or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge approves Kodak digital-imaging patent sale to Apple, Google and others
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge approves Kodak digital-imaging patent sale to Apple, Google and others

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
The bankruptcy court judge overseeing Kodak's sell-off of its digital-imaging patents has given the green light to sell the IP to a group of company's that includes Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech heavyweights.

Kodak


Judge Allan L. Gropper on Friday approved the terms of sale for a collection of 1,100 patents relating to the capture and display of digital images, bringing Kodak's bankruptcy proceedings one step closer to resolution, reports The Wall Street Journal.

It was reported in December that an Apple-led consortium put in a winning bid of $525 million for rights to the patent licenses, but Friday's court hearing revealed the actual sale price to be slightly higher at $527 million. Initial hopes were to garner at least $2 billion from the patent auction.

Judge Gropper called the final price "disappointing," but noted the much-needed cash will help Kodak move forward with restructuring plans that will see the company emerge from bankruptcy with a new look targeting commercial customers.

"The amount in the transactions, which are complicated and integrated, are the highest and best value available to the debtors," said Kodak lawyer Michael H. Torkin.

The struggling photography pioneer's $830 million loan package required the company net at least $500 million from the sale.

Included in the group of winning bidders are Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, RIM, Samsung, Fujifilm, Facebook, Huawei Technologies, Shutterfly and units of HTC and Amazon. When bidding first started in July of last year, Apple and Google led two separate teams, but less-than-adequate offers prompted the consortia to rearrange alliances.

In its decline, Kodak has been forced to sell many of its core businesses, like the camera sector it pioneered in 1900 with the Brownie box camera and attached film development service.
post #2 of 30

Kodak a great company in it's day.  Sold out by old crony's who thought themselves superior.  And it's printers they advertised as cheap and easy to use became a joke.

 

Maybe Kodak should have partnered with Apple instead of Apple buying Kodaks patents.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #3 of 30

My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-40 that I bought in 1996. They were way ahead of the game. I am surprised they didn't use their strong photography brand and early digital lead to become a digital camera powerhouse.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Maybe Kodak should have partnered with Apple instead of Apple buying Kodaks patents.

They did. With Apple, back in 1994, to produce the QuickTake. Wiki

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #5 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

They did. With Apple, back in 1994, to produce the QuickTake. Wiki

'

I used to have one of those. For its time, it was a fantastic product.
"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 #6 of 30
Kodak's problem was their digital plans were underdeveloped and their dependence of silver halide over exposed. That is what eventually brought the shutters down. I SO wanted them to pull out all the stops and zoom on to a focused and successful digital landscape but the portrait they leave is one of shadowy detail and a grainy past.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #7 of 30
Hopefully it'll lead to a new apple camera.
post #8 of 30
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
Hopefully it'll lead to a new apple camera.

 

You mean better camera hardware in all shipping Apple devices that use them, right?

post #9 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Hopefully it'll lead to a new apple camera.

I love my Nikons and Canons but some help with their UIs from Apple would be welcome. Imagine a Siri enabled DSLR ... "Camera, set to: AV, ISO 100, three stops, bracketing, 2 second delay..." Drool.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You mean better camera hardware in all shipping Apple devices that use them, right?

Apple level interface in a shipping Camera also 1smile.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #11 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Kodak's problem was their digital plans were underdeveloped and their dependence of silver halide over exposed. That is what eventually brought the shutters down. I SO wanted them to pull out all the stops and zoom on to a focused and successful digital landscape but the portrait they leave is one of shadowy detail and a grainy past.

Mega-Groan
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Kodak's problem was their digital plans were underdeveloped and their dependence of silver halide over exposed. That is what eventually brought the shutters down. I SO wanted them to pull out all the stops and zoom on to a focused and successful digital landscape but the portrait they leave is one of shadowy detail and a grainy past.

Truly beautifully written with your use of adjectives. Hats off to you sir.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #13 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Judge Gropper called the final price "disappointing,"... 


Hmm... methink the Judge should keep his personal opinions to himself.  Since when did he get the expertise to judge the value of patents?  If he thought it too low, maybe he could have made a higher bid himself.

 

post #14 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Judge Gropper called the final price "disappointing,"... 


Hmm... methink the Judge should keep his personal opinions to himself.  Since when did he get the expertise to judge the value of patents?  If he thought it too low, maybe he could have made a higher bid himself.


 

Indeed sflocal.

"Mr. Gropper, the next time we want your opinion we'll give it to you."
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #15 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Hmm... methink the Judge should keep his personal opinions to himself.  Since when did he get the expertise to judge the value of patents?  If he thought it too low, maybe he could have made a higher bid himself.
 

