Apple, Google, and Samsung Teaming Up in Effort to Acquire Kodak Patents

[Gasu E.]

Originally Posted by Swordylove

*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.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by miles01110

...but how will they sue each other if they're all on the same team?

Oh Miles. There is precendent fo rthis.

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.

[lucas107]

teaming up but for all the wrong reasons

[Koodauw]

How is this not considered collusion to keep the price down? Or is that legal in this case?

[alent1234]

Originally Posted by Koodauw

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

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

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.

[Wrathwitch]

Originally Posted by Swordylove

*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.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by Wrathwitch

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.

[ksgant]

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?

[chrmjenkins]

Originally Posted by Swordylove

*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.

[wizard]

Originally Posted by Geckotek

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.

[powers74]

Originally Posted by Fruit Cake

It's a Kodak moment.

Yep, the last one.

[Geckotek]

Originally Posted by wizard

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???

[BC2009]

This could very well be an indication of behind-the-scenes settlement talks between Apple & Samsung even as the court case continues.

[ristlin]

This is as shocking as Superman and Doomsday teaming up to stop world hunger

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by chrmjenkins

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'.

[chrmjenkins]

Originally Posted by tbrinkma

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?

[bushido]

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"

[Sith Vol]

Originally Posted by Compile 'em all

My reaction when I saw the headline

Image

Lmao

[JHankwitz]

Originally Posted by whooleytoo

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.

[nick_elt]

Late April fools?

[vrDrew]

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.

[bedifferent]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

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.

[Stephen123]

This looks like a setup to start suing Canon, Nikon and Sony.

[Laird Knox]

Originally Posted by iLikeTurtles!

i rmember when kodak was the sh-.it

now....not so much lol

They still are - just in a different way.