They don't have a leg to stand on. No irreparable harm - if Apple is harmed, it can be corrected with money damages and restitution of ownership.
This is just Apple trying to sleaze their way into a better settlement.
The irreparable harm is Apple's ability to exercise the patents for their own use or license them to others. The harm is irreparable because there is no way to estimate its value in the hands of Apple.
What do you base that appraisal on? Did you see it somewhere? Or did you pull the figure out of the blue? Or what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
They don't have a leg to stand on. No irreparable harm - if Apple is harmed, it can be corrected with money damages and restitution of ownership.
This is just Apple trying to sleaze their way into a better settlement.
On the contrary, this is Kodak issuing a subliminal invitation to all patent trolls and Apple adversaries with an interest in monetising or cross-licensing non-FRAND patents to a grand sale of IP that could seriously hurt Apple.
This is highly reminiscent of the way Sun Microsystems openly advertised the sale of the company touting the potentially huge liability of the likes of Google's Android where Java was concerned.
It's a case of Apple's making hay while the Sun still shines...
I don't usually feed the trolls, I prefer the zoo, but if you actually read anything about these patents, they cover technologies based on work apple did and then used while working with Kodak with the agreement that any further technology based on those core patents would belong to Apple..
You don't like the deal, you don't sign it seems to be the moral here and they agreed to Apple's terms all those years ago..
Kodak is the one that really doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
We don't know that.
As far as I know, the contents of the agreement between Apple and Kodak have not been made public. The ownership of the patents might well hinge on what the two parties agreed to when the started working together. The patents could be long to Apple or they could belong to Kodak.
If the agreement does not address IP ownership, then the patents belong to whoever's name is on the patent. The other party could try to have them invalidated based on publication of the improper inventor, but that's difficult to do after all these years. In extreme cases, it is possible to have an inventor added after the fact, but again, that's very difficult to do - especially after so many years have passed.
Bankruptcy judges have wide latitude to handle things that are usually very hard. Such as break contracts, assign property of various kinds, etc.
Before you make a claim of "no irreparable harm" you should go to groklaw.net and read the saga of what the bankruptcy judge has done in the case of SCO. Bankruptcy courts don't work the way other courts do and if the patents are sold, to Kodak's benefit, Apple will never see a dime. I don't know, but what I think Apple wants is their IP back, rather than money.
The court record is quite length but you really do need to read all of it before making more comments like the ones you made.
I'll take your word for it. Bankruptcy law is arcane, and the powers of the court exceed my innate sense of right and wrong.
As far as I know, the contents of the agreement between Apple and Kodak have not been made public. The ownership of the patents might well hinge on what the two parties agreed to when the started working together. The patents could be long to Apple or they could belong to Kodak.
If the agreement does not address IP ownership, then the patents belong to whoever's name is on the patent. The other party could try to have them invalidated based on publication of the improper inventor, but that's difficult to do after all these years. In extreme cases, it is possible to have an inventor added after the fact, but again, that's very difficult to do - especially after so many years have passed.
You're absolutely right that we do not know who owns what here. But we can assess that Apple does feel that they own IP having worked with Kodak all those years ago to bring one of the first digital cameras to the consumer market. Especially since, Apple released the devices before even Kodak!? Who later came out with their own line of cameras.
But the simple truth is, Apple has already had digital cameras on the market, why is it an issue now? Is there something I'm missing? Surely Apple is covered under previous partnerships with regards to digital imaging in mobile devices? It really doesn't make sense for Kodak to try and sue a company they worked with all those years ago.
Damn, I want that QuickTake 100! Where can I get one of those?
The come up regularly on eBay. Check the 'completed auctions' listing to get an idea of recent prices.
The Quicktake was actually a great product for its time. We used one all the time where I worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
You're absolutely right that we do not know who owns what here. But we can assess that Apple does feel that they own IP having worked with Kodak all those years ago to bring one of the first digital cameras to the consumer market. Especially since, Apple released the devices before even Kodak!? Who later came out with their own line of cameras.
But the simple truth is, Apple has already had digital cameras on the market, why is it an issue now? Is there something I'm missing? Surely Apple is covered under previous partnerships with regards to digital imaging in mobile devices? It really doesn't make sense for Kodak to try and sue a company they worked with all those years ago.
