Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 17, 2012, 09:44 AM   #26
Gasu E.
macrumors 68020
 
Gasu E.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Not far from Boston, MA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordylove View Post
*SMH* THIS is the reason patents should NOT be transferable. Patents are supposed to protect IPs, not to be traded as a business on its own!
These types of outfits exist because large corporations used to violate the IP of amsll inventors with impunity. The little guy never had the financial resources to sue the big guy. So companies like this popped up that paid off the original inventors so they at least ended up some compensation for their efforts.
__________________
Please stop boring me.
Gasu E. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 09:44 AM   #27
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by miles01110 View Post
...but how will they sue each other if they're all on the same team?

Oh Miles. There is precendent fo rthis.

Quote:
In the largest exchange of intellectual property rights in the Internet age, a powerhouse consortium led by Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT) has agreed to buy from the bankrupt Nortel Corp. access to more than 6,000 patents covering key telecommunications technologies, from Internet services to wireless data networking.

The consortium, which includes Sony (SE), Research in Motion (RIMM), Ericsson (ERIC) and EMC (EMC), bid $4.5 billion for Nortel's patent portfolio. "The size and dollar value for this transaction is unprecedented," said George Riedel, chief strategy officer of Nortel in a press release.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 09:44 AM   #28
lucas107
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
teaming up but for all the wrong reasons
lucas107 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 09:55 AM   #29
Koodauw
macrumors 68040
 
Koodauw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison
How is this not considered collusion to keep the price down? Or is that legal in this case?
Koodauw is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:04 AM   #30
alent1234
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koodauw View Post
How is this not considered collusion to keep the price down? Or is that legal in this case?
collusion is illegal for pricing products, this is property
alent1234 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:05 AM   #31
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by whooleytoo View Post
Apple, Google and Samsung teaming up? The end of the world is nigh people. Grab the one you love and hold on tight...
There are three possible outcomes:

1. Apple+Microsoft get the patents for $2bn, Google+Samsung are in trouble.
2. Google+Samsung get the patents for $2bn, Apple+Microsoft are in trouble.
3. Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Samsung get the patents for $500 million.

I am sure Kodak prefers outcome (1) or (2), but there is no reason why these four companies wouldn't prefer outcome (3). Even if the $2bn winner, whoever that is, can extort $1bn from the two losers, whoever that is, they would still be down $1bn.
gnasher729 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:10 AM   #32
Wrathwitch
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordylove View Post
*SMH* THIS is the reason patents should NOT be transferable. Patents are supposed to protect IPs, not to be traded as a business on its own!
I agree with this or would like to see it taken a step sideways that companies or "patent trolls" who do not produce products where a patent can be used or incorporated should not be allowed to bid or purchase these patents.
__________________
Life is too short to dance with ugly men!
Wrathwitch is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:21 AM   #33
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathwitch View Post
I agree with this or would like to see it taken a step sideways that companies or "patent trolls" who do not produce products where a patent can be used or incorporated should not be allowed to bid or purchase these patents.
THIS! That has always been my stand on the subject. Produce a product or your patents are worthless.
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:22 AM   #34
ksgant
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
They're teaming up to fight off the juggernaut that's....um...

Wait, who could even take one of these companies on individually, much less together?
__________________

2011 16gig iPhone 4s
2012 16gig iPad "3rd Generation"
2012 27" iMac i5 w/16Gigs of RAM
ksgant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:22 AM   #35
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordylove View Post
*SMH* THIS is the reason patents should NOT be transferable. Patents are supposed to protect IPs, not to be traded as a business on its own!
I agree. I wish it meant that the patent lapsed or effectively became public domain. I suppose you could get situations where a company liquidates all other assets and the residual 'shell' company is just a collection of patents. In other words, it just changes how they sell their assets (if they don't intend to return from bankruptcy). I suppose they could spin off a company to achieve the same effect in that case, though. In that case, I guess you'd need to make patents a nontransferrable asset in the case of an acquisition, but I don't know if that's the right thing either. And could they "merge" to prevent this? It doesn't seem straightforward to me.
chrmjenkins is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:22 AM   #36
wizard
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: May 2003
This is so funny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geckotek View Post

Edit: The REAL question is, who gets the fissile material?

