I recall suggesting Apple buy Kodak a few years back when their market cap was $80 - 100 million. Back then I thought the Kodak brand was still worth something.
I recall suggesting Apple buy Kodak a few years back when their market cap was $80 - 100 million. Back then I thought the Kodak brand was still worth something.
But how much was their debt? The $500 million bid could be less than when you factor that against their, then, market cap.
This whole situation kinda bugs me.
Apple and Kodak have a dispute about digital imaging patents they developed together in the 1990s. The Judge halts that lawsuit until Kodak can emerge from bankruptcy.
Kodak is getting a bankruptcy $793 million loan, on condition that Kodak can sell its patents for $500 million. I haven't read any where discussing if the disputed patent is excluded or not.
It doesn't make sense that the court would allow Kodak to sell a disputed patent. You would think that a court would want clarity on ownership of all the patents being sold. If I recall, this is two different courts/judges and the civil patent dispute judge is yielding to the bankruptcy court?
Apple would have to start a new lawsuit against a new potential owner of the disputed patent. This seems like a waste of court resources although that may be null if Apple ends up being one of the new patent pool owners.
The above is a very good point. The ~question~ is how much is that disputed patent worth? If it is less than, say $50 million (excluding damages and what not) then those interested would rather Kodak sell of what it can and then work out the rest somehow.
On Apple's part it would be interesting, again to see how much that disputed patent is worth. If the disputed patent was a $200 million argy-bargy thing then yes, this would be a big issue working out who gets what.
Dead companies can be more toxic than we imagine, perhaps.
In Apple and Google's case, regardless, they want to get as much of the portfolio as possible. Sure, they don't "need" Google but this gives Apple and Google a huge chunk of patents for whatever their purposes, and prevents Apple and Google competing against each other for them because that will just be another huge legal mess.
So it's not about money, it's to prevent unwanted conflict between Apple and Google because no matter what they are close bedfellows this decade and perhaps beyond.
Of course The Man might step in and say it's collusive, anti-competitive, monopolistic or who-knows-what.
Comments
But how much was their debt? The $500 million bid could be less than when you factor that against their, then, market cap.
The above is a very good point. The ~question~ is how much is that disputed patent worth? If it is less than, say $50 million (excluding damages and what not) then those interested would rather Kodak sell of what it can and then work out the rest somehow.
On Apple's part it would be interesting, again to see how much that disputed patent is worth. If the disputed patent was a $200 million argy-bargy thing then yes, this would be a big issue working out who gets what.
Dead companies can be more toxic than we imagine, perhaps.
In Apple and Google's case, regardless, they want to get as much of the portfolio as possible. Sure, they don't "need" Google but this gives Apple and Google a huge chunk of patents for whatever their purposes, and prevents Apple and Google competing against each other for them because that will just be another huge legal mess.
So it's not about money, it's to prevent unwanted conflict between Apple and Google because no matter what they are close bedfellows this decade and perhaps beyond.
Of course The Man might step in and say it's collusive, anti-competitive, monopolistic or who-knows-what.