Kodak loses imaging patent claim against Apple, RIM
A patent infringement case filed by Eastman Kodak against Apple and RIM has been ruled to be invalid by a US International Trade Commission judge.
The patent, pertaining to low resolution previews of video that are displayed while recording full quality video, was successfully used by Kodak to reach mobile-related licensing agreements with Samsung and LG over the past two years worth $864 million, according to a report by Bloomberg.
Because the patent relates to essentially every modern mobile phone that includes a camera, Apple and RIM were seen as prime targets for similar agreements. However, Apple and RIM argued that the patent was invalid because it was an "obvious variation of an earlier invention," and the ITC judge agreed.
The report noted that if the commission overturns the judge's ruling, the judge would recommend that all affected devices be blocked from US import, a move that would kill domestic distribution of virtually all BlackBerry models and all iPhones.
Most patent cases involve a plea to block imports with the ITC, a move that greatly leverages the importance of the case, given that virtually all electronics are now being imported from Far East assemblers. Virtually every mobile manufacturer is now engaged in a web of intellectual property lawsuits, many of which include demands that the ITC block all imports of the challenged devices.
RIM and Apple are both suing Kodak, with RIM filing a federal civil suit challenging the validity of other Kodak patents while Apple is suing Kodak directly for patent infringement in a trial that begins the end of January.
Kodak's setback caused the company's stock to fall 8.6 percent after the ruling was announced. Once a leader in the now dying world of chemical photography, the company is seeking to transition toward digital imaging and hopes to use its portfolio of more than a thousand patents related to imaging to earn royalties that can fund that shift.
The imploding demand for Kodak's traditional film products has slashed the company's revenues nearly in half in the last five years to $7.6 billion in 2009.
The patent, pertaining to low resolution previews of video that are displayed while recording full quality video, was successfully used by Kodak to reach mobile-related licensing agreements with Samsung and LG over the past two years worth $864 million, according to a report by Bloomberg.
Because the patent relates to essentially every modern mobile phone that includes a camera, Apple and RIM were seen as prime targets for similar agreements. However, Apple and RIM argued that the patent was invalid because it was an "obvious variation of an earlier invention," and the ITC judge agreed.
The report noted that if the commission overturns the judge's ruling, the judge would recommend that all affected devices be blocked from US import, a move that would kill domestic distribution of virtually all BlackBerry models and all iPhones.
Most patent cases involve a plea to block imports with the ITC, a move that greatly leverages the importance of the case, given that virtually all electronics are now being imported from Far East assemblers. Virtually every mobile manufacturer is now engaged in a web of intellectual property lawsuits, many of which include demands that the ITC block all imports of the challenged devices.
RIM and Apple are both suing Kodak, with RIM filing a federal civil suit challenging the validity of other Kodak patents while Apple is suing Kodak directly for patent infringement in a trial that begins the end of January.
Kodak's setback caused the company's stock to fall 8.6 percent after the ruling was announced. Once a leader in the now dying world of chemical photography, the company is seeking to transition toward digital imaging and hopes to use its portfolio of more than a thousand patents related to imaging to earn royalties that can fund that shift.
The imploding demand for Kodak's traditional film products has slashed the company's revenues nearly in half in the last five years to $7.6 billion in 2009.
Comments
I wonder what their patent portfolio is worth? Apple could takeover Kodak for a couple of billion.
The problem is probably that most of their patents do not pertain to modern digital photography.
I wonder what their patent portfolio is worth?
Don't know a lot about company vauation and such but with revenues of $7.9 billion and a market cap of only $1.9 billion, how do these numbers work?
Does this show they have a lot of licensing they collect on?
Don't know a lot about company vauation and such but with revenues of $7.9 billion and a market cap of only $1.9 billion, how do these numbers work?
Does this show they have a lot of licensing they collect on?
Revenues are before profit so if the company has a bunch of debt, or isnt profitable, then that 7.9 billion means the company value stays the same. Basically they have a lot coming in and as much or more going out. They are effectively at break even or worse, for a company this age this is called "going broke". Considering the last quarter they had a LOSS of $43 million - yeah "going broke." is quite correct.
If the judges ruling is sustained by the commission, what happens to the agreement previously reached on this patent? Do Samsung and LG get their licensing money back?
Wow so the people buying Samsung's super mega galaxy smartphone are actually donating part of their money to save Kodak?
The problem is probably that most of their patents do not pertain to modern digital photography.
I've worked now about 27 years in Rochester NY (not Kodak) so I'm very familiar with Kodak. Frankly I'm very very happy to see them loose. They actually made a decision to become a patent troll and that is just plain disgusting for a company that innovated for well over a hundred years. To go from being a model of excellence to a complete failure in a couple of years is just sad. That mostly due to head in the sand thinking that chemical photography would be around for a long time.
Funny thing is Kodak makes some of the best CCDs going. You would think that one devision would have informed the other. The other nasty with Kodak was the decisions made that sent remaining jobs overseas. They pretty much turned half the city into a waste land.
One can only hope that LG comes back and demands their billion back! This sort of lazy management mentality must be addressed.
There was a time when Kodak was at the top of their game. This is what happens when corporations fail to keep up with the times. When they can't innovate... litigate.
This is a real Kodak memory...
There was a time when Kodak was at the top of their game. This is what happens when corporations fail to keep up with the times. When they can't innovate... litigate.
