Feeds

back to article Apple, RIM didn’t infringe Kodak patents

Kodak’s hopes to parlay its patent portfolio into a get-out-of-Chapter-11 card have been dealt a blow, with a ruling that Apple and RIM haven’t infringed its digital image preview patents. The patents have been subject of lawsuits in both directions: Apple has accused the moribund icon of “ransacking” its IP to secure the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

Wow!

"Furthermore, the judge has determined that claim 15 of that patent is invalid on the grounds of obviousness."

A federal judge with a clue! Satan's ice-skating to work tomorrow :-)

5
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: Wow!

be careful, you'll have people suggesting he was paid off by the big boys with comments like that :)

cynical lot on here.

2
1
Gold badge

You do wonder why they granted it in the first place. What is the alternative to a viewfinder? chimping** after every shot?

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimping

0
0
Silver badge

I havent read the patent nor do I care but if the patent was granted in (maybe) the 60's then it might not have been so obvious back then as to nowadays.

0
2

If the patent was granted in the 60's

it would have long expired. The earliest this could have been granted was the early 90's

2
0
Facepalm

1 billion?

1 billion dollars extra sales were generated just because of that particular feature?

I think not. More fool them.

2
1
FAIL

and another thing

KKodak got a billion for essentially doing FA, and they still manage to go bankrupt . Wow.

3
0
WTF?

on the grounds of obviousness ?

Is the judge even aware that many of the earliest digital cameras did not have any preview screen and that they instead used standard viewfinders? Obvious, not really.

1
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: on the grounds of obviousness ?

That's the usual straw man argument against obviousness - just because something is not done does not mean nobody thought of it. It might simply have been too expensive to include an LCD screen at the time.

5
2
WTF?

Re: on the grounds of obviousness ?

It probably WAS too expensive to include an LCD screen at the time. It must also have been to expensive to patent the idea as well. If Kodak have a patent then let them profit by it. How many Apple patents have there been which are, not to put too fine a point on it, bleeding obvious.

3
2
Coat

Re: on the grounds of obviousness ?

Rounded corners on a rectangle are nothing short of revlutionary and not in any way obvious...

Mine's the one with the sharp cornered tablet in the pocket.

2
1

prior art

the viewfinder in my Nikon F1 had rounded corners.

1
1

Infringement

"Apple, RIM didn’t infringe Kodak patents"

Well, to be picky, they were found to infringe a claim in the patent (claim 15) - in the case of Apple due to the iPhone 3G and for RIM, all the products in the accusation. The were, however, not found guilty of unfair import practices (19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1) see e.g. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1337) a decision which was related to the invalidation of claim 15.

1
2

Re: Infringement

Wow - thumbs down for a fact. How very El Reg....

0
1
Holmes

click. click. click. hey, this is a blank roll!

must be a zombie, Kodak is not leaving an image.

0
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

Read the actual patent and see for yourself

Link here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=32&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6292218&OS=6292218&RS=6292218

It seems that this was submitted in 1997, does involve LCD displays, and the judge has no fucking idea what he/she is doing. That much is OBVIOUS

EVERYONE making digital cameras is infringing this patent and many of Kodak's other patents

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Read the actual patent and see for yourself

Work for Kodak do you? I'm going to assume that a judge who's job is to judge patent disputes has a clue.

1
0

@Dan Paul

Except that in May 1996 Canon announced the PowerShot 600 (with a massive 0.5 megapixels!) that did exactly this.

And, as noted in the actual patent, digital video cameras already used this technique but recorded the image to tape instead of memory; I'd say that makes it an OBVIOUS development, which is why it's been declared invalid.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.