one would think this is the case but it is not. there was a time, not that long ago, that you could have an idea, have done no research and development on it at all but could get a patent. and then just use that patent to collect money from others. some of whom had done their research and found no patent at the time because it was still in process. and then when you see that they are making money some 5-10 years later, you could use your patent to sue them. this is a major flaw of the system. they need a way in which to limit how long after an obvious violation you have to sue or give up at least 'statutory' damages (actual damages having to be collected at the same rates all non violators paid). Because that kind of ignore until profit trick is what is happening with a lot of these Apple cases to the point of absurdity. If I don't defend a trademark for 10 years I lose the right to sue anyone cause clearly I didn't care. But I can defend a patent even if I never used it. that's wack
Well said. Patents have become a kind of speculation--analogous to selling derivatives on Wall Street. The making of money by not producing anything concrete profits only those at the top of the pyramid. The rest of us are left impoverished creatively as well as economically. When will both the left and right realize they have a common interest in forcing politicians to stop moving the U.S. economy away from actually making things to just selling abstractions. Sorry, high horse day today.
You can patent a particular implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. So Apple and RIM may not have infringed on Kodak's patents, but Kodak could think they might. I don't think Apple's lawyers are that stupid to ignore a patent if it's legitimate...
You can patent a particular implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. So Apple and RIM may not have infringed on Kodak's patents, but Kodak could think they might. I don't think Apple's lawyers are that stupid to ignore a patent if it's legitimate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The Eastman Kodak Company announced Thursday that it filed a lawsuit against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that the iPhone infringes a Kodak patent related to previewing images.
I find it hard to believe that basically everyone uses the same method of previewing images, and if they do, it probably shouldn't be patentable.
I understand why we need to respect patents and other people's R&D, but I honestly think that if another company, not knowingly infringe on a patent shouldn't be punished.
You'd be walking a pretty fine line here. It's kinda like the driving law that you can't claim ignorance of the law. If you unknowingly infringe on a patent and it's brought to your attention, you need to either cease and desist or license the technology from the patent owner.
I am sure no one goes and search for all available patents related to their product BEFORE they start their design process, and frankly, unless the company infringing is knowingly copying and taking other's ideas to call their own, then they should be prosecuted.
Maybe in this day and age, they should. Doesn't the patent office research stuff like this before they issue an official patent?
I say, if a company can prove that they spent time and resources to develop an idea, who so happen to be the same as a patent holder, they should not be held accountable.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm sure there are lot's of unethical people/corporations out there that would (try to) manipulate this (would be) rule to infringe on other's patents.
Patents do protect inventors, but over the top patent protection hurt innovation even more.
Must be getting REALLY hard to produce any product without the possibility of stepping on another companies precious toes. You can really violate a patent and honestly have no idea that you did.
I've been saying this for years now...
And this in my opinion is entirely by design... It's no skin off any established mega-corportation to fight and win or loose patent lawsuits... they have the money and lawyers do manage and control it all. However this is slowly but surely causing a higher and higher barrier to entry for startup companies trying to enter these established markets....
Could you imagine if Steve & Steve were working in a little unassuming garage building a fantastic new computer the likes of which have never been seen before in TODAYS patent crazy world?!?!
Not a chance... they'd either be sued into oblivion long before they even figured out what to name the device or be forced into selling (at a low price) to some established player so they were 'protected' by the other sharks just waiting to sue.
Must be getting REALLY hard to produce any product without the possibility of stepping on another companies precious toes. You can really violate a patent and honestly have no idea that you did.
This is why Apple will countersue Kodak claiming that Kodak violates some Apple patent in some product. Like I said before regarding Nokia lawsuit, it seems that Apple never objected to pay fees like everyone else but they don't like to license their technology to someone else. Kodak, like Nokia, probably wanted cross licensing agreement in addition to money and Apple refused.
i remember working for an agency that was helping to launch their first digital camera.
kodak was so reluctant to enter into the digital market--even when numbers were showing their traditional film market was taking a nose dive. it was all the old farts at the helm. now, their using carl zeiss lenses for all their optics.
does kodak really have all this technology or do they simply have a huge portfolio that they're hoping to cash in on because they didn't have the foresight to knuckle down and take some risks ten years ago?
These sorts of lawsuits are often filed as negotiating tactics. It seems everybody but Apple and RIM have agreed to licensing terms with Kodak, so it should come as little surprise that Kodak is now suing Apple and RIM. They will stare each other down for awhile, then settle. It also has to be said that Kodak these days has little going for themselves but their IP legacy.
Like I said before regarding Nokia lawsuit, it seems that Apple never objected to pay fees like everyone else but they don't like to license their technology to someone else. Kodak, like Nokia, probably wanted cross licensing agreement in addition to money and Apple refused.
Do you have any data relating to what Apple was unfairly charged in relation to what other companies were charged?
