U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Inquiry Into Apple, RIM After Kodak Complaint

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/17/u-s-international-trade-commission-opens-inquiry-into-apple-rim-after-kodak-complaint/)

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-17/kodak-gets-review-in-bid-to-block-apple-rim-imports-update1-.html) that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has granted a request (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/14/kodak-files-patent-infringement-suits-against-apple-research-in-motion/) made by Kodak last month for an investigation of Apple and Research in Motion regarding possible infringement of Kodak patents related to digital camera technology.The U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington said today it will consider the complaint filed last month and decide whether to ban the imports after Kodak claimed that the companies refused to pay patent royalties on digital-camera technology. Kodak also has a civil lawsuit pending.

Kodak, based in Rochester, New York, claims in the ITC case that Apple and RIM are infringing a patent related to ways to preview images. The civil suit, only against Apple, concerns that patent and additional ones for digital cameras and computer processes.In its complaint, Kodak contended that it had worked with Apple and Research in Motion "for years" in attempts to resolve the dispute, but had been unable to reach satisfactory agreements. Kodak also noted at the time that disruption of sales of the devices from Apple and RIM was not its "primary interest", suggesting that its complaint with the ITC requesting a ban on import of the devices into the U.S. was designed to gain leverage in its negotiations with the companies.

The ITC's decision to grant an investigation had not been unexpected, as it typically agrees to address such issues. It remains unlikely that imports of Apple's iPhone will be blocked, however, as the companies are much more likely to resolve the impasse prior to the implementation of any such measures.

Article Link: U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Inquiry Into Apple, RIM After Kodak Complaint (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/17/u-s-international-trade-commission-opens-inquiry-into-apple-rim-after-kodak-complaint/)

[LeoFio]

As discussed before, Kodak actually has a point on this one and is going about it in a professional manner, unlike some companies...nokia...
Many other companies pay the royalty fee to Kodak, and Apple should not be any different.

[dmcdan0]

...how to lose friends and alienate people

[jav6454]

Apple should pay Kodak if Kodak proves the patents are there and related to Apple's iStuff.

I see they are not pursuing a huge lawsuit, rather just looking for the fee they are entitled. That is good, because it means Kodak is not another patent troll or jealous and dying company *cough* Nokia *cough*.

[ShiftyPig]

Apple should pay Kodak if Kodak proves the patents are there and related to Apple's iStuff.

I see they are not pursuing a huge lawsuit, rather just looking for the fee they are entitled. That is good, because it means Kodak is not another patent troll or jealous and dying company *cough* Nokia *cough*.

Bit insulting that a patent troll sells more phones than Apple tbf.

[Stella]

Apple should pay Kodak if Kodak proves the patents are there and related to Apple's iStuff.

I see they are not pursuing a huge lawsuit, rather just looking for the fee they are entitled. That is good, because it means Kodak is not another patent troll or jealous and dying company *cough* Nokia *cough*.

LOL.

Laugh of the day.

Unlike Apple, Nokia increased its smartphone marketshare in 2009 Q4, and increased its profits ( like Apple ). Doesn't sound like the hallmarks of a dying company.

Nokia had been talking to Apple for quite some time before launching a lawsuit - then Apple counter suited and the games began - Apple are no better.

Nokia Patent trolls? I think you need to learn the definition of the phrase 'patent trolls'.

[*LTD*]

LOL.

Laugh of the day.

Unlike Apple, Nokia increased its smartphone marketshare in 2009 Q4, and increased its profits ( like Apple ). Doesn't sound like the hallmarks of a dying company.

Anyone can flood the market with superfluity and then turn around and claim an increased share.

[Daphtdazz]

Seems to me that Kodak is going about this very fairly, and Apple should really pay them what's due. I mean, I don't think it is seriously going to affect their cash-flow somehow, and like this it's just making them look like pricks.

[niuniu]

Kudos to Kodak, they're handling this very professionally.

[Marfnarfle]

Bit insulting that a patent troll sells more phones than Apple tbf.

Considering Apple only manufactures one phone and has been in the game for alot less time, I would say they've done a pretty good job!

