Snow that we are missing this year. At work we have from time to time dealt with vendors from the southern parts of NY that have demonstrated great fear at the thought of making deliveries to Rochester in the middle of winter. You can actually see the terror in their faces.
For Apple though that is actually a good reason to put a facility in Rochester. All that snow and bitter cold keeps people at their desks. Further it keeps them working at their computers due to the space heating effect of all those cores!😜😜😜
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I have memories of flying in from the UK and driving there from Boston when Kodak had hired me as a consultant for digital imaging back in the early days. The snow started just west of Boston and by the time I reached Rochester I was certain I'd over shot and was at the North Pole!
I think Apple folk would prefer somewhere with all year round accessibility being used to California. Now Sarasota, Florida would make an excellent East Coast location ... Plus we are never struck by hurricanes thanks to a mix of geography and Indian spells
The trouble with Florida is that it is very flat and boring land. Also the woman walk around wearing next to nothing which of course means distractions from work. Not good for programmer productivity at a Apple facility!
Quote:
p.s. The Digital Division at Kodak were very keen to expand but the main board were convinced digital could never come close to the resolution of film ... /sigh
What people don't understand is that some of the brightest people you have ever meant use to work at Kodak. Granted these are not always the programmers and engineers common to Apple products but none the less very bright people in their respective fields. Kodaks vast shrinkage has resulted in many of those highly skilled individuals leaving the area. In many ways this is a bigger problem than the failure of Kodak itself.
So what makes you so sure that Apple's patent claims against Kodak are ridiculous? Which patent claims, in particular, are ridiculous?
Amazing how people will just jump to conclusions without knowing any of the facts of the case.
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust. But judging by the flack I'm getting here, some of you clearly work for Apple's law department and have oh so much experience with lawsuits, so I'll leave this to those who know and the wiseasses who wish they did.
Instead of being an ironic smartass, how about enlightening us with some of your vast knowledge on the topic then? Obviously you seem to know more than I do, because you think you can judge how much I know about it without doing as much as asking.
In fact, you just commented on something that you don't know anything about, either. Point proven, Kthxbye.
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
It's not just Kodak Apple is defending itself against, it's Samsung, Google, Nokia, etc. If they don't slap down Kodak for violating their patents, then those other companies can do the same and tell a judge, "Look, these other guys were doing the same thing and Apple never went after them!"
That's a gross over-simplification, but I believe is the gist of the issue.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
It's not just Kodak Apple is defending itself against, it's Samsung, Google, Nokia, etc. If they don't slap down Kodak for violating their patents, then those other companies can do the same and tell a judge, "Look, these other guys were doing the same thing and Apple never went after them!"
That's a gross over-simplification, but I believe is the gist of the issue.
- Jasen.
Which just shows how flawed the whole patenting system really has become. I really wonder where this is going to take us in 20-30 years.
Nothing like kicking a competitor, and co-inventor of your patent, when it's fighting for its life.
Remember one thing Apple did not start this nonsense with respect to Kodak. Beyond that you need to realize Kodak has had a long history of infringing on the IP of others. The Polaroid case being one rather large example.
Quote:
Apple used to have some class. Now it has none.
Apple only has one choice that is to stand up for what is right or get raped in the courtrooms across the country. If you don't understand that then you really are in no position to comment.
Quote:
Without the benefit of Steve's Reality Distortion Field we finally see Apple for the rapacious and opportunistic sweatshop operator it really is.
That is simply ignorant. Do you really think life was much better for Kodaks workers in their plants, back when those plants where in full production 24/7? The reality is you can not economically produce anything without workers actually working. That won't happen unless there is an expectation that workers will actually work.
Cool. Apple is setting itself up to get Kodak's patents.
There is an element of that in that they believe some of them are on jointly developed products but I think it is mostly to stop any reorganised or sold company trying to sue Apple
Every comment you have made in this thread has been made based on ignorance or misplaced emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-News
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust.
The state of Kodak has nothing to do with the real need to pursue these actions. Mind you Apple did not start this nonsense.
Quote:
But judging by the flack I'm getting here, some of you clearly work for Apple's law department and have oh so much experience with lawsuits, so I'll leave this to those who know and the wiseasses who wish they did.
