Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the picking-through-the-bones dept.

Patents 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Intersting long term move (5, Insightful)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#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)

Re:Intersting long term move (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049333)

Looks more like Apple wants to be a creditor when Kodak finally folds up, and be paid in patents.

Re:Intersting long term move (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Intersting long term move (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049749)

Because some organizations will pay significantly more for exclusive rights to the patent and the easiest way to acquire those rights is to buy the patent. The patent is the inventors property so why shouldn't they have the right to sell it? I have infinitely more problems with software and business method patents as a class than I do with the rights of the holder to transfer their property.

Re:Intersting long term move (5, Interesting)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049801)

Patents are no more property than an idea is property. They are government-granted privileges, like a drivers license.

Re:Intersting long term move (1, Flamebait)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050243)

Patents are no more property than an idea is property. They are government-granted privileges, like property.

FTFY.

What, you think you "own" property? Try to prove it without a deed. One granted by some jurisdiction of government power. Otherwise, you're just a squatter.

So, yeah, people who have this intuitive dislike of "intellectual property" as some kind of governmental fiction clearly haven't thought it through. Lacking governmental sanction, the only thing you own is whatever you're personally strong enough to defend against all comers.

Re:Intersting long term move (1, Interesting)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050403)

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.

Re:Intersting long term move (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050993)

Yes, but you can certainly destroy the value of the original creators idea if you start giving it away for free.

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051291)

Diluted value has no bearing on whether or not intellectual property is a government fiction.

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051463)

Also I destroy the value of your house by building more houses for people to choose from. Next stupid argument.

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39052055)

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:Intersting long term move (5, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051383)

    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:Intersting long term move (0)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051561)

So as a thought experiment, let's postulate that there's no government - a state of theoretical anarchy. Can you own anything? If you pick up a stick, isn't it yours, to the extent that you can keep anyone from taking it from you? By your argument, even if it's in your possession and no one is trying to take it from you, you still can't "own" it because there's no government to grant you permission.

But try owning a patent in this theoretical anarchic state. What good is it then? See the difference?

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051691)

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 aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051769)

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.

Re:Intersting long term move (1, Offtopic)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050663)

> 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 Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.

What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (3, Interesting)

xeromist (443780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050517)

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:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (0)

xeromist (443780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050589)

^H^H^H^H undue

Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (2)

hacksoncode (239847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050945)

I suppose that an exclusive license with the right to sublicense would be right out then, too? Because the difference that makes no difference is no difference.

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:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (1)

xeromist (443780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051929)

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 not just license would be an additional incentive but at what cost to the system as a whole? We have huge corporations buying up all sorts of patents so they can stifle competitors on unrelated products. We have trolls who have never had an original idea in their life buying patents so they can extort money out of legitimate businesses. This doesn't magically go away if patent sales were eliminated but it at least puts a few road blocks in the way.

Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051185)

There's an informative movie about the foibles of licensing patents rather than selling them. It's called "The Jerk."

Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051967)

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?

You misunderstand the patent system's problem (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39052143)

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 negative unintended consequences than actually fix anything.

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051371)

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:Intersting long term move (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051977)

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 make that stock go up? What did you do to make that rare painting go up?

Some people and businesses (for example Kodak) may prefer/need to get whatever money they can from their patents NOW, rather than waiting years and years for licensing fees. And don't say 'then take a loan out against the patent', because in order to be useful for collateral it must be transferable.

Re:Intersting long term move (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049467)

Yes, an Apple/Microsoft/RIM consortium will buy up the kodak patents for $2 billion. Google will complain (after opting not to join the consortium) and buy up a third-rate camera company for $20 billion. Dan Lyons will proclaim that was google's end game all along and Apple/Microsoft/RIM just wasted their money.

Re:Intersting long term move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049917)

Wish I could mod you up

Re:Intersting long term move (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051105)

Last I checked, Kodak wasn't exactly a first-rate camera company. Canon and Nikon perhaps, but not Kodak.

That aside, Apple sure is trying their best to alienate themselves. Without partner companies, they will die.

Re:Intersting long term move (4, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049529)

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.

Re:Intersting long term move (4, Interesting)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049999)

This is where the real bastardry starts. The sad fact is suing Kodak now that it has filed for bankruptcy means the ex-employees who have not been paid out yet will get much-much less. Apple are effectively ensuring the unpaid employees will get virtually nothing.

I think this is one of the great un-addressed problems with companies. Employees forego future growth for immediate payment (salary). As a result, employees should really be paid first as they did not partake in risk - not last. Even worse, the amount owed to the real people employees is often small by comparison the whole company - but a lot to them!

