or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple denied ownership claims to two of ten patents in Kodak suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple denied ownership claims to two of ten patents in Kodak suit

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper on Thursday ruled Apple does not own two of eight disputed Kodak patents the once-dominant photography company plans to sell at auction this month.

In his ruling, Judge Gropper said Apple took too long to assert its ownership claims in a suit Kodak brought against the Cupertino company for allegedly trying to disrupt a patent sell off scheduled for next week, reports Bloomberg.

Kodak was approved in July to sell over 1,000 patents under the terms of bankruptcy protection agreements but Apple claimed ownership of some of the imaging technology invented when the two companies partnered to create the QuickTake digital camera. The contested patents come from Kodak's so-called "digital-capture" portfolio.

Kodak


Thursday's decision is seen as a partial victory for Kodak as the company would be forced to delay the much-needed patent sale.

?If Apple?s claims proceed despite their unreasonably delayed commencement, Kodak might have to go back to the drawing board for ways to fund its case,? Judge Gropper wrote in Thursday's ruling.

The judge denied Kodak's motions for summary judgments on the remaining eight claims, but left the door open for a follow-up request if the company comes up with a "more complete record."

Interestingly, Apple reportedly joined forces with Microsoft in bidding for the photogrpahy pioneer's patent portfolio and is expected to go up against a group of huge corporations led by Google, Samsung, HTC and LG.

Most recently Apple lost a bid to move the court proceedings out of bankruptcy court and into a New York district court, a transfer that would have hindered Kodak's upcoming patent auction.
post #2 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

If Apple?s claims proceed despite their unreasonably delayed commencement, Kodak might have to go back to the drawing board for ways to fund its case,? Judge Gropper wrote in Thursday's ruling..


This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.
"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 #3 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.

Yep and Apple will probably get it reheard, they have been arguing this for ages after Kodak sued them for infringement.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


This is exactly why a bankruptcy judge should not be ruling on ownership of these patents. The judge just indicated that he decided on the basis of Kodak's need for money rather than the merits of the case. This will be appealed.

I'd agree. It seems simple.

Co-ownership is co-ownership.I was surprised this even ended up in court.

post #5 of 18
Two of eight? O.k. I'll cut my losses.

So Apple got ownership of eight out of ten of those patents?

I'm being facetious. I don't have all of the facts, but the headline is worse than the earlier one about maps...
post #6 of 18

It seems that only 10 patents were in dispute, but I'm sure there were hundreds. This story doesn't make much sense... or were only 8 of10 patents clearly Apple's property?

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #7 of 18
Tallest? Cool pic for this?
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Tallest? Cool pic for this?


1000

post #9 of 18
What is the point in mentioning that Google belongs to "huge corporations" category ?
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoobs View Post


That's awesome! I went back and read the story... Then scrolled down. Then went back... Then scrolled down.

It just FITS! Kudos!
post #11 of 18
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

What is the point in mentioning that Google belongs to "huge corporations" category ?

Shhhhh.... Actually, if you had read this earlier you would have known they weren't so "huge" yesterday and could have purchased stock then...

Aren't there better things to complain about?
Edited by Vadania - 8/3/12 at 12:06am
post #12 of 18
What's with the "Warning Spoiler" above my posts Tallest? I'm genuinely curious?
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In his ruling, Judge Gropper said Apple took too longto assert its ownership claims

 

Judge Grasshopper's message to Apple:

 

"Become more aggressive in your litigation."

 

No problems!

Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #14 of 18

I'm not familiar with bankruptcy law but I suspect that events hindering the process so the distressed company is rendered incapable of quickly restructuring or dissolving and settling its debts are frowned upon and appropriately handled by a bankruptcy judge.

 

If a company can tie another company up in various legal venues until it goes out of business then it leaves all those patents' fates up in the air. They also would have less ability to fight the patent battles, if they even could at all. That's at least one motivating factor of why Apple wants to slow everything down as much as possible. It's one tactic, agree with it as a good one or not, nonetheless the bankruptcy judge said no we're going to keep the bankruptcy proceedings rolling along.

 

The judge doesn't have a direct role to play in protecting one's assets from one's creditors but does need to ensure the playing field is as even as possible so it's within a judge's purview to do what can be done to ensure one litigant isn't unduly burdened in the case.

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle View Post

I'm not familiar with bankruptcy law but I suspect that events hindering the process so the distressed company is rendered incapable of quickly restructuring or dissolving and settling its debts are frowned upon and appropriately handled by a bankruptcy judge.

If a company can tie another company up in various legal venues until it goes out of business then it leaves all those patents' fates up in the air. They also would have less ability to fight the patent battles, if they even could at all. That's at least one motivating factor of why Apple wants to slow everything down as much as possible. It's one tactic, agree with it as a good one or not, nonetheless the bankruptcy judge said no we're going to keep the bankruptcy proceedings rolling along.

The judge doesn't have a direct role to play in protecting one's assets from one's creditors but does need to ensure the playing field is as even as possible so it's within a judge's purview to do what can be done to ensure one litigant isn't unduly burdened in the case.

That ignores one little thing: justice.

A bankruptcy judge certainly has to worry about expediency and finding ways to enable the process to move forward. He does NOT, however, have the right to decide matters without regard to the facts simply to avoid the need for Kodak to find some other source of money.

By the same logic, if Kodak claims that 50 bars of gold in Ft. Knox belong to them, can the judge simply say that it's expedient for him to award that gold to Kodak so that they don't have to find some other source of money? Obviously not - so why is it OK for him to award Kodak with some disputed patents without regard to the legalities of the matter as appears to be the case here (although it could simply be bad AI reporting that makes it appear that way).
"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 #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

What's with the "Warning Spoiler" above my posts Tallest? I'm genuinely curious?

You likely just tried to click in the text box before the page was fully draw and triggered one of the tool buttons instead. I used to do it all the time and would see empty spoilers, quotes etc. Especially when I am on my ipad

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #17 of 18

This is the worst title ever.  I first read this and assumed it meant that Apple was denying that they owned the patents.  As though someone was accusing Apple of owning them, and apple denied it.  

post #18 of 18

Apple buys the patents, sells the ones it doesn't need, job done, move on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple denied ownership claims to two of ten patents in Kodak suit