Flack? You comments seem to be coming from the mind of an imbecile. I really sorry to have to use such aggressive language but you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread an inability to grasp the legal issues here. Apple simply has no choice but to defend their IP. This is not hard to grasp at all and has been the way the patent system has worked since its inception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-News
Instead of being an ironic smartass, how about enlightening us with some of your vast knowledge on the topic then? Obviously you seem to know more than I do, because you think you can judge how much I know about it without doing as much as asking.
The man was being rather kind.
Quote:
In fact, you just commented on something that you don't know anything about, either. Point proven, Kthxbye.
Your position in this thread is invalid, simple as that. There are decades (centuries) of case law that explain what a company must do to protect itself from the exploitation of others. Others have already tried to explain this to you but you reply with ignorant and emotional responses that have no basis in reason, logic or the law. Then you expect people to reasonably accept your posts. So I ask, who has the problem here?
My guess is that it will be something like the Lytro
The cameras we're using now are last century's tech.
Lytro is THIS century's tech.
By the dawn of the 22nd Century, we'll have devices that can capture partial view range 3D holographic projections of scenes.
By which I mean incorporating a small amount of parallax as 3D cameras do now, but for the purpose of building 3D holograms of whatever you're looking at and which can be viewed from slightly the left or the right. You can't ever see the back, obviously, but it's also quite possible that in 80 years there will be enough crowdsourced regular pictures of enough of the world to have MADE a 3D map of most of the planet.
Where do you come up with this crap? Seriously explain to us how you can even make such a statement.
Here is reality for you, the only difference today with patent lawsuits is that the general public gets blow by blow reporting every day. In the past you pretty much had to be a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal or the various legal publications to be clued in. Beyond the publics access to what is happening in the courts no much has changed over the years.
Don't believe me? Well look up the history of laser patents, Stanely and it's hand planes or the various patents the auto companies have defended over the years. Or in the context of this thread look at the patent history of Kodak.
In any event I just half to repeat, you aren't doing yourself any favors by reposting in this thread. You just seem to have an unwillingness to open your mind up and digest the reality of a patent owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-News
Which just shows how flawed the whole patenting system really has become. I really wonder where this is going to take us in 20-30 years.
Apple only has one choice that is to stand up for what is right or get raped in the courtrooms across the country. If you don't understand that then you really are in no position to comment.
I just can't bring myself to agree that it is acceptable to attack a treading company based purely on principle. Doesn't really matter what Kodak did considering they LOST. At that, they only did it trying to save themselves. Apple on the other hand seems to do it for fun.. er I mean greed.. er I mean principle. Suits against Kodak should be thrown for being unethical along with pointless-- Are they supposed to just hand over themselves? Pretty sure at this point there will be no "raping" performed on Apple by Kodak. Maybe the other way around though.
We won't find any common ground with our opinions here, which I thought was the whole point of the forum, exchanging opinions and such. I suddenly remember why I left this place years ago. Obviously some people think everything is just dandy and principle stands over ethics and morals at any point. Money rules it all and if it serves revenue, it must be good. Maybe the patenting system really hasn't changed much, but it's perception certainly has. I'm not a lawyer and I generally find the principle of guilty unless proven innocent to be an inherently flawed approach anyways, but I know a thing or two about public relations and I can guarantee you, none of these companies are doing themselves a favor by battling out their patent suits in the public, even if they don't choose to communicate it openly themselves.
Thank god our ancestors left certain important inventions unpatented, who knows where we'd be if they had.
I shall leave you alone with your own opinions again, differentiating views don't seem to be much sought after still, after all these years.
Nothing like kicking a competitor, and co-inventor of your patent, when it's fighting for its life. Apple used to have some class. Now it has none.
Without the benefit of Steve's Reality Distortion Field we finally see Apple for the rapacious and opportunistic sweatshop operator it really is.
It's just business.
Kodak is broke, but not down and out by a long way. They've taken a $900m loan from Citibank to continue trading and are currently looking real hard at what business they want to be when they come out the other side.
However, it is still a trading company and therefore fair game.
You think that because they've run out of their own money that everyone should just play nice? Welcome to the real world.
