ya, I was on the defense side, not the plaintiff side.
Of course, the government reserves the right to take any patent they want, make it classified, and use it for their own purposes. Again, the government can supersede the interest of the people, which in itself is (again) unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
Patents aren't about the idea, they are about exclusive rights to that idea in the market. If you take that idea and take it to market then yes i still have the idea but you've taken (or rather eliminated) the exclusive rights.
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they a
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA. And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid. The current system is flawed but you can't j
Re: (Score:2)
So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA.
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and t
Re: (Score:2)
As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
* VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buy
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they counter
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
Huh? What are they goin
Re: (Score:2)
The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's not. A contract applies to whoever signed it. A patent applies to everyone.
So you're going to approach a company with an idea, if they like the idea they have to pay you the amount you want, otherwise they are barred from using it. However if the gain knowledge of the idea without signing the contract then they are free to do whatever they want because the inventor has no protection. Yeah great idea.
Even if you don't find the leak, the company is still bound by contract and therefore can't produce the invention. So why would they leak again?
Yeah im sure companies are really going to go for this, they get bound by the contract and have to pay the inventor, but because the info got leaked their competitors get it for free..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Worse for some inventors. Better for all the other getting sued by patent trolls, obvious patents, independent inventions, etc.
Hence my original point that the current patent system needs to be overhauled, not eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that. I'm not advocating the elimination of patents or other intellectual property laws, just their overhaul. For instance, I don't think they should be transferable. Able to be licensed / rented / loaned, sure. But sold? Inherited? I think those are causing us more harm than good - well, except for the lawyers, that is.
I certainly agree with that, it would stop patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
I've certainly thought it through, and agree with property being a government fiction. But land and objects are physical things, not ideas. If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
Ah, but if you trespass on my land, I still have it, even if I'm not strong enough to kick you off. What property rights are about - both real property and intellectual property - is the right to exclude others from your property. It's a right to tell people to get off your lawn... and in the same way, intellectual property involves a similar right to tell people to get off your idea-lawn.
Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
Licensing can work, however it is the original inventor's choice and some prefer to just sell.
(1) Licensing requires an ongoing relationship and probably periodic payments.
(2) It also requires that the original inventor assume some risk in that the invention remains desirable and the inventor retains licensees.
(3) The original inventor is also still on the hook for any legal issues and costs.
An original inventor may prefer one lump sum payment and be done with it and move on to the next big idea without any distractions, risks or liabilities. Also some buyers prefer to own rather than license. If licensing is the only option the number of buyers is reduced, this may lower the value of the invention.
Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (Score:4, Interesting)
None of that sounds like a problem. So what if they would prefer to sell it? Tough luck IMO. Pay someone to manage your licenses if it becomes an undo burden. Remember that the purpose of patents is to provide protection so that people will be able to bring their ideas to realization without someone stealing it. Making patents non-transferable doesn't undo that but it could sure fix a lot of what's wrong with the patent system as it stands.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose of patents is not to allow people to productize their own ideas, it's to incentivize people to a) invent, and b) not try to hide their invention so that it becomes available to all, eventually.
One way to incentivize inventors is to allow them to sell their patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. A license, even exclusive, doesn't grant you everything that ownership does. For one, it doesn't grant you carte blanche use of that patent as a weapon.
I didn't say that people had to produce their own ideas personally. In many cases that's just not practical. But I would argue that the ability to profit from the license of your idea is incentive enough. I don't see why the patent system needs to go any further than that to work as intended.
And yes I understand that the ability to sell and
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. A license, even exclusive, doesn't grant you everything that ownership does. For one, it doesn't grant you carte blanche use of that patent as a weapon.
Actually, an exclusive license, with the right to sublicense and the right to bring suit in the name of the owner is effectively the same thing as an assignment, legally.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that sounds like a problem.
Remaining on the hook for any legal problems and the associated legal bills does not sound like a problem to you?
Carrying a risk that a competitive or disruptive product will appear and make that invention unappealing and losing those licensees does not sound like a problem to you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an idea and someone else licenses it and implements it then there's no reason you should have any legal problems since you weren't involved. If you do then that is a problem with the legal system, not the patent system. Now, if you are the one that implements it then yes you should assume all relevant liabilities just like any other person or corporation marketing something.
I'm sorry, someone came up with a better idea without infringing on yours? That's life. You're not entitled to profit from
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an idea and someone else licenses it and implements it then there's no reason you should have any legal problems since you weren't involved.