Re:Intersting long term move (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Intersting long term move (1)

thoughtspace (1444717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050585)

The employees did not 'pick the fight'.

Or at the very least, the very very senior managers on massive salaries picked the fight - they can ride over any job loss.

Is it just me? (1)

dimko (1166489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049257)

Or is it predator felt the blood?

RIP Kodak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049259)

Come on, this stupid patent war go so far that they what to sue the dead one that almost invented the photography!

Re:RIP Kodak (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049583)

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?

You gotta be fucking kidding me! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049281)

Kodak has been the pioneer in photo printing and digital photography.

Patent troll - Im not qualified to say, but Google suing Kodak?!?

Oh, god.

Re:You gotta be fucking kidding me! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049457)

Google suing Kodak?!?

If you have info on that one, submit it as another story! :)

Re:You gotta be fucking kidding me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049931)

Google suing Kodak?!?

If you have info on that one, submit it as another story! :)

Google - Apple - Snapple - who give a shit?

WTF is going on?!?!

Barraty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049313)

Does barraty (abuse of the courts) apply for patent litigation?

Press release from Apple (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Press release from Apple (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049405)

Isn't it more like Steve Jobs dying wish was for them to sue all companies? He said he didn't care about the money, he was just upset that he felt people were copying Apple products.

Re:Press release from Apple (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050599)

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 (3, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049633)

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:Press release from Apple (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050277)

They are just getting their comeuppance and they rightfully deserve it.

'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 precisely).

If you are talking about comeuppance, then you should talk about the people going for frivolous lawsuits and the direction companies take. This is always the board of directors etc. Perhaps the people in the legal department too. Have you ever seen such people getting thrown in jail and taken all their stuff away to (partly) pay for damage they did by wasting money (their company, the other and more) or even destroying the economy (esp. banks). No? I haven't either.

Re:Press release from Apple (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050487)

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!

Re:Press release from Apple (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050771)

Are you a retard? Most of Apple's lawsuits were started while Steve Jobs was still alive. They were started because he wanted them started. You might also note that Apple-initiated lawsuits are the "stop copying us" variety, not the "pay us lots of money" variety (SCO, Motorola, patent trolls).

Re:Press release from Apple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

In other news (0, Troll)

phrostie (121428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049341)

Apple has filed suit over it's patent on a free market.
"This open competition by others with products in a market we want and deserve is a clear violation"

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050601)

I hope you apply the same standards to those who Apple has sued with trivial and obvious software-patents.

Re:In other news (1, Insightful)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051047)

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.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051341)

Apple made one of the first consumer digital cameras ever [wikipedia.org] in the early 90's. They had them built by Kodak, and much of the patent fight that's going on between them now is over whether Kodak stole Apple's ideas and patented them for themselves.

Re:In other news (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051565)

Thanks for proving my point. Waaaah Apple is suing a patent troll!

antoine dodson (5, Funny)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049345)

They's climbin in yo boardroom
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!

Re:antoine dodson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049603)

They's climbin in yo boardroom 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!

I tried that a few different ways in Google Translate. I can't figure out what the hell your saying.

Re:antoine dodson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049953)

Srsly? You fail at the internet. Please leave your license at the door.

Get em now! (3, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049463)

Wait they're kicking someone when they are broke and homeless?

Re:Get em now! (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049905)

Best time to kick them. They can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves.

Re:Get em now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39049927)

Kodak is far from broke and homeless. Clueless and without direction? Sure. Broke and homeless? Nope.

Kick a dog when it's down? (5, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049473)

Apple demonstrating once again the levels to which it will stoop to gain market advantage. Try innovating, you'll go farther...

Re:Kick a dog when it's down? (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049787)

Kodak sued them first. Along with RIM and HTC. Waaah a patent troll is being "bullied"!

Re:Kick a dog when it's down? (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050343)

Patent trolls are usually companies whose sole source of revenue is patent lawsuit settlements, and who don't actually produce any products using the IP they hold. It's hard to call Kodak, RIM, HTC, and even Apple a troll given that. No, what we see here is a breakdown of the patent system, where the player has been issued very general patents, and therefore all these companies can point to pretty much any other company out there and find a patent they infringe on.

Re:Kick a dog when it's down? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051637)

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:Kick a dog when it's down? (1, Insightful)

capsteve (4595) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050743)

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:Kick a dog when it's down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050795)

kodak tried that with the digital camera look were that got em

Re:Kick a dog when it's down? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051493)

The entire computer software and hardware industry trails after Apple's innovations. Mice? Apple popularized em. All in one computers? Apple again. Not one of those Android phones existed a minute before Apple unveiled the iPhone. All of those tablet computers on the market - not one of those existed before the iPad. Music industry needed Apple to pull them all into one easy use marketplace. Sure lots of individual bits and pieces existed in one for or another before Apple made them actually work as consumer products, but they have been a clear innovation leader in the industry, for years. Want to know what new features will be in the next version of Windows and Linux? Have a look at what Apple is doing.