[mccoma]

I consider Kodak a patent troll given the stretch and home-court advantage they used on Sun.

[Westside guy]

It'd be nice to have more specifics on this, since it refers to "ways to preview images" - so it's apparently not related to Kodak's horde of patents on actual imaging tech (e.g. various CCD-related technologies like Bayer filtering).

While I realize it's completely irrelevant to the actual legal case, the specifics would make it easier to determine if this case seems reasonable or if it's another one of those silly obvious patents that seem to be everywhere (along the lines of "a method to put on a pair of pants").

Certainly Kodak has spent lots of research money and deserves to be recompensed for stuff they've developed - however that doesn't preclude the possibility this doesn't fall into that category. It's just not possible to tell, since the story lacks any substantial information.

[jo0]

the only people that complain about success are those that feel like they are losing money over it...

[lilo777]

Anyone can flood the market with superfluity and then turn around and claim an increased share.

Are you talking about iPhone? Just kidding :D

[wizard]

Apple should pay Kodak if Kodak proves the patents are there and related to Apple's iStuff.

I see they are not pursuing a huge lawsuit, rather just looking for the fee they are entitled. That is good, because it means Kodak is not another patent troll or jealous and dying company *cough* Nokia *cough*.


Sad to say but it is a reality, especially considering how many people I know that have been tapped there.

Now that doesn't mean they don't have a point or patent to argue about but it is pretty clear they want to establish revenues streams based on their patents. Management has pretty much said so. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing but it is no substitute for innovation and technology development.

It will be very interesting to see the facts laid out here. Sadly it sounds like a software patent issues which if so sucks.


Dave

[marksman]

Oh great. Shipments will be stopped because of all the weirdos who need every device to take pictures.

See why it is good not to have a camera on an iPad? No lawsuits from Kodak!

[scott911]

I support kodak, I've never known them to not be a good, ethical company.

[Darkroom]

"Patent Troll" is both overused and meaningless. it's like calling someone a "Life Troll" for living. please stop.

[Undecided]

There seems to be an uptick in these sorts of complaints/procedures. Nokia vs. Apple, Apple vs. Nokia, now RIM, Kodak, etc.

A lot of patents are held as a defensive measure - if they sue us, we can sue them right back. A sort of patent mutual assured destruction.

With this uptick, though, it seems like things are starting to spin out of control. Where will it end? What is gained by having every tech company suing* every other tech company?

*Suing, or complaining to some commission, etc.

[JAT]

Apple should pay Kodak if Kodak proves the patents are there and related to Apple's iStuff.

I see they are not pursuing a huge lawsuit, rather just looking for the fee they are entitled. That is good, because it means Kodak is not another patent troll or jealous and dying company *cough* Nokia *cough*.

Uh, it's not? I'd say they are very similar, except that Kodak hasn't been on top in any way for years.

[jav6454]

LOL.

Laugh of the day.

Unlike Apple, Nokia increased its smartphone marketshare in 2009 Q4, and increased its profits ( like Apple ). Doesn't sound like the hallmarks of a dying company.

Nokia had been talking to Apple for quite some time before launching a lawsuit - then Apple counter suited and the games began - Apple are no better.

Nokia Patent trolls? I think you need to learn the definition of the phrase 'patent trolls'.

Well I consider patent troll anyone like Nokia who is trying to ban a product they don't even compete against. Example, Mac and iPods. Nokia is celphone and should only seek to ban iPhone imports and not everything Apple.

Also selling small, gimped and voice only phones to third world countries does not make them a market leader in Apples playing area (smartphones). Increased smartphone marketshare? I'd like to see a reference to that because I can produce various references where Symbian (and nokia phones) are loosing market share. Just like IE bleeds it.

Uh, it's not? I'd say they are very similar, except that Kodak hasn't been on top in any way for years.

It is not good that Kodak is dying. What is good is that Kodak is handling this the best way possible, and not looking to ban stuff or get exorbitant amounts of cash in claims of damages. Nokia on the other hand wants to get a big fat paycheck for the iPhone and from stuff they don't even make, like Macs; and on top of that they want to ban all Apple imports (all as in no more Macs) into the US.