Kodak purchased Creo of Vancouver, B.C. a few years ago, and by doing so it instantly became a world leader in digital imaging for the printing industry. Creo made digital platesetters and the very successful Prinergy work-flow system. Both of which are now Kodak's domain. Of course, it immediately gutted the company, fired most of its staff, and moved most programming operations to Israel.
I've worked now about 27 years in Rochester NY (not Kodak) so I'm very familiar with Kodak. Frankly I'm very very happy to see them loose. They actually made a decision to become a patent troll and that is just plain disgusting for a company that innovated for well over a hundred years. To go from being a model of excellence to a complete failure in a couple of years is just sad. That mostly due to head in the sand thinking that chemical photography would be around for a long time.
Funny thing is Kodak makes some of the best CCDs going. You would think that one devision would have informed the other. The other nasty with Kodak was the decisions made that sent remaining jobs overseas. They pretty much turned half the city into a waste land.
One can only hope that LG comes back and demands their billion back! This sort of lazy management mentality must be addressed.
When Kodak OY Finland signed a distribution agreement with me 20+ years ago for digital color software I was summoned to Rochester. I made my case for digital color and had the full support of their scanner division. I was virtually laughed at by the powers that be (then) and the contract was never renewed. It was staggering how deep they had their heads in the sand.
I've worked now about 27 years in Rochester NY (not Kodak) so I'm very familiar with Kodak. Frankly I'm very very happy to see them loose. They actually made a decision to become a patent troll and that is just plain disgusting for a company that innovated for well over a hundred years. To go from being a model of excellence to a complete failure in a couple of years is just sad. That mostly due to head in the sand thinking that chemical photography would be around for a long time.
Funny thing is Kodak makes some of the best CCDs going. You would think that one devision would have informed the other. The other nasty with Kodak was the decisions made that sent remaining jobs overseas. They pretty much turned half the city into a waste land.
One can only hope that LG comes back and demands their billion back! This sort of lazy management mentality must be addressed.
"Patent troll" is, of course, a very subjective label. I'm a partisan observer in this particular fight (as are we all, presumably) and am naturally happy to see Apple win.
However, when I think of patent trolls, I think about the companies that buy patents, without ever having the intention to do anything but sue. I hate those guys.
I'm less sanguine about companies that are out there, building products, trying to make some new stuff, and then defending their patents. No doubt there's a line where you cross into troll country doing that, but sometimes litigation is the only way to keep people from copying innovations your company spent millions of dollars creating. You have a right to profit from your inventions. About Kodak specifically, I don't know. They apparently had a weak patent, and the system worked by invalidating it. (Where "worked" is largely from a pro-Apple viewpoint). But just because I felt their patent was weak doesn't mean I expected Kodak to roll over and say, "Well it's our patent, but doggone it, it's embarrassing. Let's just forget about it." Let's just celebrate what seems to be a rare instance of the system actually working, for once.
Steve
Sent from my iPad
Revenues are before profit so if the company has a bunch of debt, or isnt profitable, then that 7.9 billion means the company value stays the same. Basically they have a lot coming in and as much or more going out. They are effectively at break even or worse, for a company this age this is called "going broke". Considering the last quarter they had a LOSS of $43 million - yeah "going broke." is quite correct.
It's not that bad for Kodak. They are profitable over the last year, though not by much, and have no debt. In fact, they have $5.20 in cash per share on the books, which isn't bad considering that they closed today at $5.22, before the after-hours fall, so in fact they are potentially a near zero-cost takeover target. If their patent portfolio and other assets are worth anything, they're a prime candidate to get scalped.
It's not that bad for Kodak. They are profitable over the last year, though not by much, and have no debt. In fact, they have $5.20 in cash per share on the books, which isn't bad considering that they closed today at $5.22, before the after-hours fall, so in fact they are potentially a near zero-cost takeover target. If their patent portfolio and other assets are worth anything, they're a prime candidate to get scalped.
I really wonder if Apple would take a run at them. How much of the acquisition would Apple have to unwind to fit their business model. I also question if they would be a good fit in terms of corporate culture or would Apple be after only the IP?
It's not that bad for Kodak. They are profitable over the last year, though not by much, and have no debt. In fact, they have $5.20 in cash per share on the books, which isn't bad considering that they closed today at $5.22, before the after-hours fall, so in fact they are potentially a near zero-cost takeover target. If their patent portfolio and other assets are worth anything, they're a prime candidate to get scalped.
It would be pocket money to Apple but what worth in IP is there really for Apple?
I really wonder if Apple would take a run ahttp://forums.appleinsider.com/images/icons/icon6.gift them. How much of the acquisition would Apple have to unwind to fit their business model. I also question if they would be a good fit in terms of corporate culture or would Apple be after only the IP?
I've learned quite a lesson on this. First of all by even thinking about Kodak. When I was a kid that's all I saw everywhere... Coke, Pac Man & Kodak.
I thought they would be around forever. I guess I'm just stating that you learn how fragile large companies can actually be when you see one so large stumbling around later in life. I just realized I haven't owned a film camera since I was a kid.
I really wonder if Apple would take a run at them. How much of the acquisition would Apple have to unwind to fit their business model. I also question if they would be a good fit in terms of corporate culture or would Apple be after only the IP?
It would be pocket money to Apple but what worth in IP is there really for Apple?
I really don't know. Just tossed it out for discussion. Apparently Kodak has a patent portfolio of some depth and relevance -- enough to sue Apple et al.