Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Apple

Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement 193

Posted by samzenpus
from the picking-through-the-bones dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • by Dupple (1016592) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:13PM (#39049251)

    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)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:16PM (#39049317)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:21PM (#39049449)

    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.

  • by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:21PM (#39049473)
    Apple demonstrating once again the levels to which it will stoop to gain market advantage. Try innovating, you'll go farther...
  • Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:31PM (#39049727)

    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.

  • by Skinkie (815924) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:33PM (#39049773) Homepage
    What is the reason of this kind of behavior? Do they want to make a claim on the patentportfolio of Kodak? I wonder what Apple executives would have thought when someone would have started to sue Apple at this point in their past.
  • by Dahamma (304068) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:42PM (#39049973)

    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...

  • by perpenso (1613749) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:45PM (#39050059)

    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.

  • by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @04:47PM (#39050105)

    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:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by andydread (758754) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @05:08PM (#39050601)
    I hope you apply the same standards to those who Apple has sued with trivial and obvious software-patents.
  • by capsteve (4595) * on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @05:16PM (#39050743) Homepage Journal

    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 arts production, unless it was thru acquisition.

    kodak didn't innovate in the industrial or consumer markets, and as a result are left in the dust by their competition.
    most printing presses are direct to plate, with no intermediate film or plate making process.
    most contract proofs(color and content fidelity proof prior to press) these days are inkjet or pdf files displayed on color accurate(gracol or fogra certified) displays.
    kodak never had offerings in database/dynamic page publishing.

    i'm sure kodak had innovated quite a bit in it's day, and those patents are proof of it. but to use a patent against a partner feels a little dirty.
    the original apple quicktake camera was a kodak manufactured/apple branded device.

  • Re:In other news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dynamoo (527749) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @05:34PM (#39051047) Homepage
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @05:39PM (#39051145)

    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.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...