Kodak is broke, but not down and out by a long way. They've taken a $900m loan from Citibank to continue trading and are currently looking real hard at what business they want to be when they come out the other side.
However, it is still a trading company and therefore fair game.
You think that because they've run out of their own money that everyone should just play nice? Welcome to the real world.
Is this some kind of corporate necrophagia or is Apple just trying to become the most unsympathetic company in the world? Their lawsuits have taken on dimensions beyond the ridiculous.
Actually, Apple's move is quite smart. Kodak is dead. Kodak's executives know the writing is on the wall. The bankruptcy is to squeeze some more money out of company for the executives, and make the remaining company more attractive to sell. Most of it's IP will go to companies that use the IP to attack Apple.
Apple is claiming Apple owns a patent (or more than one patent ) that Kodak is 1) suing Apple with, and 2) has received money from others through licensing.
If Apple can prove it owns the patent Kodak claims to own, it can show Kodak 1) misappropriated licensing fees using a patent Apple owns, and 2) committed an egregious error in suing Apple with its own patent. Kodak is broke, so it can't pay damages. Apple, however, can likely use the judgement to squeeze a highly favorably licensing deal out of Kodak.
Moreover, if Apple can show Apple is one of Kodak's creditors, Apple has rights in approving any Kodak restructuring plan. Further, Apple likely can get a faster resolution of the matter because of the Bankruptcy.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
With all due respect, there is no duty to assert your rights when you hold a copyright or patent. You can sit on a patent for years and not take any action against another you think is violating your patent. That is the whole playbook of patent trolls. Sit back quietly with your patent and do nothing until somebody becomes successful using your patent. The same is true with a copyright. They are your rights to do with as you will. Companies like Apple sit back and allow other companies to use their patents all the time when there is a strategic reason to do so. For instance, a party using the patent without permission might hold other patents Apple is using without permission. Both companies turn a blind eye on the other.
Trademark law is the only area where a holder of a trademark has to defend such rights. This is because the whole concept behind trademark is for the trademark to be identified as belonging to one party so that consumers will not be confused who is selling a particular product or service. So a trademark holder has to police its trademark to help avoid consumer confusion.
Comments
For Apple though that is actually a good reason to put a facility in Rochester. All that snow and bitter cold keeps people at their desks. Further it keeps them working at their computers due to the space heating effect of all those cores!😜😜😜
I have memories of flying in from the UK and driving there from Boston when Kodak had hired me as a consultant for digital imaging back in the early days. The snow started just west of Boston and by the time I reached Rochester I was certain I'd over shot and was at the North Pole!
I think Apple folk would prefer somewhere with all year round accessibility being used to California. Now Sarasota, Florida would make an excellent East Coast location ... Plus we are never struck by hurricanes thanks to a mix of geography and Indian spells
The trouble with Florida is that it is very flat and boring land. Also the woman walk around wearing next to nothing which of course means distractions from work. Not good for programmer productivity at a Apple facility!
p.s. The Digital Division at Kodak were very keen to expand but the main board were convinced digital could never come close to the resolution of film ... /sigh
What people don't understand is that some of the brightest people you have ever meant use to work at Kodak. Granted these are not always the programmers and engineers common to Apple products but none the less very bright people in their respective fields. Kodaks vast shrinkage has resulted in many of those highly skilled individuals leaving the area. In many ways this is a bigger problem than the failure of Kodak itself.
So what makes you so sure that Apple's patent claims against Kodak are ridiculous? Which patent claims, in particular, are ridiculous?
Amazing how people will just jump to conclusions without knowing any of the facts of the case.
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust. But judging by the flack I'm getting here, some of you clearly work for Apple's law department and have oh so much experience with lawsuits, so I'll leave this to those who know and the wiseasses who wish they did.
Don't comment on things you know nothing about.
Instead of being an ironic smartass, how about enlightening us with some of your vast knowledge on the topic then? Obviously you seem to know more than I do, because you think you can judge how much I know about it without doing as much as asking.
In fact, you just commented on something that you don't know anything about, either. Point proven, Kthxbye.
Makes me wonder what they'll be using at the beginning of the next century...
