You are off by more than a decade. Kodak did a lot of work in digital imaging, from capture to manipulation to display and printing long before Apple entered the game.
This comment is not pertinent perhaps to the thread but the irony is the Kodak digital division that tried to get into the modern world (I know as I worked with them back then) in imaging, scanning, printing etc. was constantly side lined and given a hard time by the mainstream film division and thus the senior management. They could have been a force in the digital industry but for their own senior management. I recall such statements as "Digital scanners can never reach the same resolution as film!" being thrust at us from those 'wise' old men.
Actually, I guess the irony is relevant as the work they seek to defend was most likely done by the division they despised back in the day.
Man, that is so true. I have no idea whether their patent claims are legit or not, but it's just painfully sad to see that this is what they're reduced to. Kodak is a great example of a company that sat on top of a cash cow for so long that it rotted their collective brains. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Mr. Burns woke up one day to discover that he had lost all his money and no longer understood anything about the world around him.
Kodak was typically of a lot of companies relying on one successful product (e.g. film). They research new technology that might compete with their current products, and patented some of those technologies. The purpose, however, was to impede innovation not to bring out cool new technologies. That approach stands in contrast to what patent law is supposed to be about.
You'd think the way Kodak "borrowed" Polaroid's ideas to make its own competing instant camera, it'd be more understanding of others using its ideas. Kodak had to pay Polaroid close to a billion dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
This comment is not pertinent perhaps to the thread but the irony is the Kodak digital division that tried to get into the modern world (I know as I worked with them back then) in imaging, scanning, printing etc. was constantly side lined and given a hard time by the mainstream film division and thus the senior management. They could have been a force in the digital industry but for their own senior management. I recall such statements as "Digital scanners can never reach the same resolution as film!" being thrust at us from those 'wise' old men.
Actually, I guess the irony is relevant as the work they seek to defend was most likely done by the division they despised back in the day.
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.
cool story bro.
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.
On-topic, we all know how protecting Apple is of its own copyrights and patents. People here should be equally prepared for others to be defensive of theirs - in fact, the law all but forces a copyright or patent holder to protect their property for sake of losing through inaction. That there is legal precedence of other parties falling foul of this patent only makes the blatant ignorance that Apple and RIM have shown all the worse.
Seems to me if Kodak's portfolio of patents are so fundamental to digital photography, Apple should make a sweetheart deal with them, or buy them out if there is even a whiff of a suggestion that losing this patent suit is a possibility. Half a billion, or a billion in licensing fees? Buy 'em out and shut 'em down. At least then Apple could collect on those royalties.
Kodak was typically of a lot of companies relying on one successful product (e.g. film). They research new technology that might compete with their current products, and patented some of those technologies. The purpose, however, was to impede innovation not to bring out cool new technologies. That approach stands in contrast to what patent law is supposed to be about.
You'd think the way Kodak "borrowed" Polaroid's ideas to make its own competing instant camera, it'd be more understanding of others using its ideas. Kodak had to pay Polaroid close to a billion dollars.
Stories you make up are called fiction, not history.
Kodak was an early leader in digital imaging. They made the first professional level digital cameras (for both Nikon and Canon lens mounts), and Nikon and Canon used Kodak sensors for their first cameras. Horrible strategic and tactical decisions by management destroyed Kodak's digital business, but that doesn't mean the technology never existed.
I take it to mean that revenues only fell $3.6 B in 2005.
Apple could buy them with its chump change and take in the licensing revenue , if they are what Kodak claims. It might wait to wait until K stock stock gets to a buck.
It'd be cheaper to BUY Kodak and kill it, than to settle this.
Which probably wouldn't be a bad deal. There is value in the brand, which they could license or resell. It'd be better than forking out $1 billion to an otherwise dead company.
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.
On-topic, we all know how protecting Apple is of its own copyrights and patents. People here should be equally prepared for others to be defensive of theirs - in fact, the law all but forces a copyright or patent holder to protect their property for sake of losing through inaction. That there is legal precedence of other parties falling foul of this patent only makes the blatant ignorance that Apple and RIM have shown all the worse.
