Apple seeks permission to kick Kodak's corpse
Apple has asked the New York branch of the US Bankruptcy Court for permission to sue what's left of Kodak, the once-mighty film firm, for patent infringment. "Apple requests express authority from this court before it initiates the actions out of an abundance of caution," Apple's lawyers wrote somewhat ungrammatically in the …
This topic is closed for new posts.
You might think they're mad...
What's happening is that while Kodak has filed for bankruptcy, they are still working on selling its portfolio of something around 1,100 patents.
So, whoever ends up with those patents will get the legal agreements that come with them, which is why Apple is continuing to try and get court decisions in their favour.
Most likey I'd imagine that Apple Microsoft and may be RIM will join forces again (as in the Nortel acquisition) and try and scoop the lot. (RIM are also being sued by Kodak at the moment)
They would
Suck the dried blood out a a rotting corpse if it was a perceived patent infringement.
Re: You might think they're mad...
No, they are mad.. And petty and vindictive...
This is not about the patents held by Kodak, that will be sold as a part of a orderly bankruptcy, this is about suing Kodak for infringement of patents held by Apple, thereby joining the line of creditors who will wait to receive their dues from the bankruptcy...
Hopefully the judge puts Apple right at the end of that line.
Re: You might think they're mad...
I do love my Apple products and Apple as a whole (they were the only viable option to get away from Microsoft), however, this just seems harsh. Poor Kodak! I bought a Kodak color printer only a year ago. Seems I made a bad investment there but Apple should lay off Kodak. Why kick a dog when it's down??
kick them while their down
Way to go Apple. Sue them for patents which you own and that are most likely invalid anyway due either to prior art or just sheer nonsense. Nice to see Apple still wants to make sure they are going to make a return on investment for their R&D....oh wait my bad their filing of patents for everything imaginable.
Re: eengleesh
"Nice to see Apple still wants to make sure they are going to make a return on investment for their R&D....oh wait my bad their filing of patents for everything imaginable."
s/b
Nice to see Apple still wants to make sure they are going to make a return on investment for their R&D -- oh wait, my bad -- their filing of patents for everything imaginable.
Note that "their" is correct as it's possessive (both of "R&D" and of "filing of patents".)
Sorry, Mr. Ball.
Re: Re: eengleesh
Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve. Nice to see some people do still take the time to read the comments fully now a days.
On a side note who do I bitch at for these new auto reply titles? El Reg? I would have much rather liked a way to be informed when people give replied to posts I have made or some such as opposed to seeing Re: Re: Re: Re: as will happen on some threads. I miss the old days what with all these new fangled changes to the boards, can we bring back the moderatrix please? Maybe just on Friday's or something?
No on all counts.
You do not have to use the auto-reply (see what I did here?).
We do not have to retain "Re: Re:" - although people are having fun with this right now.
Finally, the moderatrix has had enough of you lot.
Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
Well, when you've finished patting each other on the back, take another look at the original title: "kick them while their down"!
Duh!
Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
But that is what the commenter was doing - and the recipient took it on the chin gracefully.
Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
Good title reading skills. Have a pat on the back.
Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
James @ 03:27: "Thanks for the vote of confidence Steve. Nice to see some people do still take the time to read the comments fully now a days."
James and Steve, you both fail. Nice to see some people do still take the time to read titles, thumbs up Richard.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
ReReReReRe might become a bit tiring. Why not go with something more original? DoReMiFaSoLa would be a classic. Or more appropriate to this forum: Duh, Re, My..., Phew, So, Lalalalala.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
Well, Drewc, one of us is confused, and I'm not convinced it's me!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
As not a single one of you picked up on "now a days" I am officially removing all back-patting privileges.
Nowadays has been happy together for quite some time now.
Reply: Reply: Reply: Reply: Reply: Reply: eengleesh
My vote goes for the Do Ron Ron Ron.
Failing that, a limit on the number of times the "Re:" string is generated in the title (how about once?)