My guess is that it will be something like the Lytro.
- Jasen.
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
It's not just Kodak Apple is defending itself against, it's Samsung, Google, Nokia, etc. If they don't slap down Kodak for violating their patents, then those other companies can do the same and tell a judge, "Look, these other guys were doing the same thing and Apple never went after them!"
That's a gross over-simplification, but I believe is the gist of the issue.
- Jasen.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
It's not just Kodak Apple is defending itself against, it's Samsung, Google, Nokia, etc. If they don't slap down Kodak for violating their patents, then those other companies can do the same and tell a judge, "Look, these other guys were doing the same thing and Apple never went after them!"
That's a gross over-simplification, but I believe is the gist of the issue.
- Jasen.
Which just shows how flawed the whole patenting system really has become. I really wonder where this is going to take us in 20-30 years.
Nothing like kicking a competitor, and co-inventor of your patent, when it's fighting for its life.
Remember one thing Apple did not start this nonsense with respect to Kodak. Beyond that you need to realize Kodak has had a long history of infringing on the IP of others. The Polaroid case being one rather large example.
Apple used to have some class. Now it has none.
Apple only has one choice that is to stand up for what is right or get raped in the courtrooms across the country. If you don't understand that then you really are in no position to comment.
Without the benefit of Steve's Reality Distortion Field we finally see Apple for the rapacious and opportunistic sweatshop operator it really is.
That is simply ignorant. Do you really think life was much better for Kodaks workers in their plants, back when those plants where in full production 24/7? The reality is you can not economically produce anything without workers actually working. That won't happen unless there is an expectation that workers will actually work.
Cool. Apple is setting itself up to get Kodak's patents.
There is an element of that in that they believe some of them are on jointly developed products but I think it is mostly to stop any reorganised or sold company trying to sue Apple
I'm not saying their claims in this case are ridiculous, it just seems odd they still feel it's necessary to sue a company that is already bust.
The state of Kodak has nothing to do with the real need to pursue these actions. Mind you Apple did not start this nonsense.
But judging by the flack I'm getting here, some of you clearly work for Apple's law department and have oh so much experience with lawsuits, so I'll leave this to those who know and the wiseasses who wish they did.
Flack? You comments seem to be coming from the mind of an imbecile. I really sorry to have to use such aggressive language but you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread an inability to grasp the legal issues here. Apple simply has no choice but to defend their IP. This is not hard to grasp at all and has been the way the patent system has worked since its inception.
Instead of being an ironic smartass, how about enlightening us with some of your vast knowledge on the topic then? Obviously you seem to know more than I do, because you think you can judge how much I know about it without doing as much as asking.
The man was being rather kind.
In fact, you just commented on something that you don't know anything about, either. Point proven, Kthxbye.
Your position in this thread is invalid, simple as that. There are decades (centuries) of case law that explain what a company must do to protect itself from the exploitation of others. Others have already tried to explain this to you but you reply with ignorant and emotional responses that have no basis in reason, logic or the law. Then you expect people to reasonably accept your posts. So I ask, who has the problem here?
My guess is that it will be something like the Lytro
The cameras we're using now are last century's tech.
Lytro is THIS century's tech.
By the dawn of the 22nd Century, we'll have devices that can capture partial view range 3D holographic projections of scenes.
By which I mean incorporating a small amount of parallax as 3D cameras do now, but for the purpose of building 3D holograms of whatever you're looking at and which can be viewed from slightly the left or the right. You can't ever see the back, obviously, but it's also quite possible that in 80 years there will be enough crowdsourced regular pictures of enough of the world to have MADE a 3D map of most of the planet.
Here is reality for you, the only difference today with patent lawsuits is that the general public gets blow by blow reporting every day. In the past you pretty much had to be a regular reader of the Wall Street Journal or the various legal publications to be clued in. Beyond the publics access to what is happening in the courts no much has changed over the years.
Don't believe me? Well look up the history of laser patents, Stanely and it's hand planes or the various patents the auto companies have defended over the years. Or in the context of this thread look at the patent history of Kodak.
In any event I just half to repeat, you aren't doing yourself any favors by reposting in this thread. You just seem to have an unwillingness to open your mind up and digest the reality of a patent owner.
