Failed camera biz Eastman Kodak says it has been given permission by the bankruptcy court to sell patents that Apple claims it owns. Kodak won approval on Monday to go ahead with a planned auction of 1,100 patents, known as the Digital Capture and Imaging Systems and Services portfolios, the firm said. "We are gratified that …
Does that mean...
Does that mean that that particular judge doesn't use a iPhone, maybe should get same one for all future android cases ?
Re: Does that mean...
You're not referring to Luch Koh and her massive alleged hoard of Fapple gadgetry, surely?
Re: Does that mean...
Biased judge, oh the fun. That is certainly a Kodak moment.
Am I the only one that wants Samsung to buy the patents?
Re: Am I the only one that wants Samsung to buy the patents?
Of course not - there are large numbers of US lawyers that need new cars/holiday homes/small towns that are thinking the same way.
Or are you only interested in entities with souls?
Samsung, Google, HTC, I am not fuss either way, Apple needs a good slap down.
@ David 164
"I am not fuss"
David, I think you need to look up something called the past tense.
Re: @ David 164
No, it's an adjective (a participle if we're going to be fussy). It is describing David at the present time, not in the past.
Given Kodak's heritage I'm not sure "failed" is totally appropriate.
How about a consortium of Samsung, Google, Microsoft and Motorola?
Then they can all use the patents without interference from Apple.
For the amount it probably spent on the lawsuit trying to stop this, Apple could have probably just bought the bloody patents themselves. It will be interesting to see if they actually try to do that. If not, then it will just show that they were only really trying to mess with Kodak.
Now assuming that Apple's claims are valid, and that it does in fact own the patent rights, they might feel, quite legitimately, that paying again for something they already own could set something of a painful precedent.
Of course the key point here is that they do own the rights in the first place and quite honestly I have no idea if that is the case. What I am certain of is the fact that the American patent system needs a good kick up the arse (along with its litigation centric business / personal culture).
They already did that. They paid ProView again for iPad, from their point of view.
@ Dan Paul
Your Consortium would upset Rock Star wouldn't it?
Isn't part of the Patent Office job keeping a record of owners of patents? How effing hard is it to look the patent up in their register and check the current owner?
That would be Kodak, which is what the dispute is about.
Apple & FlashPoint worked with Kodak on product developments that ultimately created these patents, then after the partnership broke up, Kodak ended up with ownership of the patents and used them to sue Apple and RIM in 2010.
Now then, when Microsoft does stuff like this, the commentards say they are in the wrong and they should share the patents, but because it's Apple on the receiving end those same people want Apple's "enemies" (as if things really worked like that) to be given the opportunity to purchase the patents.
Personally, I don't care if that happens, but I think it would be somewhat unbalanced if the purchaser is given court protection from Apple (and presumably FlashPoint) against litigation, but that the order doesn't extend the same protection to Apple and FlashPoint against the new owners.
Yes, I understand that Apple is the Great Satan in the Holy (Mobile) OS Wars and that the Forces of Light (a.k.a. Google and Samsung) will lay waste to their boardroom and that a paradise on earth will result, where we all use our Android handsets in harmony and love. At least until the geeks realise they aren't backing the cool underdog any more and move on to the Next Big Thing, at which time the wars can begin again. Praise be to Larry and Sergey.
According to the Patent Office the patent belongs to Kodak. Apple are claiming they developed the idea with Kodak but Kodak then went and patented it, so, if Kodak is to be no more then the patent should be ceded to Apple.
sold for a song
Just think if Samsung bought the patents, some shady business (cf Koh) occurred....then you could
see Samsung at Sing-Sing....
10 of 1100 ?
wouldn't it make more sense to break out those 10 and clear the way cleanly for the other 1090 to be sold ? .. are those 10 so valuable that it would create an undue burden on creditor recovery ? .. is that more important than establishing clearly who is the inventor ( still the way it works in the US ) and therefore the owner of the property in question ?
that being said, should not have Apple (and Flashpoint) challenged those 10 patents when they were made public if they were the inventors ? .. don't tech companies like Apple have a department of engineers and patent lawyers looking over patent grants ?
if they didn't know they were contributing inventors or sole inventors at the time .. it seems suspect that they've figured it out now
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?