or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Kodak says patent dispute with Apple worth more than $1B in royalties
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kodak says patent dispute with Apple worth more than $1B in royalties - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

because they license the patents kodak developed in the 1990's

I doubt they all did.
post #42 of 58
Once an innovator and market leader in all things photography, now reduced to nothing but patent trolls; corporate street thugs.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Not so much. Apple and RIM are defending themselves against Kodak's claim on the same basis. If Apple owned these patents then they would need to pull a legal 180 to sue RIM. Not an easy maneuver. They'd be far better settling. The idea would be to get rid of a lawsuit, not create more of them.

I'm looking at it from the angle of what would be a better use of that $1 bil: getting something tangible for it, or paying ransom to a dying company that'll likely lose it (or worse, get picked up by a competitor)?

If the big shareholders are indeed demanding that Kodak be sold, this would be as good of a time as any. Why engage in costly legal fights that do nothing but delay the inevitable?

Anyway if Apple did buy Kodak, yes they'd probably have to sue RIM (along with getting new suits from other gold diggers hoping to get bought out). If Apple opts to settle instead, that's $1 billion out the door, and again new ransom suits. Not many good ways out here.
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] Faced with the decline of the camera film market, Kodak has turned to its extensive patent portfolio as a source of income. [...]

How the mighty have fallen. Kodak had a decade to prepare for digital photography in the 21st century, but they didn't. Now they're falling down the same patent-troll stairs as SCO and Nokia.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

I'm looking at it from the angle of what would be a better use of that $1 bil: getting something tangible for it, or paying ransom to a dying company that'll likely lose it (or worse, get picked up by a competitor)?

If the big shareholders are indeed demanding that Kodak be sold, this would be as good of a time as any. Why engage in costly legal fights that do nothing but delay the inevitable?

Anyway if Apple did buy Kodak, yes they'd probably have to sue RIM (along with getting new suits from other gold diggers hoping to get bought out). If Apple opts to settle instead, that's $1 billion out the door, and again new ransom suits. Not many good ways out here.

I can see the possible advantage of Apple buying EK, but not in turning the legal tables. They've been arguing, successfully so far, that Apple is not violating Kodak's patents. I suspect a judge would be pretty skeptical if Apple started making just the opposite argument in court in defense of these patents. If this happens (a long shot), then I think Apple's strategy would be a quick settlement with RIM for some relatively small sum and a cross-licensing agreement. Everybody moves on.

In any case, it's not $1 billion out the door for several reasons. First, if Kodak is even close to right, then Apple and RIM together could be liable for that amount. Second, EK has something like $2 billion in cash on their books (and some debt), so that's a direct offset to the acquisition cost. Third, EK no doubt owns other valuable intellectual property assets that Apple could either use, sell, or license. Fourth, they have other assets of value, including real estate and brand names that Apple could either sell or use.

The fly in the ointment is that EK would probably not consent to a buyout, which makes it a hostile takeover. Those are always costly and messy. I'd say this is only potentially a good idea if EK agrees to be taken over.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981 View Post

I have nothing against apple but Kodak did have a digital camera a year before apple came out with theirs in 1993.

Kodak designed and built the QuickTake 100 & 150 for Apple.
They had already been selling a similar model of their own for over a year.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leatherneck71 View Post

Not too long ago, another not so obscure company was accused of the exact same thing... Microsoft. Now that SJ and company are under scrutiny the knee jerk reaction is to attack Kodak not to address the real issue: stolen intellectual property. (Shield up! Here come the attacks!)

What stolen intellectual property? The ITC judge already ruled there wasn't any patent violation. It's off to the appeals chain now.

So, unless your post means avoid the facts of the matter and then claim anyone citing them is attacking, your post is pointless and ill informed.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Not an attack, just a reply:
Your comment could be interpreted as an attack on Apple and Apple supporters...

The point being, your comment does not weigh up past history, known practices and character. On the surface, sure, it all looks equal: MS gets sued, Apple gets sued.

What's the difference, right? Why should Apple supporters want MS to get nailed by someone like Kodak, but overlook scrutiny of Apple. What hypocrites, right? Because, of course, there is always merit to the suits and Apple must automatically be just as guilty as MS surely is, right? Let's be evenhanded and politically correct here, yes?

Well, MS is basically known for pulling crap and unethical business practices. It's a fact. They aren't sued from here to Timbuctoo for nothing. Apple actually has a record of, well, inventing stuff, and being, you know, innovative.

So, the short answer is: it is actually quite believable that Apple actually did come up with an alternate way of doing something without infringing on someone else's patent. Is that our first thought with MS? Heck, no.

