View Full Version : Kodak patent suit fails
05-22-2012, 07:30 PM
RIM and Apple had Kodak's patent invalidated (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/technology/kodak-loses-a-ruling-in-a-patent-case-against-apple-and-rim.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss).
I saw that yesterday; didn't have the stomach to post it here...
Not good news it seems, a patent that they currently license to other firms for abt $1bil
05-22-2012, 08:23 PM
Why would Apple care, you don't need film anymore, just buy an iPhone and get the right app...
Apple claims that back in the 80's, they and Kodak had a partnership to create some kind of camera, it never went to market, but Apple believes that the technology they brought to the table for this partnership was then patented by Kodak and then Kodak turned around and sued Apple....
Anyway, all this this does matter a lot to Apple bc they will eventually kill the P&S and a treasure trove of patents related to photography will be the next big frontier
05-22-2012, 08:42 PM
This only relates to a few Kodak patents; there are many more still in litigation.
^Which makes the sale of these patents harder. I wonder what company would want to buy Kodak's patents when many are being litigated about. That is the part that really worries me, Kodak needs this cash to move forward to be a printing (and I hope film) company but the above is a not so good outcome (ie one of their patents was invalidated)
05-22-2012, 09:25 PM
All this suing over rudimentary technology isn't good for innovation. A good business for lawyers, not so good for actual people designing stuff. I don't hold in high regard Kodak's decision to make a business of patents. I do like their film and hope that gets spun off before the lawyers suck kodak dry.
05-22-2012, 10:06 PM
As I understand it, the current market value of the patent portfolios is that they allows patent holders to extract large licensing fees from others.
It seems that in today's world, very few patent holders actually manufacture using their patents.
Those licensing fees replace the cash flow that innovators used to get from their inventiveness.
Sad, isn't it.
05-22-2012, 10:34 PM
I don't hold in high regard Kodak's decision to make a business of patents..
Desperation, I think. Look for anything with value to "monetize".
It should be noted that it's not over yet. Kodak is appealing.
(Not nearly as appealing as it used to be)
05-23-2012, 01:51 AM
This does not surprise me, it's hard to see how any of these patent suits are going to work at this point. Add to this the fact I got a personal email last week from one of the very highest on the film totem pole at Kodak saying that after 20 years, they have left as of this week to work for another company and the slide just continues....
The latter is going to be fairly big news once it hits the web, I am waiting to see who breaks it first, it sure as hell won't be me...
05-23-2012, 01:57 AM
All this suing over rudimentary technology isn't good for innovation.
Which is why patents don't last very long (compared to copyright for example).
05-23-2012, 07:17 AM
With respect to copyrights, it is well known in the IP biz that Congress will regularly increase the length of copyright protection everytime that Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire. (Disney is dead, but his corporation has lots of living lawyers.)
05-23-2012, 07:35 AM
This conversation on patents reminds me of this: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack. As usual with "This American Life," an extremely interesting listen if you have the time and enjoy radio.
05-23-2012, 09:43 AM
...one of the very highest on the film totem pole...left as of this week to work for another company...I am waiting to see who breaks it first, it sure as hell won't be me...Why not make news? Is it Scott Disabato? :D
05-23-2012, 10:30 AM
Why not make news?
Maybe because it was in confidence?
05-23-2012, 01:44 PM
Why not make news? Is it Scott Disabato? :D
Maybe because it was in confidence?Obviously, that's why I included the big grin. Let's see whether my wild guess was correct when someone other than Dan breaks it on the Web. :)
05-23-2012, 03:41 PM
Oops, missed the grin.