Re:Kick a dog when it's down? (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051853)

Mice? Mice, a desktop GUI, using both hands to type and using the mouse when needed? All stolen from Xerox bro. The smart phone existed before the iPhone with these things called IBM Simon came out in 1992, Palm, BlackBerry, and Windows all had smart phones out in the late 90s into the 2000s. Tablets all existed before the iPad sport. Dynabook concept in 1968 and Microsoft had a tablet PC available in 2001 with HP, Lenovo, and Acer all manufacturing models. And Microsoft coin the term tablet. I would give you that Apple is the one who innovated the mp3 player. but that is about it.

Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing (5, Informative)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049599)

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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050051)

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 (-1, Redundant)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050177)

Waaaah. Kodak shouldn't have been patent trolling. Which is basically all they've been for the last couple of years.

Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing (5, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050159)

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 (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049745)

And hoping it coughs up some money.

Re:Beating a dead horse (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050033)

Then maybe the dead house shouldn't have died in Apple first? Waaaaaah! How dare Apple fight back after being sued!

Re:Beating a dead horse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050325)

Every one knows you shouldn't feed whole Apples to a horse as they can choke and die from it.

Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (2, Insightful)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049773)

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.

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (5, Informative)

sessamoid (165542) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049891)

Yes. Apple is making a claim on the patents that Kodak tried to use to sue Apple for. The stem from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera and an agreement between the two companies on who owns the IP stemmed from that venture. Apple is claiming that the agreement between the two of them gives Apple the technology they used in that venture, as well as any improvements based upon them. Kodak opened Pandora's box when they sued Apple.

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050753)

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:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39050823)

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:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051389)

The Quicktake came out a whopping 4 years after the 1990 Dycam Model 1 (Logitech Fotoman). And, BTW, Kodak manufactured the Apple-branded Quicktake.

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39052033)

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:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39052065)

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

The Quicktake came out a whopping 4 years after the 1990 Dycam Model 1 (Logitech Fotoman). And, BTW, Kodak manufactured the Apple-branded Quicktake.

Which is the " joint venture" mentioned previously.

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39052027)

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:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049981)

Because Kodak sued them first? Along with HTC and RIM. Waaaaah how dare that big bad Apple fight back!

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050527)

Isn't it common law practice to file a counter claim, instead of starting a new courtcase?

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051151)

How many times are you going to post the same exact statement?

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051229)

So... suing someone is grounds enough for a countersuit? I had no idea filing a lawsuit was illegal.

Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051673)

Yea it is. Companies do it all the time in patent cases. How is it not grounds to countersue?

How many billions? (0)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39049815)

Does Apple have in liquid assets, makes for a formidable lawyer army and I wager anyone that gets sued by Apple sh*ts their pants thinking of what it takes financially to fight back, which makes me wonder; Is there such a thing as lawyer insurance?

Not only can Apple create a new factory to make parts no one else has access to, but if they sue up all/most of the existing patents they will have such a strangle hold on the market no one else can compete because they either need the patent or they get sued out of existence.

Apple is beginning to look like more of a threat to innovation than congress.

Re:How many billions? (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#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...

Re:How many billions? (1)

chipperdog (169552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050067)

If I were Apple, I would back off on some of the patent lawsuits to keep off the anti-trust radar...

Re:How many billions? (1, Troll)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050263)

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:How many billions? (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050153)

Monopoly by litigation.

Sociopath (-1, Troll)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050475)

Apple is.

Anyone getting the impression... (0)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050815)

...that as far as litigious bastards [google.com] go, Apple is becoming the new SCO?

Another simple needed patent reform (1)

Minter92 (148860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39050843)

Patents should have to be the property of a person not a corporation llc etc. And they should not be sellable. If the holder dies or becomes incompetent the patent becomes invalid. So easy and simple to fix the patent system. Too bad the big corps will never let it happen.

Re:Another simple needed patent reform (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39051415)

Once a patent's value is recognized, the holder should be murdered so capitalism can take its course? There are many problems with the system, but that approach is even worse for society as a whole.

Squash (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39051509)

What better way to squash a competitor or possible competitor? - kick them when they are down -- i.e. bankrupt.. Makes sense to me. A lion will always go after the weaker prey.

Those who can do..
Those who can't sue..

Way to be a heartless vulture Apple, (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | more than 2 years ago | (#39052157)

Oh wait, you patented that too....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?