So Kodak patented showing thumbnails for images? Are you KIDDING ME? Or maybe they just patented one of fifty different ways to do it, one which varies only slightly and in no meaningful way.
I realize why we have patents and why they're necessary, but serious reform or abolishment NEEDS to occur. It's become completely absurd. If you asshats can't use it properly, then you don't get it.
Kodak's revenue drops 26%, loss of $81M on quarter
Friday, October 30, 2009
For the third quarter of 2009:
* Sales worldwide totaled $1.781 billion, a decrease of 26% from $2.405 billion in the third quarter of 2008, including 2% of unfavorable foreign exchange impact. Revenue from digital businesses totaled $1.209 billion, a 26% decline from $1.641 billion in the prior-year quarter, primarily as a result of the global recession and continued restrictions in the credit markets that are dampening commercial printing purchases. Revenue from the company?s traditional business decreased 25% to $572 million, in line with the industry decline.
* The company?s third-quarter loss from continuing operations, before interest expense, other income (charges), net, and income taxes was $81 million, compared with earnings on the same basis of $147 million in the year-ago quarter.
Apple needs to just buy them out. Their market value is $1.3 billion. It would be cheaper to just acquire them and their vast patent treasure chest.
And a lot of dead weight too, as has already been pointed out. Apple would also be put in the position of licensing patents to their competitors, which is not necessarily a great place to be. Kodak is just a shell of its former self. If they were worth acquiring, somebody would have taken a run at it already I expect.
And a lot of dead weight too, as has already been pointed out. Apple would also be put in the position of licensing patents to their competitors, which is not necessarily a great place to be. Kodak is just a shell of its former self. If they were worth acquiring, somebody would have taken a run at it already I expect.
Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
I honestly don't know enough about it. I don't think the concept of multitouch itself should be patentable, nor should intuitive gestures like pinch to zoom. Methods of detecting multiple inputs? Perhaps.
Kodak does have a fair bit of digital photography IP; they realized the need to migrate from film 8-10 years ago. This was their strategy, and is a strategy that Apple also endorses.
Unfortunately, the system is so messed up that too many trivial patents have been awarded, and for some obscure reason continue to be upheld. Aside from being a stockholder, a big part of me hopes that the big companies just sue each other to the brink of death, where MAYBE they will change their tune on patent reform.
Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
Funny really... while they were worrying about the spot price on silver digital swooped in and cleaned their clock.
Comments
one would think this is the case but it is not. there was a time, not that long ago, that you could have an idea, have done no research and development on it at all but could get a patent. and then just use that patent to collect money from others. some of whom had done their research and found no patent at the time because it was still in process. and then when you see that they are making money some 5-10 years later, you could use your patent to sue them. this is a major flaw of the system. they need a way in which to limit how long after an obvious violation you have to sue or give up at least 'statutory' damages (actual damages having to be collected at the same rates all non violators paid). Because that kind of ignore until profit trick is what is happening with a lot of these Apple cases to the point of absurdity. If I don't defend a trademark for 10 years I lose the right to sue anyone cause clearly I didn't care. But I can defend a patent even if I never used it. that's wack
Well said. Patents have become a kind of speculation--analogous to selling derivatives on Wall Street. The making of money by not producing anything concrete profits only those at the top of the pyramid. The rest of us are left impoverished creatively as well as economically. When will both the left and right realize they have a common interest in forcing politicians to stop moving the U.S. economy away from actually making things to just selling abstractions. Sorry, high horse day today.
You can patent a particular implementation of an idea, but not the idea itself. So Apple and RIM may not have infringed on Kodak's patents, but Kodak could think they might. I don't think Apple's lawyers are that stupid to ignore a patent if it's legitimate...
The Eastman Kodak Company announced Thursday that it filed a lawsuit against Apple with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that the iPhone infringes a Kodak patent related to previewing images.
I find it hard to believe that basically everyone uses the same method of previewing images, and if they do, it probably shouldn't be patentable.
I understand why we need to respect patents and other people's R&D, but I honestly think that if another company, not knowingly infringe on a patent shouldn't be punished.
You'd be walking a pretty fine line here. It's kinda like the driving law that you can't claim ignorance of the law. If you unknowingly infringe on a patent and it's brought to your attention, you need to either cease and desist or license the technology from the patent owner.
I am sure no one goes and search for all available patents related to their product BEFORE they start their design process, and frankly, unless the company infringing is knowingly copying and taking other's ideas to call their own, then they should be prosecuted.
Maybe in this day and age, they should. Doesn't the patent office research stuff like this before they issue an official patent?
I say, if a company can prove that they spent time and resources to develop an idea, who so happen to be the same as a patent holder, they should not be held accountable.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm sure there are lot's of unethical people/corporations out there that would (try to) manipulate this (would be) rule to infringe on other's patents.