Just sayin'
Re: Reply: Reply: You're missing the point
The number of "Re"s is not important. You can edit the title if you like.
What would be good is if the replies appeared below the post to which they relate and not at the end of the chain...
Re: eengleesh
W O W! Are you kidding with this sh te?
Still waiting for the balls to drop are we?
Re: Re: Re: Re: eengleesh
I FNID IT RLALEY FNNUY TAHT FLKOS HREE ARE SDEPNNIG TMIE AGNUIRG AOUBT GAMRAMR ISTNAED OF ALPPE!
It has been said that your brain will be able to read my above comment just as fast as your read this line.
That's it. My only remaining Apple product, an iPod Nano, just got flushed down the crapper.
Some things have too high of a price of ownership.
Good idea
That'll make all the difference to a company that doesn't even know you exist.
It's business and a sound decision because of the later legal implications of the patent sale. Any astute business would do it's best to protect itself. Same as Google buying Moto.
Except Google buying Moto is classic Patent Troll behaviour - buying patents they didn't develop and then using them against business rivals.
Don't forget that Kodak is suing both RIM and Apple at the moment.
+1
Nice to see that the SCUM rises to the top.
Apple has now managed to out-Microsoft Microsoft for being the biggest pricks on the planet.
Good for you, Squire!
If I read the article correctly, this is just lawyers chasing an ambulance, with a big "K" on its side. Scumbags.
Because of all this greed on the part of Apple, I will never buy or own an Apple product again in my life.
What silliness...
Did you not see that Kodak sued Apple *and* HTC just last month?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-kodak-apple-idUSTRE80929C20120110
Kodak are the ones trying to squeeze a few more $$$ out of their patents . This is just Apple doing an ass-saving measure.
Re: Good idea
"Any unethical business would do it's best to protect itself. Same as Google buying Moto."
"buying patents they didn't develop and then using them to protect against business rivals"
There, fixed those for you.
Re: Re: Good idea
Except of course that Kodaks claim was overturned against apple. Nice try
"Kodaks claim was overturned against apple."?
No it wasn't, did you even read *this* article, 6th paragraph. I'm guessing you just read the titles?
"Nice try"? What a muppet.
Re: "Kodaks claim was overturned against apple."?
If only there was an edit function
This article second paragraph
http://www.whioam.com/itc-overturned-a-preliminary-decision-on-the-suit-against-kodak-apple-and-rim.html
As previously reported, the ITC preliminary determination claims of Eastman Kodak were called unfounded,
Miss Piggy
@AC 19:53 Re: Good Ideas
"buying patents they didn't develop and then using them against business rivals"
*If* the patent system worked properly it would not be possible to use patents in this way.
The ideal behind patents is that someone invents something, gets the patent, others can't copy without a license. The practical reality is that patents are awarded for the most trivial "inventions" these days with very little regard for what has actually been done before. This is leading to many companies having overlapping sets of weak but apparently enforceable patents, so war breaks out. The Venn diagram of companies and their patent holdings must look like a whole load of frothed up bubble bath.
The US patent system is truly dreadful in this regard, but I'm not sure that anyone else's is very good either. The problems were built in at the start. Surely it doesn't take a super genius to spot that the prior art checking process was only going to grow exponentially. Then the US made life LOTS harder for itself by allowing software patents....
The only way to fix the system is to tighten up on what 'invention' actually means, specifically in relation to triviality, the invention 'date' and commercial realisation. That should then be retrospectively applied to all patents when a dispute is initiated by an offended company. I imagine that the majority of disputes would evaporate in a puff of smoke. A whole lot of lawyers will of course strongly lobby against such a move, so it's up to the politicians to think for themselves and see what harm is being done to their economies.
But I think you're right; all these companies are behaving in an entirely logical manner given the patent system that exists. I would like to think that some of them are thinking "why is this happening really?" and will become motivated to lobby for a change. At the moment it looks to me like all the leading companies will be run by patent law experts instead of people who actually know stuff and build things :-(
Re: +1 -- Seems Bill's now regretting he bailed Apple out.