That is why Nokia is such a looser company and patent troll.

[mr.steevo]

Hi,

With all these patents floating around I soon won't be able to fart without infringing on a patent.

s.

[arjaosx]

Kudos to Kodak, they're handling this very professionally.

With the case against Psystar, I sided with Apple and hated Psystar.

With Nokia...they may have a point but I dislike their motives I am with Apple.

With Kodak on the same issue I am with Kodak, just because they approached this in a very professional manner. If Nokia handled it this way then I would have not disliked them.

[joueboy]

There is no doubt that some Kodak claims regarding some of its patents is valid. Previewing the image as their patent claim? Come on! Apple is been in a computer business for a very long time too. We all know that since back then we are previewing images on our computer screen. So what's the difference between my iPhone and my 2-3 decade old computer? It's just the size and the processing power adding some chips to put a calling capability. Therefore iPhone is a computer the smaller version of Lisa, iMac, Powerbook and so on and so forth. Only it has it's own version of OS and some limitations in functionality. As mentioned both parties cannot come up with decision that favors Kodak interest. Don't get me wrong, Apple is willing to pay what is due only the reasonable right amount. They already paid the company who produced the components like the camera, screen, processors and all the chips that comprises this device.

[escap0]

Ladies and Gents.. We may now have another reason why the camera was not included in the ipad even though the slot was machined.

[Stella]

1. Definition of patent troll - here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

2. Symbian smartphones are sold worldwide, as are all Nokia phones.

Nokia are market leaders, like or not. They are one of the top sellers - therefore, market leaders, and also pioneers.

3. Marketshare is marketshare - the more products you sell - its all the same - marketshare. Nokia make large profits oselling phones - its in their interest in selling as many units as possible.

Nokia's strategy of selling to emerging markets is a good strategy - manufacturer phones cheap enough for the population to buy, builds brand recognition / loyalty and more income. Whats wrong with that - unless you an elitist who think only the rich should be able to afford cell phones.

Emerging markets offer a huge potential consumer base. And there you are belittling Nokia for going after a potential huge market!!!


Well I consider patent troll anyone like Nokia who is trying to ban a product they don't even compete against. Example, Mac and iPods. Nokia is celphone and should only seek to ban iPhone imports and not everything Apple.

Also selling small, gimped and voice only phones to third world countries does not make them a market leader in Apples playing area (smartphones). Increased smartphone marketshare? I'd like to see a reference to that because I can produce various references where Symbian (and nokia phones) are loosing market share. Just like IE bleeds it.

<Snip BS>

[QUOTE=jav6454;9293539]
That is why Nokia is such a looser company and patent troll.

Apple should learn to pay royalties.

Where are those new Macbooks?

[jav6454]

1. Definition of patent troll - here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll


Really? You post a wikipedia link for a definition that depends on the person?


2. Symbian smartphones are sold worldwide, as are all Nokia phones.

Nokia are market leaders, like or not. They are one of the top sellers - therefore, market leaders, and also pioneers.


Yes, they are top sellers, but not in smart phones, just check out the latest market share stats, and you will see they have a decline in market share thanks to RIM, Android and Apple.

Market leaders? No, that stopped long ago back in 2004/5. Pioneers? What new device that doesn't mimic one of the Android or iPhones has Nokia come up with? Nokia at this point is a me-too company.


3. Marketshare is marketshare - the more products you sell - its all the same - marketshare. Nokia make large profits oselling phones - its in their interest in selling as many units as possible.

Nokia's strategy of selling to emerging markets is a good strategy - manufacturer phones cheap enough for the population to buy, builds brand recognition / loyalty and more income. Whats wrong with that - unless you an elitist who think only the rich should be able to afford cell phones.

Emerging markets offer a huge potential consumer base. And there you are belittling Nokia for going after a potential huge market!!!

Not rich elitist, but using the market share of dumb phones to prove your argument is flawed.




Apple should learn to pay royalties.

Where are those new Macbooks?

Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

[Erwin-Br]

Anyone can flood the market with superfluity and then turn around and claim an increased share.

