Kodak actually makes some of the best commercial printers out there. The NexPress is an awesome machine. Unlike the Xerox iGen, you don't pay a click rate. So a firm (like the one I work with) that has great design and IT talent, can produce beautiful stuff, using much less consumables.
Its also fast and very reliable.
In fact, the NexPress is ideal for producing things like Apples "Cards" for iOS.
I'll take your word for it on the NexPress (since your evaluation is first-hand) but I'd heard quite the opposite, about their low-end printers at any rate.
On Kodak's side, I'd add that it's untrue that Kodak hasn't made a relevant product in a decade. Their cameras were no. 1 by sales and on the leading edge of tech up til about 2005, when they seem to have lost the plot badly on the consumer-camera front.
Kodak is a largely American company, proving American jobs, just trying to survive these financially tumultuous times while posing little-to-no threat to Apple's precious 'bottom line', so this is all too disheartening.
Apple had best hope that Karma never catches up to them.
I tend to think that this law suit is at this point at least in part to prevent someone else from buying the patents as Kodak has a patent bake sale to try and keep their corporate head above the choppy chapter 11 waters....
And btw, Apple started the investigation into the issues that led to the suit before Kodak was definitely going bankrupt. ANd of course, Apple has have every right to claim their share of the riches that Kodak has made from using Apple's IP to generate revenue. The bad karma deal is on Kodak, they stole, made billions off others' IP, and now Kodak are paying back to the karma bank...
Most American companies are run by nincompoops, whose only job is to milk a company for all its worth then, magically, the company dies. Kodak is just the next one to go.
Agree. One of the things I respect most about Apple is the philosophy that a great company is built on great products, not maximizing profits by cutting quality, innovation, and substituting these characteristics with marketing to convince consumers that their crap is worth buying, no matter how bad it is.
Patents used to have a lifetime of 17 years after issuance. This was later (1995, IIRC) changed to 20 years after application to be consistent with most of the rest of the world.
I really wish people would drop this 'patent troll' stuff. Kodak is not a patent troll.
In addition, apple is claiming that their agreement with Kodak gave Apple ownership of any improvements to those patents. Some of those Improvements were certainly patented in later years, and they will probably be valid for years to come.
Not only is this important for their defense against Kodak, this could be a big win against Android. If they win ownership of those patents, Apple can use that as a club against Android manufacturers violating those patents, and either charge a lot of money for royalties or just simply deny them the permission to use those patented technologies.
This could be a very important outcome for all players in the mobile market.
Keep in mind this is only related to the patents kodak is suing apple with. Kodak has digital photography patents that go back farther then the deal with apple.
Any site i look up states a kodak engineer invented digital photography in the 70's and listed the patent numbers.
With this in mind kodak could have the paperwork to backup its case.
Kodak like Rim is a failed company that hung on to old technology too long and got left behind. It's much better to let it go and be broken into other productive companies that can hire people. Just as we should have due with GM.
WOW, your pretty stupid to compare Kodak to GM, after large re-payment, and re-hiring 1,000s of workers, re-opening several plants NOT just here in MIch. GM has just re-claimed their position as the LARGEST car company in the WORLD, selling over 9 MM cars last year.
Lets compare situations properly. I am not saying i am a fan of bailing out every failing company, but with GM, you have a verifiable success story, with re-establishment of not only Brand, but leadership!
You must be some foreign idiot with no clue chiming in just to flap your lips cuz you can't flap anything else.
The company also notes that Kodak was "was the leader in film-based cameras at the time." In 1994, Apple released the $749 QuickTake 100, which Time profiled last year as "the first consumer digital camera" and ranking among its "100 greatest and most influential gadgets from 1923 to the present."
<...>
apple did not produce the world's first consumer digital still camera, the pug-ugly dycam (aka logitech fotoman) of 1990 was probably the first...
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
Perhaps Kodak can have a conference in the Bay Area and project a huge, live video of Apple's CEO offering $150 million and future cooperation with a visually smaller Kodak CEO on stage.
i think it's a legal matter with the patents. If Apple allows Kodak to claim ownership of these patents, who is to stop Kodak from selling them to a third party. And then that third party could sue Apple. It may look cold hearted, but that's business.
