Apple and Google Lead Separate Groups in Bidding for Kodak Patents

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by Peace

You need to read up on the lawsuit between Apple and Kodak to understand why.

You need to explain why if Google wins the bid it has to pay nothing to Apple/Microsoft/etc

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by SPUY767

Seems like Goog trying to buddy up with its Android OEMs could have antitrust implications. Google needs a cudgel to use against Apple, they will pay dearly for these. We all know, however, that no one's pockets are deeper than Apple's.

It is a two way street. It will smell of anti trust as well with the power houses on the other side pretty anti Android and the biggest one sue happy against Android with crapents.

[Amazing Iceman]

So it's going to be a quite juicy auction.

Kodak is going to make some serious dough.

[Adey]

Originally Posted by lzyprson

Because this defeats the purpose of Apple wanting to turn Google back into a search & email provider.

I think you'll find that it's Google who want to destroy and down-grade their rivals, having teamed with Samsung, HTC et al - THEIR partners! Apple, on the other hand, have intrinsically teamed with a rival. ie. They're playing fair.

The main gist being that you might want to read the article properly before you choose to make statements like that again.

[newagemac]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

Every time I see these threads about patent wars I think to myself how life could be different if patent wars existed years ago. For example, right now every can of cola/energy drinks is basically the same. The mechanism to open the can is identical. What if years ago there was a patent on a "aluminum can opening device"? We may have a half dozen different ways to open a can?

What about patenting a door as a "means to get out of a room that has 4 walls and no opening"?

How about patenting an automobile as having exactly 4 wheels? Or patenting a round steering wheel? How about the order in which the pedals are on the floor (clutch, brake, gas)? Could we be driving around in cars where the brake and gas are on different sides because having them in the same order would have infringed on a patent?

Yes, crazy stuff like this goes through my head, but at the end of the day I still believe the consumer is the one that potentially loses.

Nothing you mentioned has a patent because none of them are patentable. Nothing like that is patented these days either. However, you can patent specific methods and processes for doing something. And yes there is a patent dating back to the late 1800's for steering wheels because it states a particular method for using a steering wheel to do something in a unique way... in that case it was related to a new thing at the time called automobiles.

This is the same thing Apple and Microsoft do with their OS patents and Google does with their search patents.

There are also things called trademarks which prevent others from KIRFing and profiting off of the look and feel of your designs. That's a whole different area than patents though.

[mingoglia]

Originally Posted by newagemac

Nothing you mentioned has a patent because none of them are patentable. Nothing like that is patented these days either. However, you can patent specific methods and processes for doing something. And yes there is a patent dating back to the late 1800's for steering wheels because it states a particular method for using a steering wheel to do something in a unique way... in that case it was related to a new thing at the time called automobiles.

This is the same thing Apple and Microsoft do with their OS patents and Google does with their search patents.

There are also things called trademarks which prevent others from KIRFing and profiting off of the look and feel of your designs. That's a whole different area than patents though.

I thought one of the complaints was copying Apples "slide to unlock"? Wouldn't that be similar to the tab on the top of a aluminum can to open it?

[chrmjenkins]

Originally Posted by Amazing Iceman

Kodak is going to make some serious dough.

Something tells me the cash will be used to meet the financial obligations of a bankrupt company.

[Adey]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

I thought one of the complaints was copying Apples "slide to unlock"? Wouldn't that be similar to the tab on the top of a aluminum can to open it?

Or like TetraPak. Which is patented. Or like a dog food can in which the entire lid can be removed with a ring pull. Which is patented. Or a wind-up radio...

Just because something seems obvious now does not mean that the person who had the initial brainwave and worked hard to make it a reality shouldn't reap the spoils for as long as the patent system allows. These are great ideas and they aren't free!

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by Windlasher

Would love for apple to keep the printing industry running "rebranded" kodaks entry level printers are actually quite nice and the ink is cheap.

Actually Kodak is still building and selling printers. I bought one and so far so good. The wi-fi is stable and works well. Print quality is pretty good and the ink is pretty cheap.

[firewood]

Originally Posted by IzzyJG99

Interesting. I cannot imagine Kodak having many patents that are relevant in this digital age. Maybe photo printing methods and stuff like that? Weird, but interesting.

Kodak scientists and engineers only pretty much invented digital photography and much of the digital image sensor technology.

Weird is that they didn't capitalize on their digital age inventions, so much so that people like you are clueless about their inventions.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by Adey

Here's an idea: why don't all eight of the firms team up, thereby getting use of the patents for 1/8th the price, blocking out patent trolls (who probably couldn't afford them anyway, to be fair) and save themselves millions down the line by not having to constantly sue each other.

None of the eight have developed the technologies on offer, so I think they're probably more concerned with ongoing use of the patents than protecting them and having exclusive use.

Spoken like a true socialist. This week folks from all over the world are going to compete in sports for discs of gold, silver and bronze, and the associated "win" and bragging rights. There will be losers. They will have enjoyed the sportsmanship, and comraderie, but not the discs or the media attention or the many commercial benefits.

The reason there is bidding is to maximize profits to the patent owner, Kodak. The reason why bidding is done by the buyers rather than collusion as you suggest has nothing to do with whether collusion is legal. One side wins and the other loses. Patents are weapons of war. Tech companies are at war.

That's why not every device has every capability. There are factions and feifdoms. Some more dominant in some market niches and some more dominant in others.

So calm down.