If you have four companies that Kodak is going after -- Samsung and Motorola (successfully settled with), and now RIM and Apple, what is the common element?
The common element is the use of image preview. The first two appear to have fallen foul of the law and actually used patented technology, they knew it, and thus they settled. Now, might that possibly be because these hardware manufacturers haven't ever done a lick of UI development of their own and always depended on software companies like MS and Google???
Do you not think that of all the companies in the world, Apple might possibly be able to come up with a system for providing an image preview? Having developed computers and OS' for thirty years? Having produced Mac OS, Next, OS X, iOS, etc. Having produced great UI's and creative image editing software of it own?
The jury is still out. Who knows how Apple has implemented image preview. We just get tired of people like yourselves assuming that Apple cuts corners and acts unethically just like everyone else when that is evidently not the case -- they have, for example, laid foundations for iOS and ecosystems and touch UI's, etc. quite patiently and strategically over the last decade.
Now, that brings us to your contention:
"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.. "
We'll disagree over Apple's flair for invention (maybe others invent tons of stuff too, but none of it is marketable or something). What you have done is conflate two distinct ideas here and unecessarily reduced both of them absurdly:
1) using / "taking others' ideas" in any form and equating that with patent violation; and 2) dismissing any independent invention that might have taken place as mere "glossing".
Of course companies, and certainly Apple, "take ideas". No-one suggests otherwise. "Oh, wouldn't it be handy to provide a preview of an image that the camera is going to capture, just like Kodak is doing? What a good idea!"
I was always under the impression from these boards and others that the mere "idea" is not patentable, it is the implementation and technology to implement it that is patentable. If I'm wrong on this, I apologize for getting your dander up. If this is the case, however, and Apple proves to have come up with their own implementation, then our admiration for Apple is vindicated. If any company can, Apple can.
Samsung may very well have "glossed" over its unauthorized use of actual Kodak technology and IP. When you use the tech and implementation and IP of others, you sure better do some good glossing. If you are MS then you can be as brazen as you like (and yes, ethics do come into it, because the leadership of a company sets the tone and character).
If you can "invent" (I use the term lightly since you obviously don't count this as inventing) your own implementation of a good idea, or if you can bring the original team on board because you recognize good talent when you see it, then, hey, no glossing is necessary, is it? You can rightfully say, as Apple often does, I think we have come up with a way to execute this [idea] better than anyone else.
Kodak was an early leader in digital imaging. They made the first professional level digital cameras (for both Nikon and Canon lens mounts), and Nikon and Canon used Kodak sensors for their first cameras. Horrible strategic and tactical decisions by management destroyed Kodak's digital business, but that doesn't mean the technology never existed.
Seems to me if Kodak's portfolio of patents are so fundamental to digital photography, Apple should make a sweetheart deal with them, or buy them out if there is even a whiff of a suggestion that losing this patent suit is a possibility. Half a billion, or a billion in licensing fees? Buy 'em out and shut 'em down. At least then Apple could collect on those royalties.
If it's even remotely possible for Kodak to win $1 billion in this suit, Apple would be doing themselves a favor by simply acquiring the company, which today is worth less than $1 billion in market cap and is sitting on twice that much in cash. Hang onto the worthwhile portions of their patent portfolio and the brand name, and sell off everything else of value. If any company is ripe for a takeover, it's EK. It would be an ignominious end to a once-great American company, but if any company could keep some of it alive, it's Apple.
"Eastman Kodak (EK 3.42, +0.29, +9.27%) shares gained 10% after Bloomberg reported the camera company could be awarded more than $1 billion in a patent suit against Apple Inc."
Now, might that possibly be because these hardware manufacturers haven't ever done a lick of UI development of their own and always depended on software companies like MS and Google???
Do you not think that of all the companies in the world, Apple might possibly be able to come up with a system for providing an image preview? Having developed computers and OS' for thirty years? Having produced Mac OS, Next, OS X, iOS, etc. Having produced great UI's and creative image editing software of it own?