Which just shows how flawed the whole patenting system really has become. I really wonder where this is going to take us in 20-30 years.
Apple only has one choice that is to stand up for what is right or get raped in the courtrooms across the country. If you don't understand that then you really are in no position to comment.
I just can't bring myself to agree that it is acceptable to attack a treading company based purely on principle. Doesn't really matter what Kodak did considering they LOST. At that, they only did it trying to save themselves. Apple on the other hand seems to do it for fun.. er I mean greed.. er I mean principle. Suits against Kodak should be thrown for being unethical along with pointless-- Are they supposed to just hand over themselves? Pretty sure at this point there will be no "raping" performed on Apple by Kodak. Maybe the other way around though.
Thank god our ancestors left certain important inventions unpatented, who knows where we'd be if they had.
I shall leave you alone with your own opinions again, differentiating views don't seem to be much sought after still, after all these years.
Geesh, if we all did that the threads wouldn't need more than a couple of comments if any. Come to think of it some of the articles might . . .
Oh nevermind.
Not correct, it would be filled with troll posts from Tallest Skil.
Nothing like kicking a competitor, and co-inventor of your patent, when it's fighting for its life. Apple used to have some class. Now it has none.
Without the benefit of Steve's Reality Distortion Field we finally see Apple for the rapacious and opportunistic sweatshop operator it really is.
It's just business.
Kodak is broke, but not down and out by a long way. They've taken a $900m loan from Citibank to continue trading and are currently looking real hard at what business they want to be when they come out the other side.
However, it is still a trading company and therefore fair game.
You think that because they've run out of their own money that everyone should just play nice? Welcome to the real world.
It's just business.
Kodak is broke, but not down and out by a long way. They've taken a $900m loan from Citibank to continue trading and are currently looking real hard at what business they want to be when they come out the other side.
However, it is still a trading company and therefore fair game.
You think that because they've run out of their own money that everyone should just play nice? Welcome to the real world.
Kodak is going to use that money to buy RIM.
Kodak is going to use that money to buy RIM.
They'd have more of a plan than RIM does in that case!
Is this some kind of corporate necrophagia or is Apple just trying to become the most unsympathetic company in the world? Their lawsuits have taken on dimensions beyond the ridiculous.
Actually, Apple's move is quite smart. Kodak is dead. Kodak's executives know the writing is on the wall. The bankruptcy is to squeeze some more money out of company for the executives, and make the remaining company more attractive to sell. Most of it's IP will go to companies that use the IP to attack Apple.
Apple is claiming Apple owns a patent (or more than one patent ) that Kodak is 1) suing Apple with, and 2) has received money from others through licensing.
If Apple can prove it owns the patent Kodak claims to own, it can show Kodak 1) misappropriated licensing fees using a patent Apple owns, and 2) committed an egregious error in suing Apple with its own patent. Kodak is broke, so it can't pay damages. Apple, however, can likely use the judgement to squeeze a highly favorably licensing deal out of Kodak.
Moreover, if Apple can show Apple is one of Kodak's creditors, Apple has rights in approving any Kodak restructuring plan. Further, Apple likely can get a faster resolution of the matter because of the Bankruptcy.
Apple is playing a big boy game.
If a company does not defend their patents, they can be invalidated. Same with copyrights and other intellectual property. If you don't sue those who are using your IP, then you must not want it.
With all due respect, there is no duty to assert your rights when you hold a copyright or patent. You can sit on a patent for years and not take any action against another you think is violating your patent. That is the whole playbook of patent trolls. Sit back quietly with your patent and do nothing until somebody becomes successful using your patent. The same is true with a copyright. They are your rights to do with as you will. Companies like Apple sit back and allow other companies to use their patents all the time when there is a strategic reason to do so. For instance, a party using the patent without permission might hold other patents Apple is using without permission. Both companies turn a blind eye on the other.
Trademark law is the only area where a holder of a trademark has to defend such rights. This is because the whole concept behind trademark is for the trademark to be identified as belonging to one party so that consumers will not be confused who is selling a particular product or service. So a trademark holder has to police its trademark to help avoid consumer confusion.