So, you see, the mere comparison, "MS gets sued, Apple gets sued" actually contains some back history with qualitative differences. Actually. It is never a case of "the exact same thing". For you to paint it as such is completely disingenuous. The only "knee-jerk" reaction here is yours: to assume Apple has the same character and inabilities and DNA as MS. As soon as a story about a suit against Apple comes up, whoops, here go the knee-jerk reactions about how Apple is the new MicroSoft and how Apple supporters are blind hypocrites and you are such a dispassionate and objective observer who has to fend off attacks by rabid and deluded fanboys. But you didn't mean to attack us, right!

Point taken! Although an attack on Apple and Apple supporters would also be an attack on me! . Was just trying to post a non-biased opinion... And no, I didn't mean to attack us....
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

That's actually a good idea..!


And that's another great idea..!!

And it was just as good an idea when it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Do the shareholders really want this company to be remembered as the Pictures company akin to Darl's McBride and the SCO Group?

Fire this guy and get talent to restructure your future with your current IP. Invest heavily into R&D and streamline your focus on how your research can bring new IP to the market.

Otherwise, sell it off.

Yesterday I got flamed for thinking the guy might have an issue, but this is blatant patent-trolling IMHO. If I remember correctly, Apple made digital cameras many years ahead of Kodak. It was the Quick something. It's sad when a formerly great company sinks as low as Kodak has...
post #51 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by LanPhantom View Post

Kodak, take a picture of yourself, it might last longer than your companies business model will.


Hard times for sure. But to be fair they had a good run while people still used photographic film, paper, and chemicals. Not so much anymore. It is just changing times, not really a mismanagement issue. I really like the services that Kodak offers now but they just aren't as profitable as the film business was. They have really good service technicians for medical digital imaging.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerbrent View Post

Yesterday I got flamed for thinking the guy might have an issue, but this is blatant patent-trolling IMHO. If I remember correctly, Apple made digital cameras many years ahead of Kodak. It was the Quick something. It's sad when a formerly great company sinks as low as Kodak has...

Kodak made that camera for Apple as I recall.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The CEO of Eastman Kodak told reporters Thursday that his company could receive more than $1 billion in royalty revenue if it can achieve a victory against Apple and Research in Motion in a patent dispute over digital camera technology used in the two companies' mobile devices.

Nokia said the same thing. Look where that got them.....
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Kodak made that camera for Apple as I recall.

QuickTake. Two of the models were made by Apple and one by Fuji.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

QuickTake. Two of the models were made by Apple and one by Fuji.


I guess I should have looked it up to be sure. But now that I have, I think you should contact Wikipedia to inform them that their page is completely wrong.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Doesn't every digital camera with a display do this?

Yes, and Kodak owns that patent too. As one of the original authors of that in 1989 I should know.

The internal resistance from the film-based divisions prevented them from moving as quickly as they needed to. They could have been years ahead but few inside understood the convergence of the computer and photography that was occurring. At that time few even HAD computers. The marketing manager hated them and swore by his Underwood " word processor".

Anyway, I got my fifty bucks, free dinner and a plaque for my patent.
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by shao View Post

... Of course, it's BS, but then i knew coming here I'd be sure to find the usual trolls and fan boys. but really? you're being serious? Apple invents no more than anyone else, if anything they're more famous for taking others' ideas, adding a coating of gloss, and passing them off as their own.. their entire history is littered with it. To be fair, so is Microsoft's, but to paint one ethically better or worse than the other is just a hysterical proposition.

read your history next time. ...

Read your history. Microsoft was notorious for "partnering" with other companies for the purpose of getting a look at their intellectual property and ripping it off. SQL Server was a ripoff from Sybase, and there are any number of other instances where they did this same thing with smaller companies. This was their MO in the '80s and '90s, and "partnering" with Microsoft was the kiss of death for many companies. This is unethical behavior writ large, and there are no examples of Apple engaging in this sort of activity, and certainly not systematically as Microsoft did.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Read your history. Microsoft was notorious for "partnering" with other companies for the purpose of getting a look at their intellectual property and ripping it off. SQL Server was a ripoff from Sybase, and there are any number of other instances where they did this same thing with smaller companies. This was their MO in the '80s and '90s, and "partnering" with Microsoft was the kiss of death for many companies. This is unethical behavior writ large, and there are no examples of Apple engaging in this sort of activity, and certainly not systematically as Microsoft did.


Concur on the MSFT MO. And it wasn't only with smaller companies - just ask IBM. Anyone here remember OS/2?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Kodak says patent dispute with Apple worth more than $1B in royalties