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 …
10.1.2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-kodak-apple-idUSTRE80929C20120110
19.1.2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/01/19/kodak-files-chapter-11/
So they started 9 days before. You suddenly wake up and find yourself bankrupt. They must've known it was coming
So how long is Steve's "innovative" nuclear war against everyone else going to go on? I hope they burn up all their cash suing everyone. Except Microsoft, oddly enough...could it be because they Owe their Arses (TM) to Bill Gates? I've long said, the only person I blame for the rise of the iTards is Bill Gates and the cash infusion he gave to Apple when they were teetering on the edge.
And, erm, didn't Apple prevail in a suit against M$ settled at about the very same time, in which it was claimed that M$ had effectively taken liberties with the code in QuickTime? IIRC, that purchase of Apple stock effectively masked the settlement, giving M$ an opportunity to appear to be less dastardly--even magnanimous.
Would Kodak be a patent troll? If they actually developed the vast majority of their IP themselves (as I would imagine, Kodak have been in the business of photography and image processing for a long time) then if they chose to defend their IP aren't they actually using the patent system much more how we'd like to see people use it, rather than what is possibly an attempt at a smash and grab of Kodak's IP by Apple?
"Kodak have been in the business of photography and image processing for a long time"
Yes, but patents expire after 17 years.
If we focus only on the recent digital segment, the first digital consumer camera (the Apple QuickTake 100) was actually a cooperation between Apple and Kodak.
What did that cooperation entail is one interesting question.
With the QuickTake series being decommissioned in 1997 and the first major product of Apple's after that (Which I'm aware of) which utilized camera technology being the iphone (2007), I think the argument that any IP Kodak has could be linked to Apple would be somewhat tenuous, surely?
If we take the dates 1997 (the Quicktake decommission) and 2007 for the iphone, don't we have 10 years of Kodak doing their own thing away from any partnership with Apple in the field of consumer photography products?
As I read it, Kodak have tried to sue Apple, who have turned around and said "you can't sue us, you're bankrupt". Kodak have dismissed this, saying its a load of crap, and Apple has turned around and said "fine, how do you like them apples" and sued them back. Kodak doesn't really have a leg to stand on, - claiming immunity due to bankruptcy can arguably cause them to win one case but lose the other.
I'm not an Apple fan, and I think their lawyers are the scum of the earth, but they appear to have constructed a decent riposte to the initial filings, which has a 50/50 change of being successful (AFAICT all patent lawsuits are determined by flipping a coin - it results in a greater chance of an appeal, and more opportunities for lawyer scum to suck dollars from their employers).
I might be being cynical here, but the way I read it is Apple are worried they'll lose against Kodak, but with Kodak in financial trouble, Apple are trying to bleed Kodak dry of funds so they can't continue with the case. Apple get to walk away without paying a penny in fines, and Kodak... cease to exist.
This seems to be a common tactic deployed by the big, wealthy companies: Tie up the weaker companies in legal tape and bleed them dry then pick over the carcass for anything interesting. Predatory, evil, vile and ruthless, and apparently quite legal. The only defense seems to be to get a wealthy company backing you so you can see the case through the courts. Of cause, by then you owe your sole to the other guy...
The 4 patents at play here were initially co-developped between Kodak and Apple for the Quicktake.
When Apple dropped the Quicktake, it gave Kodak these patents so that Kodak could "improve upon" them.
This is exactly what Kodak did, but 14 years later Kodak uses the same patents to sue Apple.
That's why Apple is now using that "request to sue during Bankrupcy proceeding".
They are saying "sorry guys", these were used to be our patents. You are using them against us, and therefore we will sue whether or not you are bankrupt..
Okay... When Apple 'gave' the patents to Kodak, did Apple retain any rights to them?
Don't think so.
So Apple decide to use the technology they no longer have any rights to use, and they get sued for doing so.
That's how it should be, surely?
Just because Apple *used* to own or have a share in those patents doesn't mean they still do. And if they don't, then they deserve to be prosecuted.
Or do you think Proview are right to sue Apple over the name iPad, which they apparently sold to Apple years ago?
From the Bloomberg article:-
"Apple previously claimed it is the true owner of the image- preview patent that is the subject of infringement claims lodged against Apple and Research in Motion Ltd. The Cupertino, California-based company contends that it developed a digital camera in the early 1990s that it shared with Kodak, and that Kodak then sought the patent on the technology."
Depending on where you look:-
George Smith and Willard Boyle invented the charge-coupled device (CCD) in 1969 and created a protype camera in 1970,
Steven Sasson as an engineer at Eastman Kodak invented and built a digital camera using a charge-coupled device image sensor in 1975.
Texas Instruments patented a film-less electronic camera in 1972 (US patent 4,057,830)
Kodak scientists invented the world's first megapixel sensor (1.4 megapixels) in 1986.
Yes, Apple did invent the digital camera in the early 1990's.
> "Yes, Apple did invent the digital camera in the early 1990's."
They might have had the first "consumer" digital camera, but they sure can't claim to have invented the digital camera. There were digital camera before Apple even existed.
I wasn't aware that Apple ever had a fab, and did research on developing process technology.
Remember: Apple is #2 in "social responsibility", according to a large number of idiots^W^W^W^W the US general population:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/13/reputation_survey/
Right behind Whole Foods, a company that offers solace and assistance to the downtrodden everywhere, apparently. (Or is maybe just a pretentious grocery. I haven't checked.)
On an unrelated topic, Rik, what's "somewhat ungrammatical" about that sentence from Apple's filing? Every word in it has a grammatical function, and it's a function that's conventional for the word in question. All the phrases use conventional English forms. The supraphrasal arrangement could be improved, but again it doesn't violate any of the conventions of standard English dialects. (And of course English supraphrasal grammar is notoriously flexible, which is why it permits things like hyperbaton and various forms of zeugma.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