This judge has overstepped his bounds on several occasions. For example, he allowed the sale of patents to go through, even though the ownership of the patents was in question at the time. He is far too eager to be seen as the person who saved HP and not eager enough to ensure that the law and justice are served.
"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 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Hmm... methink the Judge should keep his personal opinions to himself. 

 

Sounds like saying that the California jury foreman should've kept his personal opinions to himself .   Both can speak their mind after the case is over.

 

Quote:
 Since when did he get the expertise to judge the value of patents?  

 

One of a bankruptcy court's purposes is to get as much as possible from assets, in order to help everyone.

 

In this case, the judge didn't set the expectations.  The expected value of the patents given by experts, had been closer to $2 billion.  

 

That amount would've helped pay off more debts and allowed keeping more employees.   So naturally the outcome was disappointing from that standpoint.   By using a consortium to buy the patents, the bidding was kept artificially low.

post #17 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You mean better camera hardware in all shipping Apple devices that use them, right?

No, I mean a dedicated camera to take on the Samsung Galaxy camera. 

Mr Jobs said himself that he wanted to better the experience of music, computing, textbooks and photography so it'd only be following the great man's wishes.

 

The Galaxy camera does look nice but I just couldn't bring myself to buy something with Samsung written on it.

post #18 of 30
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
No, I mean a dedicated camera to take on the Samsung Galaxy camera. 

 

They're not gonna do that. First because that thing is a piece of crap and second because people don't want to carry around more than one thing.


Mr Jobs said himself that he wanted to better the experience of music, computing, textbooks and photography so it'd only be following the great man's wishes.

 

So they'll improve the cameras on existing iDevices.

post #19 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

...that thing is a piece of crap...

Crap indeed. Just read a couple reviews and it's a truly horrible device. I cannot believe the stupidity of the developers and designers at Samsung. I thought MS had a monopoly on designing crap.
Quote:
So they'll improve the cameras on existing iDevices.

I wonder if it is feasible to put a mirror under a 45 degree angle behind the camera opening and make use of the full height of an iPhone for the lens glass. Because more glass the better, simply put.

I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So they'll improve the cameras on existing iDevices.

All of which will not have optical zoom, a truly good lens system or room for a decent CCD sensor.

So all you will have is an all in 1 device that can do some things well and some things only averagely.

 

If your wedding photographer turned up and pulled out an iPhone you wouldn't consider him a professional would you?

 

The iDevices do a good job considering their footprint but this fad of making things thinner and thinner will affect things like photo clarity as they have less room for lenses. There are big differences in picture quality over different 8MP sensors. Whilst the iPhone etc are good point and click cameras for nights out and photos of your kids in halloween costumes, it's not a great camera for people who enjoy photography.

 

However, I am well aware of whom I am disagreeing with so I'll not expect you to change from your mind from your initial hastily thought out response.

post #21 of 30
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
All of which will not have optical zoom, a truly good lens system or room for a decent CCD sensor.

 

Really? You're sure about all these things? Because tech changes. Tech changes quickly.


Whilst the iPhone etc are good point and click cameras for nights out and photos of your kids in halloween costumes…

 

I would think the iPhone's sensor would be poor in low-light situations, but above average everywhere else. Is that not the case?


…it's not a great camera for people who enjoy photography.

 

That's a bit of a stretch to say, considering it's not something that can be said.


However, I am well aware of whom I am disagreeing with so I'll not expect you to change from your mind from your initial hastily thought out response.

 

Grow up? That's about it. 

post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

All of which will not have optical zoom, a truly good lens system or room for a decent CCD sensor.

Really? You're sure about all these things? Because tech changes. Tech changes quickly.

True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens. And it shows in the quality of the photo - not in the sense that it is a good picture or not! This is a vital difference; a good photo can be taken with a cell phone and a crap photo can be taken with a SLR. It's not the tool, that's just a tool, it's the artist at work that creates great work.
Quote:
…it's not a great camera for people who enjoy photography.
Quote:
That's a bit of a stretch to say, considering it's not something that can be said.

That indeed is the wrong thing to say. I've seen betetr photographs from people using a cellphone than people with a (D)SLR.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I wonder if it is feasible to put a mirror under a 45 degree angle behind the camera opening and make use of the full height of an iPhone for the lens glass. Because more glass the better, simply put.

 

I'm with you.  I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens.  (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that.  It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)

 

Kind of like this Kodak design:

 

 


Edited by KDarling - 1/14/13 at 9:59am
post #24 of 30
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
True, but this is not tech, is physics. That changes as well, but a good lens needs a lot of glass, many elements in order to create a good lens.