It's an issue now because Kodak is trying to claim that most (if not all) digital cameras on the market violate its intellectual property and is trying to monetize the patents.
I am a lawyer, although I am not a bankruptcy lawyer. Apple may be right on the substantive merits, that is, the patents in truth belong to them. But I think they are wrong about the procedure - bankruptcy courts have enormous power to dispose of any kind of legal claim against the debtor. The fact that intellectual property is involved does not deprive the bankruptcy court of the power to rule on the question.
The bankruptcy court has the power to amend or cancel contracts. If it finds in favor of Kodak and against Apple on Apple's claims, it could easily issue a ruling which cuts Apple out of these patents. Of course Appeal can appeal the ruling of the bankruptcy court, and should be able to do so quickly before it suffers irreparable harm.
I don't know why Kodak can't sell these patents to a third party subject to Apple's claims - let the next buyer deal with it, or defend it. Kodak gets less money, but it gets out of restructuring much quicker.
I also don't know why Apple just doesn't settle this by buying back the rights. Isn't this what $80 billion in cash is good for? Yeah, it's not "fair" but it resolves some major uncertainty and prevents further patent/IP litigation if Kodak's rights fall into hostile hands.
I am a lawyer, although I am not a bankruptcy lawyer.
.....
I also don't know why Apple just doesn't settle this by buying back the rights. Isn't this what $80 billion in cash is good for? Yeah, it's not "fair" but it resolves some major uncertainty and prevents further patent/IP litigation if Kodak's rights fall into hostile hands.
I do not mean to offend you sir, but your attitude is so much why the common man really hates lawyers. You appear to be saying, "who cares what the truth is or who cares what is right or wrong. Just go for the quick path of the most gain. Just throw some money at it that will solve everything."
Most people do care about what is right and what is wrong. Most people care if their reputations are damaged. And so most people I know are disgusted by the court system and the lawyers who are only fighting to get ahead of the other side without any concern as to what the truth is or how much money they burn through. Yuck!
I think that if Apple is in the right and they are the true patent holders, they should fight for the truth. But alas, they will have to use lawyers to put up a fight.
Comments
They don't have a leg to stand on. No irreparable harm - if Apple is harmed, it can be corrected with money damages and restitution of ownership.
This is just Apple trying to sleaze their way into a better settlement.
The irreparable harm is Apple's ability to exercise the patents for their own use or license them to others. The harm is irreparable because there is no way to estimate its value in the hands of Apple.
What do you base that appraisal on? Did you see it somewhere? Or did you pull the figure out of the blue? Or what?
They don't have a leg to stand on. No irreparable harm - if Apple is harmed, it can be corrected with money damages and restitution of ownership.
This is just Apple trying to sleaze their way into a better settlement.
On the contrary, this is Kodak issuing a subliminal invitation to all patent trolls and Apple adversaries with an interest in monetising or cross-licensing non-FRAND patents to a grand sale of IP that could seriously hurt Apple.
This is highly reminiscent of the way Sun Microsystems openly advertised the sale of the company touting the potentially huge liability of the likes of Google's Android where Java was concerned.
It's a case of Apple's making hay while the Sun still shines...
I don't usually feed the trolls, I prefer the zoo, but if you actually read anything about these patents, they cover technologies based on work apple did and then used while working with Kodak with the agreement that any further technology based on those core patents would belong to Apple..
You don't like the deal, you don't sign it seems to be the moral here and they agreed to Apple's terms all those years ago..
Kodak is the one that really doesn't have a leg to stand on here.
We don't know that.
As far as I know, the contents of the agreement between Apple and Kodak have not been made public. The ownership of the patents might well hinge on what the two parties agreed to when the started working together. The patents could be long to Apple or they could belong to Kodak.
If the agreement does not address IP ownership, then the patents belong to whoever's name is on the patent. The other party could try to have them invalidated based on publication of the improper inventor, but that's difficult to do after all these years. In extreme cases, it is possible to have an inventor added after the fact, but again, that's very difficult to do - especially after so many years have passed.
Bankruptcy judges have wide latitude to handle things that are usually very hard. Such as break contracts, assign property of various kinds, etc.