Wow, that is a quite gratuitous assumption. :-) I am sure a host of trial lawyers have a quite different opinion.
If you do then that is a problem with the legal system, not the patent system.
So you are no longer claiming that no problem exists, rather you are claiming that there is a problem but it is in the legal system. Perhaps you now can see why an inventor legitimately wants to sell and move on, to avoid the problematic legal system, to let the experts in the corp buying his patent navigate those waters.
I'm sorry, someone came up with a better idea without infringing on yours? That's life.
No, that is why you want to sell not license. Does the original inventor nee
Re: (Score:2)
So you are no longer claiming that no problem exists, rather you are claiming that there is a problem but it is in the legal system. Perhaps you now can see why an inventor legitimately wants to sell and move on, to avoid the problematic legal system, to let the experts in the corp buying his patent navigate those waters.
I've no idea what the legalities of licensing an idea are. What I am saying is that there is no legitimate reason I can think of why someone should be able to sue you solely for having an idea. The solution is to make sure you can't be sued for an idea, not force you to sell off your idea out of fear. If removing the option to sell a patent introduces significant risk due to a problematic legal system then obviously that can't be ignored and there should be corresponding efforts to mitigate or eliminate tha
You misunderstand the patent system's problem (Score:2)
Making patents non-transferable ... could sure fix a lot of what's wrong with the patent system as it stands.
No. You don't seem to understand the true nature of the problem with the US patent system. It is *not* that patents are transferable. It is that patents are being issued for things that are too obvious, that should not be patentable. If the standards for issuing patents were cleaned up and only non-obvious things were awarded patents then patent trolls would not have the "mine field" that they currently have. Basically you seem to be focusing on the symptom not the disease, that is more likely to yield nega
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that obviousness is a big problem and I agree that it needs to be fixed but that is only one of many problems. If you believe that cleaning up standards will magically fix everything, I say that is a bit naive. The ability to aggregate (even non-obvious) patents and use them to leverage unrelated business areas because you don't like to play fair will still be a problem.
I'm coming from the perspective that the patent system should do just enough to encourage people to release their ideas and nothing
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that obviousness is a big problem and I agree that it needs to be fixed but that is only one of many problems. If you believe that cleaning up standards will magically fix everything, I say that is a bit naive. The ability to aggregate (even non-obvious) patents and use them to leverage unrelated business areas because you don't like to play fair will still be a problem.
No, it won't. Attempting to use a patent to leverage an unrelated or unpatented product - e.g. selling you a license to my printer patent, provided you agree to only purchase paper from me - is patent misuse, and makes the patent legally unenforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
There's incentive to kill the inventor by a non-licensee, if the patent suddenly goes public domain upon his death.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Licensing requires an ongoing relationship and probably periodic payments.
How much are these periodic payments? Given how much money could be up for grabs, I would think this could quickly get too expensive for individual inventors. Periodic payments and a broken industry are rarely an encouraging combination.
I could feel the effects of such periodic payments when my old bank told me they were charging me a monthly image fee for sending me badly scanned and scaled pictures of each check I wrote. So, they started charging me for digital prints, when previously they mailed me th
Re: (Score:2)
Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded...
If licensing a patent is a reward, why isn't the option of selling it one, too?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, here is a license: For a one-time payment of $X, I grant you a perpetual royalty-free exclusive license to this patent. You may sub-license on your own terms.
Is that better? Why shouldn't a patent be able to be sold? It is an asset. If someone else thinks it is valuable, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it to them? Saying you shouldn't be able to sell a patent is like saying you shouldn't be able to sell any other asset that has increased in value while you possessed it. What did you do to ma
Re: (Score:2)
You've answered your own question.
You assert that the patent originator deserves to be rewarded to allow them to come up with more original ideas. Seems to me that finding someone to give them a stack of cash is a reward. Perhaps the most appropriate and utilitarian of awards. Not everyone has the capability or desire to see something through to volume manufacture.
If they couldn't sell the patents - then were would the innovation be? Not being able to benefit from the patent disincentivizes the research,
Re: (Score:2)
Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
Patents are not rewards. They're a limited monopoly right given in grudging exchange for public disclosure. Don't disclose, you don't get a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
It has to be treated as property so that there is a chain of succession. You don't want it to enter the public domain when the inventor dies, or there would be incentive for people to kill the inventor - and inventors of advanced age or ill health wouldn't be able to license their inventions for as much as younger inventors.