Certainly, Samsung shouldn't be the one to buy out Kodak.
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
320x240 black and white vs 640x480 24 bit colour. Maybe time meant digital colour camera?
WOW, your pretty stupid to compare Kodak to GM, after large re-payment, and re-hiring 1,000s of workers, re-opening several plants NOT just here in MIch. GM has just re-claimed their position as the LARGEST car company in the WORLD, selling over 9 MM cars last year.
Lets compare situations properly. I am not saying i am a fan of bailing out every failing company, but with GM, you have a verifiable success story, with re-establishment of not only Brand, but leadership!
You must be some foreign idiot with no clue chiming in just to flap your lips cuz you can't flap anything else.
I used to be a HUGE GM fan, but after that whole fiasco with GM and Chrysler regarding bailouts, they are the last brands I would ever own. Ford is the only respectable North American company in my books, although I buy imports now (better resale value and longevity)
[QUOTE=jragosta;2029170]Patents used to have a lifetime of 17 years after issuance. This was later (1995, IIRC) changed to 20 years after application to be consistent with most of the rest of the world.
I haven't followed the story, so don't know if the issue dates of the patents in question have been revealed. It's possible that patents for ideas created during the joint venture were not granted until years later (current issue latency is about three years). It's also possible to extend the life of a patent with continuations. This makes it entirely possible that the patents in question have years of life left in them.
Even if the patents are about to expire, Apple would be potentially liable for damages for the years they infringed. It seems entirely prudent for Apple to do what they are currently doing with respect to Kodak.
That QuickTake 100 looks a lot like my first digital camera: the Kodak DC-40. I had no idea that the DC-40 was just a re-branded Apple camera! My Kodak DC-40 camera ended up with a photographer friend in Antarctica because it was built like a tank and was the only camera that could survive the extreme cold. Kodak then used this photo from that camera (taken by my friend) in an advertising campaign for their cameras in 1996.
Very interesting series of events. Modern cameras wouldn't have much hope of surviving those conditions.
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
Interesting. Time Magazine credits Apple with being the first "consumer" digital camera, and lists it as one of the top 100 greatest technology gadgets of all time. I suspect cost, and maybe even easy of use, has something to do with the distinction. For instance, the Nikon was a professional camera. It cost over twenty thousand dollars. The camera you mention cost about a thousand dollars. The distinction might also be color and the lens, as the Dycam didn't do color and had a fixed lenses.
Kodak is a largely American company, proving American jobs, just trying to survive these financially tumultuous times while posing little-to-no threat to Apple's precious 'bottom line', so this is all too disheartening.
Apple had best hope that Karma never catches up to them.
It always amazes me how no matter what the circumstances, Apple is the bad guy. Apple isn't suppose to do anything to protect it's IP or protect itself from litigation over patents it probably owns. Kodak stopped innovating and now the company will die. It's unfortunate, but it's not Apple's fault.
As an owner of a patent myself, I thought they had a 17-year lifespan. If so, then why is Apple even interested in owning early-1990 patents?
I'm too lazy to see if someone else answered this properly on the next page, but . . .
Apple needs to defend their right to those patents in order to firmly establish provenance and ownership of them and any extensions and modifications to those patents. The clock get reset with each significant improvement. Apple was always an innovate and move on kind of company that didn't expend much energy on patents. But that hurt them badly in the past, and they have made a commitment to never allow that to (significantly) hurt them in the future.
Comments
As an owner of a patent myself, I thought they had a 17-year lifespan. If so, then why is Apple even interested in owning early-1990 patents?
They may not care about owning them. but they don't want someone else making bank off a false claim of ownership, especially against them
Kodak actually makes some of the best commercial printers out there. The NexPress is an awesome machine. Unlike the Xerox iGen, you don't pay a click rate. So a firm (like the one I work with) that has great design and IT talent, can produce beautiful stuff, using much less consumables.