That's just your petty and subjective opinion. Millions of people who own a Nokia phone and made them the market leader they are disagree with you. :D

[Kevin Winsness]

Everyone wants to try and ride Apple's coattails.

[Denarius]

...how to lose friends and alienate people

I'm guessing you're referring to Apple rather than Kodak?

[Erwin-Br]

Market leaders? No, that stopped long ago back in 2004/5. Pioneers? What new device that doesn't mimic one of the Android or iPhones has Nokia come up with? Nokia at this point is a me-too company.

Nokia was the market leader in smartphone shipments, with an estimated 2009 market share of 36.4 percent, followed by Research in Motion (BlackBerry) at 19.4 percent, Apple at 14.9 percent and HTC at 6.3 percent. (Source: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222900036)

And look up in the dictionary what a pioneer is. Hint: Apple wasn't one of the companies that pioneered the phone market. Copying a concept (and improving on it) isn't considered pioneering.

[jav6454]

Nokia was the market leader in smartphone shipments, with an estimated 2009 market share of 36.4 percent, followed by Research in Motion (BlackBerry) at 19.4 percent, Apple at 14.9 percent and HTC at 6.3 percent. (Source: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222900036)

And look up in the dictionary what a pioneer is. Hint: Apple wasn't one of the companies that pioneered the phone market. Copying a concept (and improving on it) isn't considered pioneering.

I never said Apple is in the phone region. However, like I said, that 36.4 market share is slowly decreasing and going into the likes of RIM, Apple and Google.

Regarding Nokia, I never said they were not pioneers in their past time. Right now, they are not and are merely doing a me-too to something they should have dominated.

[Erwin-Br]

I never said Apple is in the phone region. However, like I said, that 36.4 market share is slowly decreasing and going into the likes of RIM, Apple and Google.

Nokia's marketshare went up with 10 percent in Q1 of 2010. Doesn't say anything, except that you can't predict the future. I'm sure Apple will eat a bit more of the pie, but I think Nokia can survive on their strong position in the business phone market alone. Their biggest competitor there is RIM.

Regarding Nokia, I never said they were not pioneers in their past time. Right now, they are not and are merely doing a me-too to something they should have dominated.

Nokia is still dominating the market. It's not the most innovative company anymore, but that's a different issue. Of course they follow Apple on certain features. Which company doesn't? That's the way things work. Maybe in the future Nokia (or another company) will invent the next big thing, and Apple will implement it in their designs as well. It has happened before.

[eastcoastsurfer]

Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

It's called being ruthless in your response when other companies try to screw you. Apple does this ALL THE TIME. In fact they are known for being ruthless when it comes to IP, secrets, lawsuits, etc... Don't call foul when someone does it back to them.

[cmaier]

Patent attorney here. Kodak is not a troll, so let's stop that, eh?

The claims of the patent are very broad, covering pretty much any device that shows a preview image on its own screen while also capturing an image. Given the fairly late priority date of the patent application, it may not be valid, but that remains to be seen (and I certainly am unaware of any invalidating prior art.)

Should be fun - the FTC moves very quickly - faster even than the Rocket Docket in Delaware.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Anyone can flood the market with superfluity and then turn around and claim an increased share.

Ok then do it. Probably beats your day job.

[ShiftyPig]

Everyone wants to try and ride Apple's coattails.

Someone didn't read the article. :rolleyes:

[jav6454]

Patent attorney here. Kodak is not a troll, so let's stop that, eh?

The claims of the patent are very broad, covering pretty much any device that shows a preview image on its own screen while also capturing an image. Given the fairly late priority date of the patent application, it may not be valid, but that remains to be seen (and I certainly am unaware of any invalidating prior art.)

Should be fun - the FTC moves very quickly - faster even than the Rocket Docket in Delaware.

No one has said Kodak is a patent troll. I think so far everyone agrees Kodak has done the professional and corporate thing to do, except Nokia, who wants to ride on anything Apple made from iPhone to Macs.

[cmaier]

No one has said Kodak is a patent troll. I think so far everyone agrees Kodak has done the professional and corporate thing to do, except Nokia, who wants to ride on anything Apple made from iPhone to Macs.

