Kodak brings camera patent complaints against Apple, RIM

Didn't Apple and Kodak collaborate on a digital camera a long time ago, around the same time computers started viewing jpeg or .jpg images?

Prior art?

I like how companies on the verge of irrelevance due to new technology try to save face by suing.

[CENTER]If they can prove their case, then - So Be It.

Creative was successful with their claims of copyright/patent infringement, so anything's possible.[/CENTER]

AppleInsider

Kodak has been trying for years. Quote & Link from MacRumors site.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/17/...dak-complaint/

"In its complaint, Kodak contended that it had worked with Apple and Research in Motion "for years" in attempts to resolve the dispute, but had been unable to reach satisfactory agreements. Kodak also noted at the time that disruption of sales of the devices from Apple and RIM was not its "primary interest", suggesting that its complaint with the ITC requesting a ban on import of the devices into the U.S. was designed to gain leverage in its negotiations with the companies."

The consensus from almost all reports (non Kool Aid sites) is that Kodak tried in good business practice for years before they took this to the next level after trying to negotiate a reasonable price for the IP used by both Apple and RIM.

Please read other site before believing what AI prints. They rarely give the full story, especially when it doesn't favor Apple's interest.

I’m not saying Kodak is correct. I’m just saying this article is misleading and read the real story on another site. Nobody knows if the allegations are true but the US International Trade Commission decided it worth hearing all sides. That in itself should justify giving this article a biased opinion for the omissions left out of the “Reporting”.

"Kodak has said it licenses its digital imaging technology to about 30 companies, including handset makers like LG, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, and Sony Ericsson. All of those companies pay royalties to Kodak.

On Dec. 17, Kodak won a similar suit against Samsung. An ITC judge ruled that patent No. 6,292,218 related to color image preview was valid and enforceable. The ITC determined that camera-equipped phones from Samsung violated the patent. Kodak hopes to have the same success against Apple and RIM"

That was from the article. So let us see. Several of the world's largest phone makers pay Kodak a royalty for using the patent, and Samsung just lost a suit based on patent infringement. And yet, Kodak is a priori wrong and Apple is a priori right?

Wow, can I have what ya'll are smoking? Based on the article, which may or may not be correct, it looks like Apple wants a free ride and all the fanboys are willing to let them have it.

Of course there were no agreements regarding the disputed technology used in this:-

Or were there?

Are any licences Apple obtained then still valid?

Computer meet phone, there is more to this than meets the eye, it's a good thing there are courts to decide these matters because until it get's to court there is only opinion.

I don't understand how the government can with 100% reliability control patents for software and if its even fair. How do you design Patent boundaries on software or code? Every Tom Dick and Harry developer/coder out there can buy software language books, study the different machine languages, sit down on a chair behind a computer, and Map out a design to reach a certain result that may be exactly like a hundred other guys code. I mean, most everyone uses some form of computer that have chips designed to accept computer or machine language and there are just so many ways to get a result that will attain your goals. Its a shame that the patent law is set up so that, the first guy to the keyboard wins. It doesn't make sense to me.

I can see if your GUI has no clear likeness anywhere perhaps, or your hardware design has actual newly developed circuitry, or a breakthrough in materials or conductivity etc, or chip design with certain capabilities that no one has been able to figure out for decades. But even then, I think that its hard to decipher where that line begins and ends. There are just so many ways you can etch and cram transistors and capacity into silicon and there is a point where you reach diminishing returns. Look how similar an AMD chip is to an Intel chip. Chips are now combined with graphic processors etc, but in the end, they are still all doing some sort of traffic control, amplifying/switching of electronic signals.

I do think that content or the meaning within the results shouldn't be easily copied, but not when everyone is typing on the same keyboard and sitting behind the same desk, using the same processors and computer language and set of instructions on how to get to point A to B using a set of common tools, it's way too hard to control.

I personally think there are too many software related patents, which drive up the pricing for the consumers and create this waste of time and money. I really think that this whole industry is not understood completely or properly by the powers to be in the US Patent Offices. Do patents have time limits? If not, they certainly should. Just like we need time limits on the US Gongress and legislature.

Reading images at different resolutions? I think it sounds too generic to be patented.

It seems you need to patent EVERYTHING you do these days. Mainly for two reasons:
1. To ensure you got the rights to use it.
2. To have a backup storage of patents you can use to counter sue others that sue you. (I'm sure Apple can counter sue Kodak, should they want to, to make some noise.)

One day soon the patent laws for software have to be rewritten from the ground up.