Rocketman

Wanna have a real impact on lawsuits? Grossly lower the cost of bringing an action by eliminating 90% of litigation through pre-trial rulings on sub-issues and motions in limine on an informal or less formal basis. Leave the "trial" for the nut of the issue so it costs less and implies the outcome in more certain terms. Less for the lawyers and more for the victims wouldn't be all bad either. Lawyer contingent fees range from 20%-33%-40% of someone else's damages for a few months of paperwork!

[BC2009]

My thoughts are that Apple's and Microsoft's coffers are bigger than anybody's on the other side. It just depends on how much they are willing to spend for these patents.

Originally Posted by IzzyJG99

Interesting. I cannot imagine Kodak having many patents that are relevant in this digital age. Maybe photo printing methods and stuff like that? Weird, but interesting.

They kinda invented digital photography. You wouldn't know it since they were the last one on the bandwagon because of their huge investment in the photo film business, but they did in fact do the early work on digital photography and have been suing others for quite some time with those patents.

Originally Posted by SPUY767

Seems like Goog trying to buddy up with its Android OEMs could have antitrust implications. Google needs a cudgel to use against Apple, they will pay dearly for these. We all know, however, that no one's pockets are deeper than Apple's.

I don't see how it could have anti-trust implications. Microsoft and Apple bidding together is no different. Patent pools make a lot of sense for protecting your interests.

[SirYossi]

Originally Posted by IzzyJG99

Interesting. I cannot imagine Kodak having many patents that are relevant in this digital age. Maybe photo printing methods and stuff like that? Weird, but interesting.

Kodak actually was the for runner in digital camera tech and was one of if not the first company to invent digital photography. Being from Rochester NY the even is all over the news the past year or so. Most of the issues are due to mismanagement from the top executives.

[Mad-B-One]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

How about patenting an automobile as having exactly 4 wheels?

You have to be careful there. The first modern era automobile had 3 wheels. Also, it didn't have a steering wheel but a lever. And the Automobile inventions itself was patented. Numerous times - since the 17th cetury.

[Adey]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

Spoken like a true socialist. This week folks from all over the world are going to compete in sports for discs of gold, silver and bronze, and the associated "win" and bragging rights. There will be losers. They will have enjoyed the sportsmanship, and comraderie, but not the discs or the media attention or the many commercial benefits.

The reason there is bidding is to maximize profits to the patent owner, Kodak. The reason why bidding is done by the buyers rather than collusion as you suggest has nothing to do with whether collusion is legal. One side wins and the other loses. Patents are weapons of war. Tech companies are at war.

That's why not every device has every capability. There are factions and feifdoms. Some more dominant in some market niches and some more dominant in others.

So calm down.

Rocketman

1/ I was talking about a one-off given the circumstances. I'm no socialist.
2/ I offer a gentle, tongue-in-cheek suggestion and you respond with a diatribe, mainly comprised of the kind of obviousness a three year old could type, and you close it off by telling ME to calm down!! Haha, classic!! If you can find your way down off your high horse why not think about opening your door and you know... getting out more..?

[firewood]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

Every time I see these threads about patent wars I think to myself how life could be different if patent wars existed years ago.

They did! Tons, massive lawsuits over stuff like who invented the telephone in the 1870's , or later the FM radio or the electronic computer. Didn't stop consumers from buying loads of phones and radios and PCs.

[Lancer]

When it comes down to it Apple should easily be able to outbid Google.

Maybe Apple should just buy up all these annoying 'little' companies, Google, Samsung, Microsoft

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by Adey

find your way down off your high horse why not think about opening your door and you know... getting out more..?

No?

[nickelt]

They really should just get a room......

[Adey]

Originally Posted by Rocketman

No?

Fair point, I guess. I'm been outside and it's not all its cracked up to be. Kudos.

[Rocketman]

Originally Posted by Adey

I'm been outside and it's not all its cracked up to be.

Dude, go outside, the graphics are amazing!

Rocketman

[Apple Poptart]

I smell a new reality show brewing...

[faroZ06]

Kodak is dead? Finally. Now my grandparents will stop asking me how to get stuff off of their Kodak cameras that require EasyShare trash to import stuff.

[nickelt]

Originally Posted by wickerman1893

With the Surface and Windows 8 coming out. I'd say it's a 3 way battle. However, I do get what you're saying and why you would think that.

?????? Read the article, how could apple be against microsoft if they co own the patents???

[Legog42]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

Every time I see these threads about patent wars I think to myself how life could be different if patent wars existed years ago. For example, right now every can of cola/energy drinks is basically the same. The mechanism to open the can is identical. What if years ago there was a patent on a "aluminum can opening device"? We may have a half dozen different ways to open a can?

What about patenting a door as a "means to get out of a room that has 4 walls and no opening"?

How about patenting an automobile as having exactly 4 wheels? Or patenting a round steering wheel? How about the order in which the pedals are on the floor (clutch, brake, gas)? Could we be driving around in cars where the brake and gas are on different sides because having them in the same order would have infringed on a patent?

Yes, crazy stuff like this goes through my head, but at the end of the day I still believe the consumer is the one that potentially loses.

A quick wiki search and you will see ALL of the items you list have been patented. Once you have a patent you can rent your idea to others. Look up pop top cans. It's amazing how many styles have been tried.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_can#section_6

----------

Originally Posted by mingoglia

I thought one of the complaints was copying Apples "slide to unlock"? Wouldn't that be similar to the tab on the top of a aluminum can to open it?

Pop tops are patented so yes they are similar