Its also fast and very reliable.
In fact, the NexPress is ideal for producing things like Apples "Cards" for iOS.
I'll take your word for it on the NexPress (since your evaluation is first-hand) but I'd heard quite the opposite, about their low-end printers at any rate.
On Kodak's side, I'd add that it's untrue that Kodak hasn't made a relevant product in a decade. Their cameras were no. 1 by sales and on the leading edge of tech up til about 2005, when they seem to have lost the plot badly on the consumer-camera front.
Kodak is a largely American company, proving American jobs, just trying to survive these financially tumultuous times while posing little-to-no threat to Apple's precious 'bottom line', so this is all too disheartening.
Apple had best hope that Karma never catches up to them.
I tend to think that this law suit is at this point at least in part to prevent someone else from buying the patents as Kodak has a patent bake sale to try and keep their corporate head above the choppy chapter 11 waters....
And btw, Apple started the investigation into the issues that led to the suit before Kodak was definitely going bankrupt. ANd of course, Apple has have every right to claim their share of the riches that Kodak has made from using Apple's IP to generate revenue. The bad karma deal is on Kodak, they stole, made billions off others' IP, and now Kodak are paying back to the karma bank...
Most American companies are run by nincompoops, whose only job is to milk a company for all its worth then, magically, the company dies. Kodak is just the next one to go.
Agree. One of the things I respect most about Apple is the philosophy that a great company is built on great products, not maximizing profits by cutting quality, innovation, and substituting these characteristics with marketing to convince consumers that their crap is worth buying, no matter how bad it is.
Patents used to have a lifetime of 17 years after issuance. This was later (1995, IIRC) changed to 20 years after application to be consistent with most of the rest of the world.
I really wish people would drop this 'patent troll' stuff. Kodak is not a patent troll.
In addition, apple is claiming that their agreement with Kodak gave Apple ownership of any improvements to those patents. Some of those Improvements were certainly patented in later years, and they will probably be valid for years to come.
Not only is this important for their defense against Kodak, this could be a big win against Android. If they win ownership of those patents, Apple can use that as a club against Android manufacturers violating those patents, and either charge a lot of money for royalties or just simply deny them the permission to use those patented technologies.
This could be a very important outcome for all players in the mobile market.
Buy cheap sell high as they say.
Any site i look up states a kodak engineer invented digital photography in the 70's and listed the patent numbers.
With this in mind kodak could have the paperwork to backup its case.
Kodak like Rim is a failed company that hung on to old technology too long and got left behind. It's much better to let it go and be broken into other productive companies that can hire people. Just as we should have due with GM.
WOW, your pretty stupid to compare Kodak to GM, after large re-payment, and re-hiring 1,000s of workers, re-opening several plants NOT just here in MIch. GM has just re-claimed their position as the LARGEST car company in the WORLD, selling over 9 MM cars last year.
Lets compare situations properly. I am not saying i am a fan of bailing out every failing company, but with GM, you have a verifiable success story, with re-establishment of not only Brand, but leadership!
You must be some foreign idiot with no clue chiming in just to flap your lips cuz you can't flap anything else.
Fixed.
<...>
The company also notes that Kodak was "was the leader in film-based cameras at the time." In 1994, Apple released the $749 QuickTake 100, which Time profiled last year as "the first consumer digital camera" and ranking among its "100 greatest and most influential gadgets from 1923 to the present."
<...>
apple did not produce the world's first consumer digital still camera, the pug-ugly dycam (aka logitech fotoman) of 1990 was probably the first...
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/...el1/index.html
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
Perhaps Kodak can have a conference in the Bay Area and project a huge, live video of Apple's CEO offering $150 million and future cooperation with a visually smaller Kodak CEO on stage.
i think it's a legal matter with the patents. If Apple allows Kodak to claim ownership of these patents, who is to stop Kodak from selling them to a third party. And then that third party could sue Apple. It may look cold hearted, but that's business.
Certainly, Samsung shouldn't be the one to buy out Kodak.
apple did not produce the world's first consumer digital still camera, the pug-ugly dycam (aka logitech fotoman) of 1990 was probably the first...