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it's more than that. Kodak sued Apple just before filing for bankruptcy. It looks like they were hoping Apple would settle, and Kodak would use the money to stay afloat. That didn't happen, so now Apple is sueing back.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Intersting long term move (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the patent suit Kodak made against Apple first was okay but Apple is now evil for countersuing? Maybe Kodak shouldn't have picked the fight in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean your country doesn't consider employees as a first class secured creditor? Wow is that fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the governments fault, failure to regulate bankruptcy effectively. In many countries laws stipulate who gets paid first. Typically the receivers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receivership [wikipedia.org] (otherwise why would they do the job), taxes, employee wages, secured creditors, unsecured creditors (Apple would be un-secured creditor and would not get a cent until everyone else got paid in full). If it doesn't work that way where you live then your government is corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Press release from Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to the tragic loss of our beloved chairman, Steve Jobs, Apple realizes that we are no longer capable of creating compelling products in the marketplace. As our device sales will start to drop from this point forward, we have decided that we will follow in the footsteps of SCO. Our new business model will be called SUE ALL THE COMPANIES.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How dare you try to interpret the words of his most holy Jobs for yourself! Only the pope of Jobsism (current CEO of Apple) may make such interpretations! To do otherwise could lead to irreparable schisms in the church!
Re:Press release from Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Ignoring the fact that Kodak had lately been nothing but a patent troll filing suits against everyone it can in order to boost revenues? They are just getting their comeuppance and they rightfully deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
'They' (Kodak) are not getting their comeuppance.
What's important is whether the Kodak lawsuit was justified or not, and this one as well, although it seems Apple just acts more like its name was Wankle (pronounced by someone from China).
When a company goes bankrupt the money goes to creditors and this lawsuit will eat into that money, effectively fooking everyone over, who may depend on that (I don't know the situation precisel
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas Apple never sues anyone?
Lets face it- all major technology companies have turned into patent trolls in the last decade or two. Apple has categorically attempted to sue every one of its major rivals out of the markets. Microsoft's still tries to extort money out of companies selling products they don't even compete with. Samsung, Motorola, Google- they're all at it too.
Frankly, a crumbling company like Kodak would have been foolish for not copying the business tactics of their more successful rivals.
Re: (Score:2)
As our device sales will start to drop from this point forward, we have decided that we will follow in the footsteps of SCO.p>
SCO: Sue Companies Onward!
Kicking someone when they're down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually it's more a case of "Stop copying our ideas that we mostly got from other companys that were using them 10 years ago". Apple are blatant abusers of the Patent system. Not much better than patent trolls themselves, except they also make overpriced crap.
antoine dodson (Score:5, Funny)
snatchin' you IP up!
So you gotta
Hide you docs
Hide you tech
Hide yo docs
Hide you tech
and hide you patents
Cuz they's suin evebody out here!
Get em now! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait they're kicking someone when they are broke and homeless?
Re: (Score:2)
Kick a dog when it's down? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
kodak has been riding on it's own coattails for years, in both consumer and industrial products.
remember the disc camera?
remember the kodak instant camera?
both were crappy products and were only reactions to others who innovated in those respective markets.
i was sad to see scitex and creo(venerable names in retouching and printing) eventually absorbed into kodak to be used as a mean of driving their consumable business: film, chemistry, plates, and inks. kodak never improved or innovated industrial graphic
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't between following Kodak.much recently, eh? Most of their revenue HAS been from patent lawsuits. The reason Kodak went into bankruptcy was because they failed to get their payday after suing HTC, RIM and Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By "stolen from Xerox" do you mean "licenced from Xerox in exchange for Apple stock, that Xerox later sold unwisely and then realised too late so tried to sue instead"? Jobs even told them when they demoed the mouse to him that they were sitting on a gold mine, and when asking what they were going to do with their innovation, he was told that they didn't really see a use for it beyond a curiosity. He then offered to buy it from them.
Your revisionist history textbook needs some edits.
I'd mention the Newton,
Re: (Score:2)
So, it still shows that Apple did not invent these things. Apple does not seem to be able to really come up with new ideas, they just look at what others do, and then figures out a better package for it. The result is that Apple should not be in the position to patent much of anything, since their products are all based on what others have invented.