Nokia isn't a troll either. They may want a free ride, but that doesn't make them a troll.

[satcomer]

To me these software patents are getting broader and broader. Since when did Kodak have a computer software preview on a computer program? These patents on ideas are getting ludicrous. Plus why isn't HTC involved in the suit also?

[cmaier]

To me these software patents are getting broader and broader. Since when did Kodak have a computer software preview on a computer program? These patents on ideas are getting ludicrous. Plus why isn't HTC involved in the suit also?

Sigh. It's not a software patent. It's a hardware patent. There is nothing ludicrous about it.

[kernkraft]

No one has said Kodak is a patent troll. I think so far everyone agrees Kodak has done the professional and corporate thing to do, except Nokia, who wants to ride on anything Apple made from iPhone to Macs.

'Troll' is one of those overused and pointless words that Macrumors should get rid of. It's so easy to label companies and people that even people, who are unable to construct a decent argument started using them. Actually, is there anybody, who can and still uses this pointless labeling?


By the way, Nokia is a very respectable company and you don't hear their names in connection with lawsuits as often as Apple's.



I bought my first Nokia phone over a decade ago and I still remember their styling in the nineties, along with their publishing materials. They were already more stylish then. They still use this sleek appearance that Apple has been using for a while but Nokia also uses colours - something that Apple has to remind itself from time to time. Just a picture of my second Nokia from the second half of the nineties, several years before the iPod Nanos got colour. Of course, Apple has also had a period in the last few years of the nineties, where they had some very stylish and sleek machines. But I think it was probably Nokia that inspired Apple that simple mobile devices with sleek styling sell better than Apple will ever manage with its computers.

[satcomer]

Sigh. It's not a software patent. It's a hardware patent. There is nothing ludicrous about it.

Sigh. Did you read the article at all?

The civil suit, only against Apple, concerns that patent and additional ones for digital cameras and computer processes.

Looks like Kodak is going after the iSight Camera and Image Capture.

[cmaier]

Sigh. Did you read the article at all?



Looks like Kodak is going after the iSight Camera and Image Capture.

I read the friggin patent, and I'm a patent attorney, so I know how to read a patent.\

How about you explain to me where the following claim has anything to do with software:


1. An electronic still camera for initiating capture of a still image while previewing motion images on a display, comprising:
(a) an image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites covered by a mosaic pattern of color filters including at least three different colors for capturing images of a scene, each captured image having a first number of color pixel values provided in a first color pattern;

(b) motion processing means for generating from the captured images, a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors and representative of a series of motion images to be previewed, the second number of color pixel values being less than the first number of color pixel values, and the second color pattern being different from the first color pattern;

(c) a color display for presenting at least some of the motion images of the series of motion images corresponding to the captured images of the scene, the color display having an arrangement of color display pixels including at least three different colors in a pattern different from the first color pattern;

(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;

(e) still processing means for generating a third number of color pixel values including at least three different colors representative of a processed captured still image; and

(f) a digital memory for storing the processed captured still image.


After you do that, how about you show me where, in the Bloomberg article OR in macrumors' summary, it says anything about software?

[AnalyzeThis]

Everyone wants to try and ride Apple's coattails.

far from it... they are getting it on as we yapp:D

[kernkraft]

Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

Er, sorry to interrupt the 'insult' mode, but the answer to your question is: China. Just where they make the Apple computers. And where are they selling them? Almost in every developed country. This is a link to the American site:

http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdetailbymodel_10500_10101_-1_10000543_Y?intc=dev-fw-ilc-hm_tsr05-con-na-nokiacom-us-na-bkl_002

[JakeDTS]

To go further with the idea that this could be why there was no camera on iPad, could this be why the iPod touch didn't get the camera most of us expected? Or why the nano only does video? Did this patent come to light after iPhone 3GS? I hope we don't lose cameras over this! If they put a camera on the shuffle they won't be able to infringe on the display part!! :D

[cmaier]

To go further with the idea that this could be why there was no camera on iPad, could this be why the iPod touch didn't get the camera most of us expected? Or why the nano only does video? Did this patent come to light after iPhone 3GS? I hope we don't lose cameras over this! If they put a camera on the shuffle they won't be able to infringe on the display part!! :D

Almost no chance that this had anything to do with it.