 

Sure, but Nokia is able to handle that with an 8x larger sensor. As designs change, larger surface area for sensors won't be an issue, and we could see bigger lenses on the back of the iPhone. The only thing they can't do right now is make it thin enough to fit (notice the Nokia is about twice as thick as an iPhone 5, and then the lens bulges out beyond that). 

 

I trust Apple to be able to make a lens good enough, thin enough, and large enough to improve picture quality far into the future. 

post #25 of 30
Sad sad day for Kodak, and the people and employees in the Rochester area. Once was a great company to work for. Great products and so generous to RIT. Don't know what else to say. Just too damn bad.
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

My first digital camera was the Kodak DC-40 that I bought in 1996. They were way ahead of the game. I am surprised they didn't use their strong photography brand and early digital lead to become a digital camera powerhouse.

 

Mine was a Kodak DC4800. I was able to knock many a fine picture with it (knowing its limitations -- 3.1 MP and not the best image processor) it was very simple to use. And the quality was good enough that I was able to learn to use iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop Elements to turn out some pretty good pictures. When I moved on to my Canon DC9 (I prefer something much smaller than a DSLR) I was able to pass on my Kodak DC4800 (with the lens kit) to my daughter who was in 3rd grade and she used it a sleep overs, field trips @ school, parties,etc… It lasted a pretty good while -- in fact it is still in use as the camera to take if we are going some place where the camera might take a beating because of environment or activity, or if we lost it it would not hurt. We all have iPhones and of course the best camera is always the one you have with you. The Kodak is far from top of the line by todays standards but it is a good simple camera and really good in its day (never had to have it serviced, same battery pack as it came with). BTW -- before I gave it to my daughter I kept over 2100 photos taken with it and I believe in 3--4 shots of very subject is better than one so I probably actually have taken 10,000+ actual pics considering more than80% were culled.

post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

Mine was a Kodak DC4800. I was able to knock many a fine picture with it (knowing its limitations -- 3.1 MP and not the best image processor) it was very simple to use. And the quality was good enough that I was able to learn to use iPhoto and Adobe Photoshop Elements to turn out some pretty good pictures. When I moved on to my Canon DC9 (I prefer something much smaller than a DSLR) I was able to pass on my Kodak DC4800 (with the lens kit) to my daughter who was in 3rd grade and she used it a sleep overs, field trips @ school, parties,etc… It lasted a pretty good while -- in fact it is still in use as the camera to take if we are going some place where the camera might take a beating because of environment or activity, or if we lost it it would not hurt. We all have iPhones and of course the best camera is always the one you have with you. The Kodak is far from top of the line by todays standards but it is a good simple camera and really good in its day (never had to have it serviced, same battery pack as it came with). BTW -- before I gave it to my daughter I kept over 2100 photos taken with it and I believe in 3--4 shots of very subject is better than one so I probably actually have taken 10,000+ actual pics considering more than80% were culled.

Not a Kodak story but an early digital camera one ... My first was a Sony Pro Mavica MVC-7000, Zoom lens and playback machine, total around $10,000, mid 1990's I think. I bought it at the Mac World trade show in Boston right off the Sony stand. It had a gob smacking resolution of 640 x 480 pixels! Yeah!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

I'm with you.  I keep wondering when a phone is going to appear with such a lens.  (I think the early Sony Cybershot T series had that.  It allowed optical zoom even in a super thin case, because the zoom part was vertical.)

 

Kind of like this Kodak design:

 

 

 

Hmm, a Kodak design, the same company that Apple just bought a bunch of patents from.

Could be interesting.

post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Truly beautifully written with your use of adjectives. Hats off to you sir.

Thanks lol

... but written with feeling. I was summoned to Rochester by Kodak's board to be grilled about digital photography back in the day. Kodak OY in Norway were bundling my company's software with high end color scanners. Kodak OY were very keen to get as far into digital photography as possible and saw digital separation from analog source as a good step. Kodak HQ were not happy. They were seeing this as the thin end of a wedge they didn't want to acknowledge I felt and made it clear that film could not be replaced by digital at the high end and disapproved of the arrangement I had with Kodak OY. I actually had to have a face to face lecture on the limitations of digital versus film. "No ability to get into the shadow detail " ... rings in in my ears every time I work in RAW and HDR. 1smile.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #30 of 30
Originally Posted by shini21 View Post
I lost my z710 and now plan to replace it with the Kodak Easyshare Z5010. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

I suggest you buy from a company that still exists, but that's me.


My father swears by Nikon and my mother by Canon. Of course, they got into the game with film, so it makes for some interesting discussions.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge approves Kodak digital-imaging patent sale to Apple, Google and others