You do realize that Kodak had their own nuclear reactor in the basement of one of their buildings. It was just recently decommissioned so the fissile material is gone now.
wizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:25 AM   #37
powers74
macrumors 68000
 
powers74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: At the bend in the river
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit Cake View Post
It's a Kodak moment.
Yep, the last one.
__________________
"Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."
powers74 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:26 AM   #38
Geckotek
macrumors G3
 
Geckotek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
You do realize that Kodak had their own nuclear reactor in the basement of one of their buildings.
Why would I make that statement if I did't realize that???
__________________
Gecko Art | Facebook | flickr
Geckotek is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:35 AM   #39
BC2009
macrumors 68000
 
BC2009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
This could very well be an indication of behind-the-scenes settlement talks between Apple & Samsung even as the court case continues.
BC2009 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:37 AM   #40
ristlin
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
This is as shocking as Superman and Doomsday teaming up to stop world hunger
ristlin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:38 AM   #41
tbrinkma
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrmjenkins View Post
I agree. I wish it meant that the patent lapsed or effectively became public domain. I suppose you could get situations where a company liquidates all other assets and the residual 'shell' company is just a collection of patents. In other words, it just changes how they sell their assets (if they don't intend to return from bankruptcy). I suppose they could spin off a company to achieve the same effect in that case, though. In that case, I guess you'd need to make patents a nontransferrable asset in the case of an acquisition, but I don't know if that's the right thing either. And could they "merge" to prevent this? It doesn't seem straightforward to me.
Easy. Just make it so that a patent belongs to the person or people named as inventors on it. Make them non-transferable, but allow the inventors to license them however they wish (iow, this part remains exactly the same).

Do the same with copyrights, and you'll see the content industries fighting for *reasonable* copyright terms instead of 'forever minus a day'.
__________________
17" MBP (unibody), 2.66GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HDD; iPhone 4s 64GB/Black
tbrinkma is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:42 AM   #42
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrinkma View Post
Easy. Just make it so that a patent belongs to the person or people named as inventors on it. Make them non-transferable, but allow the inventors to license them however they wish (iow, this part remains exactly the same).

Do the same with copyrights, and you'll see the content industries fighting for *reasonable* copyright terms instead of 'forever minus a day'.
So you'd rather companies bid to hire a person associated with a patent rather than the company? What happens if multiple people are credited? Patents are no longer issued to companies in any form?
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 10:57 AM   #43
bushido
macrumors 601
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: España y Germany
bitting on patents just shows how completely retarded software patents really are. its obvs not their invention and they just want to get their hands on it to have the upper hand in all those patent "wars". freakin redic

so much for "protecting your invention"
bushido is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 11:04 AM   #44
Sith Vol
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Collierville, TN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Compile 'em all View Post
My reaction when I saw the headline

Image
Lmao
Sith Vol is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 11:20 AM   #45
JHankwitz
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Send a message via AIM to JHankwitz
Quote:
Originally Posted by whooleytoo View Post
Apple, Google and Samsung teaming up? The end of the world is nigh people. Grab the one you love and hold on tight...
All three know that making these patents useable by all the major players will prevent a lot of litigation in the future. I'm surprised that all the lawyers aren’t protesting louder since this will cut into their game significantly.
JHankwitz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 12:16 PM   #46
nick_elt
macrumors 68000
 
nick_elt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Late April fools?
nick_elt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 12:19 PM   #47
vrDrew
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
a world in which the losers of the past would impose a massive tax on today's winners by playing them off against each other
Florian Mueller of Foss Patents (Emphasis mine)

Its worth noting that over the past couple of years several tech firms, including Apple and Google, have spent more acquiring and defending patents than they have spent on R&D creating new technology. From the perspective of consumers, and the advancement of communications and computing tech, this is not a good situation.

The fact of the matter is that the Kodak patents are likely of only moderate value - say a few hundred million dollars. And it is no one's interest (save perhaps that of Kodak's bankruptcy lawyers and creditors) for anyone - Samsung, HTC, Apple, etc. - to pay billions of dollars for them. If these companies can structure a purchase in such a way that nobody overpays, with the caveat that any acquired IP will be licensed on a truly FRAND basis, then I think everyone will come out ahead. How they do that without provoking Anti-Trust action is somewhat of a mystery.
vrDrew is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 12:22 PM   #48
bedifferent
macrumors Demi-God
 
bedifferent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelScum View Post
Apple gets the Kodak patents every Monday, Wednesday and Friday

Google gets them Tues, Thurs and Sat

Samsung gets Sunday and should consider itself lucky.
This made me laugh as well, well done

On a more personal note, having family and friends in the Rochester, NY area, this is a sad time for many.
bedifferent is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 12:48 PM   #49
Stephen123
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
This looks like a setup to start suing Canon, Nikon and Sony.
Stephen123 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2012, 01:18 PM   #50
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLikeTurtles! View Post
i rmember when kodak was the sh-.it

now....not so much lol
They still are - just in a different way.
Laird Knox is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Covering Defense Costs and Damage Awards for Four Patents in Apple/Samsung Case MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 62 Apr 24, 2014 10:44 AM
Apple Details Five Patents Violated by Samsung Galaxy S4 and Google Now MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 333 May 28, 2013 02:58 PM
Apple and Google Teaming Up on $500 Million Bid for Kodak Patents MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 51 Dec 26, 2012 09:48 PM
Samsung can sue Apple for LTE patents. ARSC Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 33 Sep 1, 2012 03:16 AM
Apple and Google Lead Separate Groups in Bidding for Kodak Patents MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 117 Aug 1, 2012 09:08 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC