Kodak's using bankruptcy to rob us of our rights – Apple Apple has hit back at Kodak's attempts to get the firms' patent issues sorted out in bankruptcy court, filing a motion in district court asking the judge to move the row there. Kodak has accused Apple of "frivolous" claims to its patents, saying that Cupertino's only purpose is to delay the camera company's sale of those …
Wow, really, people are defending Kodak here? The same Kodak who sued just about the whole industry? Let's see, in the recent run up to their recent bankruptcy Kodak has sued at least:
Apple
Samsung
Sony
LG
HTC
RIM
Epson
Fujifilm
Panasonic
Ricoh
Agfa
Sanyo
Altek Corp
Shutterfly
Collins Inc
Yeah, they totally deserve your support. /s
But I suppose you believe Google's "do not evil" crap, even after all the evil they've been shown to be doing the past few years? Apple is shit, but so is Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and so on.
They are all out for what is best for them, and consumers are only there to be cashed in on as best they can. Its just that all these companies cash in on us in a different way - Apple by selling to the high end only, Google by selling our personal details and advertising to us, Samsung by selling to us in volume from low to high end, Microsoft by abusing a monopoly to keep selling to us until we die.
"Not defending Kodak, attacking Apple."
Not defending Kodak *or* attacking Apple. Rather, pointing out the analogy in the first post pretty much sums up *all* the big (and many of the small) players in the tech industry.
Any one of them would happily hamstring their neighbor to get that little bit higher up the ladder. They're all as bad as each other.
This post has been deleted by its author
Hmm, I thought something could not be patented if it had already been disclosed? Either apple are confused, had no intention of patenting it or have some kind of legally binding NDA in place with Kodak which presumably would provide enough evidence to settle this quickly?
Quote : I too found the idea of Apple not having patented something the moment they thought of it as rather odd.
Yes, normally they patent OTHER companies innovations and ideas, and even then only after it has been in use for a few years.
Paris because she has been well used for years, so they will soon patent her. And when that happens, whatever goes on in Paris WON'T stay in Paris.
If there was no contract laid out prior to this patent being approved, neither Kodak nor Apple has any obligation to the other as far as I can tell... this is at best a form of "a gentleman's agreement" and Apple were on the losing end of it (for once). Go figure.
Good grief our court system is slow. How long does it take to determine prior art or the lack thereof? Or does the blame lie with lawyers streching things out unnecessarily?
Let's just solve this the quick way. Put the patent lawyers in an octagon shaped cage and let them fight it out. In fact, let's handle all pantent lawsuits that way. Pretty soon enough patent lawyers will decide it's not worth it that tech companies can get back to making new tech.
This post has been deleted by its author
why? In this age of complete corporatism where corporations have more rights than people either one of them (if Kodak wasn't already ran into the ground) would hire African mercenaries to kill you to meet their quarterly targets if you were unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place.
Kodak were incompetent and didn't jump on the digital SLR bandwagon. Kodak are dying due to their own mistakes in not transitioning from film to digital properly.
In desperation they started using their patents to get income from competitors products, that's not the sign of a company doing well.
Those who recall the shenanigans during the SCO v Novell trial (and others) will remember that eventually SCO entered chapter 7 bankruptcy. The judge in bankruptcy court has astonishing powers to abrogate due process in the interests of shareholders, including ignoring Federal rules (he said at the time, "What are they going to do, take me out the back and shoot me?") and used those powers to ensure Novell never saw a dime of the damages.
During SCO v IBM as well, it transpired that bankruptcy law in the US allows for a stay of proceedings by a non-bankrupt while a bankrupt is allowed to proceed with counterclaims! Whether this would have survived a writ of certiorari is another matter.
...if Apple just bought Kodak (and all of it's assets, including IP)?
Should be able to get it fairly cheap, take a charitable tax write-off on setting up a photography museum.
Of course that might temporarily leave it suing itself until it can get the cases wound down, but that'll keep the lawyers tied up and unable to move on to do damage elsewhere.
Maybe, but any court knows a frivolous argument when the hear one and the are good at determining a*seholes like Apple.
Little wonder the US lags the Chinese market - they work to get the product out.
wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper if the person actually responsible had just gotten his ass kicked when the patent was discovered or if kodak is the one telling the truth the culprit responsible for bringing the false charge might be a little harder to discern, but not impossible. of course this might devolve into some sort of mission impossible meets the godfather type situation but would be more entertaining then this lilly-livered law-lover BS.
Kodak wins key battle in Apple patent case
'Apple filed its patent-infringement claim against Kodak last year. The company cited patent 6,031,964, a system and method for using a unified memory architecture to implement a digital camera device." It charged that Kodak also infringed patent RE38,911, a "modular digital image processing via an image processing chain with modifiable parameter controls."`
So Apple don't think that a bankruptcy court will have the expertise required to understand IP litigation?
Much as I don't like Apples business practices, I would am inclined to believe them. Not because they might be right, but because (and let's be fair to hem here) they are probably more experienced in the IP courts then most judges hearing their cases...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