[wlh99]

Really? You post a wikipedia link for a definition that depends on the person?



Yes, they are top sellers, but not in smart phones, just check out the latest market share stats, and you will see they have a decline in market share thanks to RIM, Android and Apple.

Market leaders? No, that stopped long ago back in 2004/5. Pioneers? What new device that doesn't mimic one of the Android or iPhones has Nokia come up with? Nokia at this point is a me-too company.



Not rich elitist, but using the market share of dumb phones to prove your argument is flawed.



Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

Kodak doesn't make TV's. Nokia doesn't make TV's, and Apple doesn't make TV's. So if Sony comes out with a TV with Kodak's camera tech, Nokia's wifi tech, and Apple's video tech, does Sony get a free ride? Hell no.

Nokia is seeking to stop shipping of products that use their technology. Nokia has tried to come to a deal amicably first and that route failed so they are getting nasty.

Kodak is doing exactly the same thing, seeking to stop the shipping of products that use their technology.

[Stephen123]

This patent datas from 2001. The prior art starts with the Sony Mavica in 1981. Anything about this patent which might be valid is not very broad. Every broad claim is invalidated by extensive prior art.

[cmaier]

This patent datas from 2001. The prior art starts with the Sony Mavica in 1981. Anything about this patent which might be valid is not very broad. Every broad claim is invalidated by extensive prior art.

You have the date wrong. The relevant date is Dec. 30, 1994.

According to wikipedia, the Sony Mavica did not have a display in 1981, and did not produce stills. It therefore did not contain at least the following elements, and does not invalidate this patent:


1. An electronic still camera for initiating capture of a still image while previewing motion images on a display, comprising:
(a) an image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites covered by a mosaic pattern of color filters including at least three different colors for capturing images of a scene, each captured image having a first number of color pixel values provided in a first color pattern;

(b) motion processing means for generating from the captured images, a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors and representative of a series of motion images to be previewed, the second number of color pixel values being less than the first number of color pixel values, and the second color pattern being different from the first color pattern;

(c) a color display for presenting at least some of the motion images of the series of motion images corresponding to the captured images of the scene, the color display having an arrangement of color display pixels including at least three different colors in a pattern different from the first color pattern;

(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;

(e) still processing means for generating a third number of color pixel values including at least three different colors representative of a processed captured still image; and

(f) a digital memory for storing the processed captured still image.

[ReyesJonathan]

everybody wants a piece of the pie....

[Ironduke]

Sick em Kodak

Yeah Gitsome!:cool:

[knightlie]

Uh, it's not? I'd say they are very similar, except that Kodak hasn't been on top in any way for years.

No, of course they're not patent trolls. Kodak have legitimate patents and have used them to make products (you are apparently unaware that Kodak make cameras) - patent trolls sit around waiting for someone to violate their IP and then sue over it.

Kodak seem to have exhausted every other avenue; this smells of Apple arrogantly holding out for the lowest possible fee - they aren't exactly strapped for cash, after all. I'm sure they can afford a couple of bucks from their 40% margins.


everybody wants a piece of the pie....

Everybody wants what's owed to them. If Apple owed your company patent license fees you'd sing a different tune.


Why are some people blind to the fact that Apple are just as able to shaft companies as any other corporation?

[conradwt]

Sad to say but it is a reality, especially considering how many people I know that have been tapped there.

Now that doesn't mean they don't have a point or patent to argue about but it is pretty clear they want to establish revenues streams based on their patents. Management has pretty much said so. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing but it is no substitute for innovation and technology development.

It will be very interesting to see the facts laid out here. Sadly it sounds like a software patent issues which if so sucks.


Dave

Dave, I agree that this does sound like a software patent issue. Thus, if this case goes to trial, Kodak will have to prove that their patent (i.e algorithms) were used and Apple has to prove the contrary.