Patents do protect inventors, but over the top patent protection hurt innovation even more.
I find it hard to believe that basically everyone uses the same method of previewing images, and if they do, it probably shouldn't be patentable.
What's your view on Palm's use of multi-touch?
Patents are getting out of control.
Getting?!?!
Must be getting REALLY hard to produce any product without the possibility of stepping on another companies precious toes. You can really violate a patent and honestly have no idea that you did.
I've been saying this for years now...
And this in my opinion is entirely by design... It's no skin off any established mega-corportation to fight and win or loose patent lawsuits... they have the money and lawyers do manage and control it all. However this is slowly but surely causing a higher and higher barrier to entry for startup companies trying to enter these established markets....
Could you imagine if Steve & Steve were working in a little unassuming garage building a fantastic new computer the likes of which have never been seen before in TODAYS patent crazy world?!?!
Not a chance... they'd either be sued into oblivion long before they even figured out what to name the device or be forced into selling (at a low price) to some established player so they were 'protected' by the other sharks just waiting to sue.
Must be getting REALLY hard to produce any product without the possibility of stepping on another companies precious toes. You can really violate a patent and honestly have no idea that you did.
This is why Apple will countersue Kodak claiming that Kodak violates some Apple patent in some product. Like I said before regarding Nokia lawsuit, it seems that Apple never objected to pay fees like everyone else but they don't like to license their technology to someone else. Kodak, like Nokia, probably wanted cross licensing agreement in addition to money and Apple refused.
kodak was so reluctant to enter into the digital market--even when numbers were showing their traditional film market was taking a nose dive. it was all the old farts at the helm. now, their using carl zeiss lenses for all their optics.
does kodak really have all this technology or do they simply have a huge portfolio that they're hoping to cash in on because they didn't have the foresight to knuckle down and take some risks ten years ago?
are all companies ganging up on apple?
Or is Apple willfully infringing on other's technology?
I would say it is probably a bit of both.
Like I said before regarding Nokia lawsuit, it seems that Apple never objected to pay fees like everyone else but they don't like to license their technology to someone else. Kodak, like Nokia, probably wanted cross licensing agreement in addition to money and Apple refused.
Do you have any data relating to what Apple was unfairly charged in relation to what other companies were charged?
I realize why we have patents and why they're necessary, but serious reform or abolishment NEEDS to occur. It's become completely absurd. If you asshats can't use it properly, then you don't get it.
Apple needs to just buy them out. Their market value is $1.3 billion. It would be cheaper to just acquire them and their vast patent treasure chest.
$90mil vs. $1.3bil and a lot of deadweight. Tough call.
http://members.whattheythink.com/new...x.cfm?id=40740
Kodak's revenue drops 26%, loss of $81M on quarter
Friday, October 30, 2009
For the third quarter of 2009:
* Sales worldwide totaled $1.781 billion, a decrease of 26% from $2.405 billion in the third quarter of 2008, including 2% of unfavorable foreign exchange impact. Revenue from digital businesses totaled $1.209 billion, a 26% decline from $1.641 billion in the prior-year quarter, primarily as a result of the global recession and continued restrictions in the credit markets that are dampening commercial printing purchases. Revenue from the company?s traditional business decreased 25% to $572 million, in line with the industry decline.
* The company?s third-quarter loss from continuing operations, before interest expense, other income (charges), net, and income taxes was $81 million, compared with earnings on the same basis of $147 million in the year-ago quarter.
Apple needs to just buy them out. Their market value is $1.3 billion. It would be cheaper to just acquire them and their vast patent treasure chest.
And a lot of dead weight too, as has already been pointed out. Apple would also be put in the position of licensing patents to their competitors, which is not necessarily a great place to be. Kodak is just a shell of its former self. If they were worth acquiring, somebody would have taken a run at it already I expect.
And a lot of dead weight too, as has already been pointed out. Apple would also be put in the position of licensing patents to their competitors, which is not necessarily a great place to be. Kodak is just a shell of its former self. If they were worth acquiring, somebody would have taken a run at it already I expect.
Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
What's your view on Palm's use of multi-touch?
Or Androids lack of?
I honestly don't know enough about it. I don't think the concept of multitouch itself should be patentable, nor should intuitive gestures like pinch to zoom. Methods of detecting multiple inputs? Perhaps.
Unfortunately, the system is so messed up that too many trivial patents have been awarded, and for some obscure reason continue to be upheld. Aside from being a stockholder, a big part of me hopes that the big companies just sue each other to the brink of death, where MAYBE they will change their tune on patent reform.
Great comment, I agree. We were at Disney and the imagination ride is sponsored by Kodak. The mood was not optimistic, they have been cutting back for years ever since digital technology took their film business.
Funny really... while they were worrying about the spot price on silver digital swooped in and cleaned their clock.