Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
suggest you need to read the litigation... yes Kodaks chemistry was different but not sufficiently innovative.
I spent a lot of time doing that at the time.

BTW, Polaroid had lots of 'dodgy' patents that I reviewed. One I still remember related to batteries and referred to the active material as magnesium dioxide whereas, of course, it's manganese dioxide. It tells you the patent examiner had no idea of what he was looking at.

Other Polaroid patents were of the form: 'we've patented a white wagon - now we want a patent for a red wagon' and then a follow up patent asking to patent a 'red wagon with a white stripe'. In other words, offering no real innovation (and to my mind, obvious to one skilled in the arts).

Yes, the US Patent system is (and has been for sometime) broken and doesn't attempt to evaluate patents other than looking for prior art. It leaves it to the courts to resolve things and they don't always get it right. We badly need patent reform because there are now far too many patent trolls.


BTW, did you work for Polaroid?