"Aug. 6, 1997: Apple Rescued — by Microsoft
Microsoft rescues one-time and future nemesis Apple with a $150 million investment that breathes new life into a struggling Silicon Alley icon.
In a remarkable feat of negotiating legerdemain, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs got needed cash — in return for non-voting shares — and an assurance that Microsoft would support Office for the Mac for five years..." etc. etc. [Wired Mag excerpt]
[Sorry El Reg - couldn't find the El Reg headlines for that day but it'd have been similar.]
Most of the tech media had something similar to this headline on that day (I remember it as if it were yesterday).
A quick search of the net now show Bill to be overtly dismissive of Jobs' comments, it's worth a search.
Anyone who has ever been bushfire fighting knows it's the bit you don't kill off that'll flare up and get you. Presumably, Bill thought Apple was even too far gone for that.
A salient lesson, perhaps.
"flushed down the crapper"
Oh for f**k's sake, grow up!
What utter bollocks! You'll make your little statement, throw your toys out the pram and you'll still be using your iPod for the next few months until you actually need an upgrade or replacement.
It's not like Adolf Hitler can back from the dead via a pact with Lucifer and made the iPod from crushed up dead baby seals is it?! "Oh look at me dropping my support for X in public! I have such a huge social conscience, I'm so 'zeitgeisty" it's frightening.". With 7 gazillion Apple devices being bought a second across the planet, you think your childish little tantrum will do anything other than make you look a complete plank?
Did it occur to you that you have to read a) more than the first paragraph to understand the whole story and b) read opinions from other sources to get a handle on this whole affair and work out why a huge corporation would waste their time and money chasing this?
Re: Good idea
Good points on your last three paragraphs. The first one is questionable though.
Re: "Kodaks claim was overturned against apple."?
Calm down my dear. No need to call names.
Re: @AC 19:53 Re: Good Ideas
"The US patent system is truly dreadful in this regard, but I'm not sure that anyone else's is very good either. "
"The only way to fix the system is to tighten up on what 'invention' actually means, specifically in relation to triviality, the invention 'date' and commercial realisation."
I agree fully. But think of the reality of it. What's been allowed to transpire over the years involves billions, probably trillions of dollars, so none of the gutless wonders now in politics would touch it with a barge pole. We'd need a crisis as dramatic as The Great Depression together with a general will for reform and 'real' people in power--say with the gumption of FDR's Harry Hopkins*--to tackle the problem and implement change.
We now have a runaway out of control monster with a snowball's chance of taming it, let alone changing laws respectively . Similar issues also apply to copyright reform.
Wish my presumption were wrong but I doubt it very much.
___
* Check wiki 'Harry Hopkins'
Re: What silliness...
The difference here being, that Kodak is a technology company that actually invents stuff.
Poor Anonymous Coward. He will never own a great tablet or phone. Guess he just wants to give money to hack warez from Microsoft?!
I preferred this industry when it was about creating intellectual property then defending it, rather than buying reams of iother people's ideas then beating each other to a bloody pulp with it.
"iother" is the most Freudian misspelling that I've made in a while.
So who is likely to have more patents in this area?
Kodak is likely to own an awful lot of patents in all areas of digital cameras and image processing. If who ever ends up looking after the corpse of Kodak they are bound to be able to find all sort of suits to throw back in the opposite direction.
Apple "Please sir let us be allowed to sue them even though they are bankrupt"
Apple to another legal body "Please sir stop them sueing us as they are bankrupt"
You couldn't make it up could you. Talk about double standards.
Here's a double Standard
Kodak are bankrupt and still suing RIM and Apple
It goes both ways unless you just hate apple. If you hate BS law suits, that's a different matter
Re: Here's a double Standard
First I would like to know if Kodak started their court action before going to chapter 11
Secondly I hate all BS patent actions like most of us and would love to see the US patent office sort it out to make it only possible to patent something they can demonstrate and not just an idea like Apple 3D patent reported a couple of days ago.
This topic is closed for new posts.
