back to article Dying Kodak doesn't have to leave its jewels to Apple, says court

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 …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Shane8

    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 ?

    1. g e

      Re: Does that mean...

      You're not referring to Luch Koh and her massive alleged hoard of Fapple gadgetry, surely?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Re: Does that mean...

        Biased judge, oh the fun. That is certainly a Kodak moment.

  2. ukgnome Silver badge

    Am I the only one that wants Samsung to buy the patents?

    1. theblackhand

      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?

    2. David 164 Bronze badge

      Samsung, Google, HTC, I am not fuss either way, Apple needs a good slap down.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ David 164

        "I am not fuss"

        David, I think you need to look up something called the past tense.

        1. Chris Parsons

          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.

  3. Dire Criti¢

    Given Kodak's heritage I'm not sure "failed" is totally appropriate.

  4. Dan Paul

    How about a consortium of Samsung, Google, Microsoft and Motorola?

    Then they can all use the patents without interference from Apple.

  5. Long Fei


    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.

    1. sabba

      Re: Waste

      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).

      1. Matthew 25

        Re: Waste

        They already did that. They paid ProView again for iPad, from their point of view.

  6. billium

    @ Dan Paul

    Your Consortium would upset Rock Star wouldn't it?

  7. auburnman

    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?

    1. chr0m4t1c

      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.

    2. Matthew 25

      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.

  8. Mpeler

    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....

  9. 0_Flybert_0

    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

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019