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/...el1/index.html
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
320x240 black and white vs 640x480 24 bit colour. Maybe time meant digital colour camera?
WOW, your pretty stupid to compare Kodak to GM, after large re-payment, and re-hiring 1,000s of workers, re-opening several plants NOT just here in MIch. GM has just re-claimed their position as the LARGEST car company in the WORLD, selling over 9 MM cars last year.
Lets compare situations properly. I am not saying i am a fan of bailing out every failing company, but with GM, you have a verifiable success story, with re-establishment of not only Brand, but leadership!
You must be some foreign idiot with no clue chiming in just to flap your lips cuz you can't flap anything else.
I used to be a HUGE GM fan, but after that whole fiasco with GM and Chrysler regarding bailouts, they are the last brands I would ever own. Ford is the only respectable North American company in my books, although I buy imports now (better resale value and longevity)
I haven't followed the story, so don't know if the issue dates of the patents in question have been revealed. It's possible that patents for ideas created during the joint venture were not granted until years later (current issue latency is about three years). It's also possible to extend the life of a patent with continuations. This makes it entirely possible that the patents in question have years of life left in them.
Even if the patents are about to expire, Apple would be potentially liable for damages for the years they infringed. It seems entirely prudent for Apple to do what they are currently doing with respect to Kodak.
That QuickTake 100 looks a lot like my first digital camera: the Kodak DC-40. I had no idea that the DC-40 was just a re-branded Apple camera! My Kodak DC-40 camera ended up with a photographer friend in Antarctica because it was built like a tank and was the only camera that could survive the extreme cold. Kodak then used this photo from that camera (taken by my friend) in an advertising campaign for their cameras in 1996.
Very interesting series of events. Modern cameras wouldn't have much hope of surviving those conditions.
apple did not produce the world's first consumer digital still camera, the pug-ugly dycam (aka logitech fotoman) of 1990 was probably the first...
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/...el1/index.html
the earlier canon xapshop could also produce digital images, but it did this via an external digitizer, so doesn't count imho
kodak did some really innovative things, developing the first large sensors and releasing an slr using one in 1991 (based on a nikon chassis), but dire management over many years squandered kodak's potential, resulting in it's current sorry state, a great company trashed by idiots
Interesting. Time Magazine credits Apple with being the first "consumer" digital camera, and lists it as one of the top 100 greatest technology gadgets of all time. I suspect cost, and maybe even easy of use, has something to do with the distinction. For instance, the Nikon was a professional camera. It cost over twenty thousand dollars. The camera you mention cost about a thousand dollars. The distinction might also be color and the lens, as the Dycam didn't do color and had a fixed lenses.
Apple's Quicktake started off at $749 and had color and had an adjustable lens. Here is an interesting link with somebody excited about the camera's pending release.
Kodak is a largely American company, proving American jobs, just trying to survive these financially tumultuous times while posing little-to-no threat to Apple's precious 'bottom line', so this is all too disheartening.
Apple had best hope that Karma never catches up to them.
It always amazes me how no matter what the circumstances, Apple is the bad guy. Apple isn't suppose to do anything to protect it's IP or protect itself from litigation over patents it probably owns. Kodak stopped innovating and now the company will die. It's unfortunate, but it's not Apple's fault.
As an owner of a patent myself, I thought they had a 17-year lifespan. If so, then why is Apple even interested in owning early-1990 patents?
I'm too lazy to see if someone else answered this properly on the next page, but . . .
Apple needs to defend their right to those patents in order to firmly establish provenance and ownership of them and any extensions and modifications to those patents. The clock get reset with each significant improvement. Apple was always an innovate and move on kind of company that didn't expend much energy on patents. But that hurt them badly in the past, and they have made a commitment to never allow that to (significantly) hurt them in the future.
I tend to believe Apple here. Had they been Kodak's IP they would have sued when Apple went with Fuji one would think.
Using the same logic....you would have thought Apple would have claimed and sued long before this as well.