[conradwt]

Nokia was the market leader in smartphone shipments, with an estimated 2009 market share of 36.4 percent, followed by Research in Motion (BlackBerry) at 19.4 percent, Apple at 14.9 percent and HTC at 6.3 percent. (Source: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222900036)

And look up in the dictionary what a pioneer is. Hint: Apple wasn't one of the companies that pioneered the phone market. Copying a concept (and improving on it) isn't considered pioneering.

I would recommend reading this report on the subscriber marketshare because it's a better indication of what people are using within US:

http://www.comscore.com/index.php/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/comScore_Reports_December_2009_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share

Now, Gartner.com is one of the best for generating these types of reports and here's the worldwide marketshare sale for Q3 of 2009:

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1224645

Note: The Q4 2009 report hasn't been published but the numbers should
look even better for Apple's investment in the UK and Asia regions.

From the Gartner report, it's very impressive for Apple to have 17% of worldwide marketshare sales in less than 3 years.

[Erwin-Br]

From the Gartner report, it's very impressive for Apple to have 17% of worldwide marketshare sales in less than 3 years.

Yes. Impressive... Eh, what's your point? Nokia is still market leader, that's what the discussion was about.

[cmaier]

Dave, I agree that this does sound like a software patent issue. Thus, if this case goes to trial, Kodak will have to prove that their patent (i.e algorithms) were used and Apple has to prove the contrary.

1) it's a hardware patent. See my previous posts.
2) kodak has to prove that apple hardware contains each element of at least one patent claim (a display, a motion means, etc.)
3) apple has to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on kodak to prove that more likely than not, each element of at least one claim is present in apple's devices. If apple wishes, it may allege that the patent claims are invalid. In that case apple has the burden of proof (and it's a higher burden - clear and convincing). Apple may also allege that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, in which case they also have the burden of proof for that.

[JAT]

No, of course they're not patent trolls. Kodak have legitimate patents and have used them to make products (you are apparently unaware that Kodak make cameras) - patent trolls sit around waiting for someone to violate their IP and then sue over it.

Kodak seem to have exhausted every other avenue; this smells of Apple arrogantly holding out for the lowest possible fee - they aren't exactly strapped for cash, after all. I'm sure they can afford a couple of bucks from their 40% margins.




Everybody wants what's owed to them. If Apple owed your company patent license fees you'd sing a different tune.


Why are some people blind to the fact that Apple are just as able to shaft companies as any other corporation?

Hmm. My point is that Nokia did the exact same thing as Kodak. They went to Apple in a civil, business-like manner. Later, after the two companies started arguing, it turned ugly and both started threatening each other with ludicrous things. (like blocking PC shipments over a cellphone dispute) This news report is early in whatever happens with Kodak and their patents. This could also turn ugly.

My other point is that Nokia is actually on top of the cellphone industry, while Kodak is treading water attempting to survive. I wouldn't say either is a patent troll since they are both very active in their respective industries. But Kodak potentially is in a more troll-like position than the number 1 producer of cellphones on the planet.

It's called logic people, try some. The fact that some people don't like Nokia's current phones doesn't make them a patent troll. Neither does the fact that many people have apparently forgotten all but the latest event in the Nokia vs Apple saga.

SJ shares quite a bit of blame as he seems to have a policy of not paying for previous patent use. Apple may be the best innovator in the PC industry, but other companies have done things, as well. He needs to grow up and get along with others. (what, did he skip kindergarden?)

[kudukudu]

Those who can do. Those who can't sue.

[cmaier]

Those who can do. Those who can't sue.

Those who don't like their s*$& ripped off also sue.

[hill60]

So where do you think this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake) would fit in, given the collaboration between Apple and Kodak in it's development, prior to 1994 and the obviousness of displaying the images it captured on a computer screen at different resolutions?

Prior art?

Preexisting licensing agreements?

Patent attorney here. Kodak is not a troll, so let's stop that, eh?

The claims of the patent are very broad, covering pretty much any device that shows a preview image on its own screen while also capturing an image. Given the fairly late priority date of the patent application, it may not be valid, but that remains to be seen (and I certainly am unaware of any invalidating prior art.)

Should be fun - the FTC moves very quickly - faster even than the Rocket Docket in Delaware.