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.
Comments
You are off by more than a decade. Kodak did a lot of work in digital imaging, from capture to manipulation to display and printing long before Apple entered the game.
This comment is not pertinent perhaps to the thread but the irony is the Kodak digital division that tried to get into the modern world (I know as I worked with them back then) in imaging, scanning, printing etc. was constantly side lined and given a hard time by the mainstream film division and thus the senior management. They could have been a force in the digital industry but for their own senior management. I recall such statements as "Digital scanners can never reach the same resolution as film!" being thrust at us from those 'wise' old men.
Actually, I guess the irony is relevant as the work they seek to defend was most likely done by the division they despised back in the day.
Last gasps of a dying company.
Man, that is so true. I have no idea whether their patent claims are legit or not, but it's just painfully sad to see that this is what they're reduced to. Kodak is a great example of a company that sat on top of a cash cow for so long that it rotted their collective brains. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Mr. Burns woke up one day to discover that he had lost all his money and no longer understood anything about the world around him.
You'd think the way Kodak "borrowed" Polaroid's ideas to make its own competing instant camera, it'd be more understanding of others using its ideas. Kodak had to pay Polaroid close to a billion dollars.
This comment is not pertinent perhaps to the thread but the irony is the Kodak digital division that tried to get into the modern world (I know as I worked with them back then) in imaging, scanning, printing etc. was constantly side lined and given a hard time by the mainstream film division and thus the senior management. They could have been a force in the digital industry but for their own senior management. I recall such statements as "Digital scanners can never reach the same resolution as film!" being thrust at us from those 'wise' old men.
Actually, I guess the irony is relevant as the work they seek to defend was most likely done by the division they despised back in the day.
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.
cool story bro.
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.
On-topic, we all know how protecting Apple is of its own copyrights and patents. People here should be equally prepared for others to be defensive of theirs - in fact, the law all but forces a copyright or patent holder to protect their property for sake of losing through inaction. That there is legal precedence of other parties falling foul of this patent only makes the blatant ignorance that Apple and RIM have shown all the worse.
....
Sad end of a great American company.
The Kodak moment is gone..
R.I.P.
Kodak was typically of a lot of companies relying on one successful product (e.g. film). They research new technology that might compete with their current products, and patented some of those technologies. The purpose, however, was to impede innovation not to bring out cool new technologies. That approach stands in contrast to what patent law is supposed to be about.
You'd think the way Kodak "borrowed" Polaroid's ideas to make its own competing instant camera, it'd be more understanding of others using its ideas. Kodak had to pay Polaroid close to a billion dollars.
Stories you make up are called fiction, not history.
Kodak was an early leader in digital imaging. They made the first professional level digital cameras (for both Nikon and Canon lens mounts), and Nikon and Canon used Kodak sensors for their first cameras. Horrible strategic and tactical decisions by management destroyed Kodak's digital business, but that doesn't mean the technology never existed.
What could this sentence mean?
"Two of the company's three main businesses lost money last year as revenues fell to $7.2 billion, compared to nearly half that amount in 2005."
So they doubled their revenue since 2005? That can't be right, but that's how I read it.
I take it to mean that revenues only fell $3.6 B in 2005.
I take it to mean that revenues only fell $3.6 B in 2005.
Apple could buy them with its chump change and take in the licensing revenue , if they are what Kodak claims. It might wait to wait until K stock stock gets to a buck.
Which probably wouldn't be a bad deal. There is value in the brand, which they could license or resell. It'd be better than forking out $1 billion to an otherwise dead company.
cool story bro.
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.
On-topic, we all know how protecting Apple is of its own copyrights and patents. People here should be equally prepared for others to be defensive of theirs - in fact, the law all but forces a copyright or patent holder to protect their property for sake of losing through inaction. That there is legal precedence of other parties falling foul of this patent only makes the blatant ignorance that Apple and RIM have shown all the worse.
If you have four companies that Kodak is going after -- Samsung and Motorola (successfully settled with), and now RIM and Apple, what is the common element?