I'm just gonna throw a rock in a glass house now, but here we go:
What if the law said software patents are only valid for 3 years. This in order to give you a fair and competitive lead. Software code patents are only granted on projects that are official, and not for "I'll patent this just in case" reasons.
After the patent expires, it cannot be patented again, and is free to use.
So, if you wanna grant yourself a lead, patent your stuff. But prepare to be copied after some years.

This way you will as a patent holder also be credited as a big donor to the software community (as opposed to now), and probably end up helping code to get better, more efficient, less buggy, worldwide.

This is a hardware patent, not a software patent.

One more time. Who here has a patent or ever filed for one. Why should Apple or any other company be able to use another company's IP without compensation? If the roles were reversed here, everyone would act all up in arms about Apple being ripped off.

I am constantly amazed that people think that Kodak, a multi-billion dollar a year company, that was founded in 1888 is some sort of patent troll. I am willing to bet that Kodak has more patents than Apple does. People around here act like Apple is the ONLY company to have ever invented anything and is the only company that has ever filed a valid patent.

If patents were only good for 3 years, innovation would come to a screeching halt because it would not make economic sense to invest the money with virtually no return, unless the liscening fees went WAY up, which would drive up the cost of items.

I think will be better if any hardware/software patents have a pre-defined period of time for implementation in a commercial product. For example, if you filled a patent, you will have 3-4 years to implement it in a product, otherwise the patent will be dismissed.

interesting idea. However this does not seem to be he case here where apple has Been using cameras foe years that infringe and apple has no paid the royalties like other compaines have

Allegedly...

yes allegedly. OTOH, the article does state that Kodak has tried to work with Apple and RIM, for years, and that the worlds largest phone makers all pay kodak royalties based on the patent. Thus, as a betting man, the odds would suggest that Kodak has a complaint.

First I don't have anything against any company that battles with Apple, especially Kodak, a very respectable and innovative company. Secondly, I don't support Apple like a Fan Boy. In fact, I am quite critical of them. Apple too is no Angel, they probably learned to be tougher over the years, as there were taken advantage of and lost plenty of big time decisions. Kodak, I happen to be fond of, its like American Apple Pie too me. I grew up watching their great commercials, supporting their business and using their products daily much of my life. I also don't know the exact issues with their patent case or what it entails, i.e. software or hardware.

What I am stating in general, is that there are way too many of these cases that go to court and eat into the cost of the products. Point in case is that Kodak and Apple and Rim have been trying to iron out the issues for years. Its ridiculous, if it were really important to them (Kodak), they should have brought this to court many years ago and be done with it. Now that the results are in, and since Kodak is not the benefactor, they think, hey others have reaped the benefits and won older cases against some big time players, maybe its time for us to jump in too.

There is obviously something that is or was not clear in the Patent issues, if it were easy for them or their lawyers to discern, these companies would have worked out a deal to pay royalties many years ago. However, they probably know or knew that the US Patent Office is way behind in understanding these issues and have not made clear what the boundaries are, so they (Apple, Rim) just go about making their products, probably with the cost of legal fees built in. They then calculate, if the product takes off, that they will be in court some day, and the decision will be made for them by the courts whether to pay royalties, a fine or whatever.

Don't feel sorry for Kodak which is a great company, one that enjoyed a near market monopoly for most of its existence, until the japanese came in with their film, and later with better digital technology. They had a very hard time keeping pace with the digital image transformation, and probably rightfully so because of their size. Today, Rochester is a dead town compared to its heyday, which relied heavily on Kodak. They are only a fraction of the company they once were. So even old and capable companies can die a slow death or lose ground. Who knows for sure, but perhaps when they were in talks and made these patents, they may have had problems incorporating them into any long term successful products, and may have already seen the writing on the wall. They were playing catchup at that point. I think they were ill prepared to stave off the digital onslaught. Though Kodak has made camera equipment originally for the nonprofessional, it was more of a film, and photo paper producing company than a very good camera maker or digital imaging equipment developer. Though, I personally wish that they were better prepared. They have gotten back some form and made some inroads with sensors, but to a large extent, they are just another player, nothing more. They are still struggling and recently laid off thousands of people. I am not happy about that I must say.

So when Apple collaborated with Kodak and contracted them to design the Quick Take camera prior to 1994.

How much of the disputed technology was used in it, what was Apple's contribution and which parts were used in Kodaks patents?

What were Apple's rights under the terms of any agreements Apple and Kodak entered into during the design and manufacture of the quick take camera, as it was certainly capable of outputting a resizable image to a computer screen.

I guess it's up to a court to decide.