I am all for inventors being able to protect what THEY have invented, so what has Apple really come up with that is original, iTunes?
Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is misleading: Kodak first sued Apple just days before filing for bankruptcy. They tried to get an ITC ruling, which would have frozen Apple's sales. It looks like they were hoping Apple would quickly settle, and Kodak would use the money to stay afloat.
That didn't happen, so now Apple is suing back in retaliation [electronista.com], but before doing that they're asking the court for permission (which isn't necessary).
Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing (Score:5, Informative)
It IS necessary in order to sue a chapter 11 company. It's basicly "cuttin in line" 'cause they think they (and their claims) are more important thant everybody else wo has to wait in line.
Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot sue a company in Bankruptcy without the permission of the Judge handling the Bankruptcy case. That's the purpose of Bankruptcy, to stop lawsuits.
Beating a dead horse (Score:2)
And hoping it coughs up some money.
Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The [lawsuit] stems from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera
Wait, what? I wasn't aware that Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera. What product are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The [lawsuit] stems from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera
Wait, what? I wasn't aware that Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera. What product are you talking about?
The Quicktake
Re: (Score:2)
Kodak manufactured the Apple-branded Quicktake.
And apple designed it.
Presumably there was IP involved that exceeded that in the Dyncam. After all digital imaging itself has been around before the Dyncam, but there's a lot of tricks involved in doing it well.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple QuickTake 100 was the first digital camera; consumer obviously, it is all that matters today - we don't know or care about the inventor anymore just the corp who releases it to the masses first.
I knew somebody with an Apple QuickTake 100 and I used it. Expensive junk; but it was all one could get and the others shortly afterwards were no better. A yellow pixel noise was in every photo for years... I don't remember when the digital cameras finally fixed that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea it is. Companies do it all the time in patent cases. How is it not grounds to countersue?
Squash (Score:2)
Those who can do..
Those who can't sue..
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, especially if that weaker prey sues the lion in an attempt to force a quick settlement to stave off bankruptcy. Now Kodak has rocked the boat and dragged up the QuickTake again, Apple is countersuing.
Apple lives up to its reputation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google suing Kodak?!?
If you have info on that one, submit it as another story! :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I suspect that you have used the babelfish translator to formulate that post, after first cycling it through Chinese, French, and Portuguese before finally allowing it to approach the English language. While this does produce some interesting results, it makes your actual meaning very difficult to determine - perhaps you should reduce the number of intermediate languages before reaching English?
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to Kodak that has filed patent suits against RIM, Apple, HTC, Samsung and many more companies in the last few years. Oh poor babies are getting a taste is their own medicine. It's funny to see Slashtards defend a patent troll just because they got countersued by Apple.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point. Waaaah Apple is suing a patent troll!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But who do you think is more likely to have valid patents in the digital imaging arena? Kodak (who have been in the business since 1889) or Apple (who have been in the business since 2007)? Yes, Kodak's move was one of desperation. Apple's move is just pure spite.
This is about the Quicktake 100 camera, developed by Apple and produced by Kodak, shipping in 1994. Oh, does that mean Apple developed and shipped a product 13 years before they were in business? No, Apple has been in business since 1976. And Apple is saying "Kodak is suing us about patents for stuff that we, Apple, actually developed". Not really spiteful.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of things that Apple developed have taken elements of things that were present in products made by other companies. Yes, Apple may have done things better, or made them more attractive, but the vast majority of what you see out there from Apple WERE done before. This is why Apple comes across as a patent troll, because they have not really come up with many ideas themselves.
Re:How many billions? (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my first reaction, as well, until (as some others have pointed out) Kodak sued Apple first [wsj.com] last month in a fit of patent-trolling desperation before declaring bankruptcy. This is really just Apple's counter-suit. No sympathy for Kodak there...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How can they be violating angry-trust laws when they don't even hold a majority of the market? Aren't we reminded daily by the fandroids about how Android has more market share? Secondly, Kodak sued them first and Apple is just doing the typical countersuit that happens in pretty much all patent cases. Kodak is nothing but a patent troll these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case it's a countersuit against Kodak. They were not the aggressor here. Kodak wanted a quick settlement to raise some cash to avoid going bust.
There's also the matter of the Quicktake camera - designed by Apple, built by Kodak, then mysteriously coincidentally Kodak files patents on the technology in it. How curious! The suit is over ownership of those patents.