The common element is the use of image preview. The first two appear to have fallen foul of the law and actually used patented technology, they knew it, and thus they settled. Now, might that possibly be because these hardware manufacturers haven't ever done a lick of UI development of their own and always depended on software companies like MS and Google???
Do you not think that of all the companies in the world, Apple might possibly be able to come up with a system for providing an image preview? Having developed computers and OS' for thirty years? Having produced Mac OS, Next, OS X, iOS, etc. Having produced great UI's and creative image editing software of it own?
The jury is still out. Who knows how Apple has implemented image preview. We just get tired of people like yourselves assuming that Apple cuts corners and acts unethically just like everyone else when that is evidently not the case -- they have, for example, laid foundations for iOS and ecosystems and touch UI's, etc. quite patiently and strategically over the last decade.
Now, that brings us to your contention:
"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.. "
We'll disagree over Apple's flair for invention (maybe others invent tons of stuff too, but none of it is marketable or something). What you have done is conflate two distinct ideas here and unecessarily reduced both of them absurdly:
1) using / "taking others' ideas" in any form and equating that with patent violation; and 2) dismissing any independent invention that might have taken place as mere "glossing".
Of course companies, and certainly Apple, "take ideas". No-one suggests otherwise. "Oh, wouldn't it be handy to provide a preview of an image that the camera is going to capture, just like Kodak is doing? What a good idea!"
I was always under the impression from these boards and others that the mere "idea" is not patentable, it is the implementation and technology to implement it that is patentable. If I'm wrong on this, I apologize for getting your dander up. If this is the case, however, and Apple proves to have come up with their own implementation, then our admiration for Apple is vindicated. If any company can, Apple can.
Samsung may very well have "glossed" over its unauthorized use of actual Kodak technology and IP. When you use the tech and implementation and IP of others, you sure better do some good glossing. If you are MS then you can be as brazen as you like (and yes, ethics do come into it, because the leadership of a company sets the tone and character).
If you can "invent" (I use the term lightly since you obviously don't count this as inventing) your own implementation of a good idea, or if you can bring the original team on board because you recognize good talent when you see it, then, hey, no glossing is necessary, is it? You can rightfully say, as Apple often does, I think we have come up with a way to execute this [idea] better than anyone else.
Kodak was an early leader in digital imaging. They made the first professional level digital cameras (for both Nikon and Canon lens mounts), and Nikon and Canon used Kodak sensors for their first cameras. Horrible strategic and tactical decisions by management destroyed Kodak's digital business, but that doesn't mean the technology never existed.
Kind of like what happened at Xerox?
Seems to me if Kodak's portfolio of patents are so fundamental to digital photography, Apple should make a sweetheart deal with them, or buy them out if there is even a whiff of a suggestion that losing this patent suit is a possibility. Half a billion, or a billion in licensing fees? Buy 'em out and shut 'em down. At least then Apple could collect on those royalties.
If it's even remotely possible for Kodak to win $1 billion in this suit, Apple would be doing themselves a favor by simply acquiring the company, which today is worth less than $1 billion in market cap and is sitting on twice that much in cash. Hang onto the worthwhile portions of their patent portfolio and the brand name, and sell off everything else of value. If any company is ripe for a takeover, it's EK. It would be an ignominious end to a once-great American company, but if any company could keep some of it alive, it's Apple.
Now, might that possibly be because these hardware manufacturers haven't ever done a lick of UI development of their own and always depended on software companies like MS and Google???
Do you not think that of all the companies in the world, Apple might possibly be able to come up with a system for providing an image preview? Having developed computers and OS' for thirty years? Having produced Mac OS, Next, OS X, iOS, etc. Having produced great UI's and creative image editing software of it own?
Nicely said, this one explain a lot actually.
It'd be cheaper to BUY Kodak and kill it, than to settle this.
That's actually a good idea..!
Apple should just buy Kodak, then sue all of the other phone manufacturers.
And that's another great idea..!!
And that's another great idea..!!
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.
because they license the patents kodak developed in the 1990's
I doubt they all did.