Before you make a claim of "no irreparable harm" you should go to groklaw.net and read the saga of what the bankruptcy judge has done in the case of SCO. Bankruptcy courts don't work the way other courts do and if the patents are sold, to Kodak's benefit, Apple will never see a dime. I don't know, but what I think Apple wants is their IP back, rather than money.
The court record is quite length but you really do need to read all of it before making more comments like the ones you made.
I'll take your word for it. Bankruptcy law is arcane, and the powers of the court exceed my innate sense of right and wrong.
Damn, I want that QuickTake 100! Where can I get one of those?
eBay, maybe.
We don't know that.
As far as I know, the contents of the agreement between Apple and Kodak have not been made public. The ownership of the patents might well hinge on what the two parties agreed to when the started working together. The patents could be long to Apple or they could belong to Kodak.
If the agreement does not address IP ownership, then the patents belong to whoever's name is on the patent. The other party could try to have them invalidated based on publication of the improper inventor, but that's difficult to do after all these years. In extreme cases, it is possible to have an inventor added after the fact, but again, that's very difficult to do - especially after so many years have passed.
You're absolutely right that we do not know who owns what here. But we can assess that Apple does feel that they own IP having worked with Kodak all those years ago to bring one of the first digital cameras to the consumer market. Especially since, Apple released the devices before even Kodak!? Who later came out with their own line of cameras.
But the simple truth is, Apple has already had digital cameras on the market, why is it an issue now? Is there something I'm missing? Surely Apple is covered under previous partnerships with regards to digital imaging in mobile devices? It really doesn't make sense for Kodak to try and sue a company they worked with all those years ago.
Damn, I want that QuickTake 100! Where can I get one of those?
The come up regularly on eBay. Check the 'completed auctions' listing to get an idea of recent prices.
The Quicktake was actually a great product for its time. We used one all the time where I worked.
You're absolutely right that we do not know who owns what here. But we can assess that Apple does feel that they own IP having worked with Kodak all those years ago to bring one of the first digital cameras to the consumer market. Especially since, Apple released the devices before even Kodak!? Who later came out with their own line of cameras.
But the simple truth is, Apple has already had digital cameras on the market, why is it an issue now? Is there something I'm missing? Surely Apple is covered under previous partnerships with regards to digital imaging in mobile devices? It really doesn't make sense for Kodak to try and sue a company they worked with all those years ago.
It's an issue now because Kodak is trying to claim that most (if not all) digital cameras on the market violate its intellectual property and is trying to monetize the patents.
The bankruptcy court has the power to amend or cancel contracts. If it finds in favor of Kodak and against Apple on Apple's claims, it could easily issue a ruling which cuts Apple out of these patents. Of course Appeal can appeal the ruling of the bankruptcy court, and should be able to do so quickly before it suffers irreparable harm.
I don't know why Kodak can't sell these patents to a third party subject to Apple's claims - let the next buyer deal with it, or defend it. Kodak gets less money, but it gets out of restructuring much quicker.
I also don't know why Apple just doesn't settle this by buying back the rights. Isn't this what $80 billion in cash is good for? Yeah, it's not "fair" but it resolves some major uncertainty and prevents further patent/IP litigation if Kodak's rights fall into hostile hands.
I am a lawyer, although I am not a bankruptcy lawyer.
.....
I also don't know why Apple just doesn't settle this by buying back the rights. Isn't this what $80 billion in cash is good for? Yeah, it's not "fair" but it resolves some major uncertainty and prevents further patent/IP litigation if Kodak's rights fall into hostile hands.
I do not mean to offend you sir, but your attitude is so much why the common man really hates lawyers. You appear to be saying, "who cares what the truth is or who cares what is right or wrong. Just go for the quick path of the most gain. Just throw some money at it that will solve everything."
Most people do care about what is right and what is wrong. Most people care if their reputations are damaged. And so most people I know are disgusted by the court system and the lawyers who are only fighting to get ahead of the other side without any concern as to what the truth is or how much money they burn through. Yuck!
I think that if Apple is in the right and they are the true patent holders, they should fight for the truth. But alas, they will have to use lawyers to put up a fight.