Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Google Lead Separate Groups in Bidding for Kodak Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Very similar to what Xerox Parc had and what they did not realize and capitalize on. A shame really. From reading all the accounts of the internal strife in the company they just could not come to terms with the end of film.
First,I believe it is actually Samsung and Motorola who have the standard essential patents not Google.( I realize Google owns Moto mow but most of these lawsuits started before that.)
Second, where is the evidence that Samsung or Moto refused to offer a license at a fair and reasonable rate. All I have seen is Apple saying they don't think it was fair and reasonable. Is Apple now the arbitrator of what is or is not fair? For all we know Apple looked at the lowest rate being paid by another company for a license and said we'll pay 10% less than that because we are Apple and we are entitled to it. It would also only be fair for Apple to pay more than some other companies since other companies also contribute by cross licensing patents which Apple tends to avoid.
Google only seems to team up with companies that are dependent them, ie the android OEMs.
Where as Apple is willing to team up with their competitors, ie MS, RIM, Nokia, etc..l
Google seems to be a rogue or loner, which Apple was too, before they grew up.
Side note:
Interesting that 10.8 doesn't integrate share sheets with any Google products such as Picasa or Google+.
Is this because the lawsuits, or does Google want to compromise user privacy too much, which led to Ping not being integrated with Facebook like originally planned?
So, so true.
People watching life through the viewfinders of their cameras are missing their own lives.
And they can't recapture those moments by looking at their Facebook or Flickr posts.
Another bid war
I would love for Google to win the bid war, only to get sued by Apple over the patents Apple says Kodak didnt own in the first place, lose and have the only valuable patents turned over to Apple with statutory damages.
If they are smart they would make their offer contingent on a judicial judgement that yes Kodak owns the patents in question. If Kodak loses, the offer is void. But something tells me Google won't be smart about this since the thought they can sue Apple is too tempting
----------
Selling a patent would be a way to make a profit. The length is based on the first filing, not the sale. So if a patent is good for 20 years and you sell it to me after ten years, I get ten years of exclusive rights, not 20. Then it's open market same as if you kept it
----------
They did, but they weren't talked about all over the place
Exactly. I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this. They may have sold some of it off in the past; but Kodak pretty much owned all the relevant patents on digital photography. The Bayer filter, invented at Kodak, is still the go-to image sensor tech in almost every digital camera.
If you buy a patent in a bidding war, you shouldn't be able to sit on it. Just sayin
At this point the entire Tech community is banding together against the idea of Apple acquiring any more patents.
They are a black hole of (Rooster)-Block for everyone else .
Apple has proved that they can't play nice and play the patent Troll whenever and however they can.
Kodak deserves to be public domain.
They are a black hole of (Rooster)-Block for everyone else .
Apple has proved that they can't play nice and play the patent Troll whenever and however they can.
Kodak deserves to be public domain.
well u shouldnt be able to "buy" patents anyway. if its not your invention, just stay out of it
Nope. This is how crazy Motorola's SEP demand is vs. Microsoft.
Motorola: We want 2.4% of the Xbox's total SRP.
Microsoft: You should only get 2.4% of the value of the chip implementing your SEP.
Which makes more sense?
You use a patent aggregation firm when you want to pool patents with other companies. Kinda like MPEG-LA. Google's consortium also has an aggregation firm involved.
Am I the only one that thinks if a corporation (not a person) goes bankrupt, their patents should become public domain? Letting someone else buy them up (when they didn't invent them and therefore it is no their intellectual property) just leads to more litigation. How the heck can someone take a lawsuit seriously whereby say Google loses the bidding war on these patents and then Apple sues them in court afterward claiming Google stepped on "their" property? THEIR property? The crap they BOUGHT from a failed company? What a CROCK OF CRAP, IMO. You failed. You lose. It should be Game Over.
If the patents were registered to a person, they could keep using them for another venture, etc., but a company going bankrupt is like a person dying. They have no need for it any longer and therefore it should default back to the public, IMO. Too many laws are about protecting corporations when they are the FRACKING DISEASE that is killing the countries on this planet and removing government from the people in democracies like the USA and putting it in the hands of "virtual people" we call corporations who are no beholden to anyone and whose people do not go down with the ship (even though they are in fact the crooks behind it all when a company does wrong).
Yes, you can say we should just change the laws if we don't like them. But how the frack do you do that when the freaking Congress that passes the laws is bought off and paid for by the corporations through "legal" BRIBES??? It is THAT corruption that makes the system untenable and the government a joke in the end.
If the patents were registered to a person, they could keep using them for another venture, etc., but a company going bankrupt is like a person dying. They have no need for it any longer and therefore it should default back to the public, IMO. Too many laws are about protecting corporations when they are the FRACKING DISEASE that is killing the countries on this planet and removing government from the people in democracies like the USA and putting it in the hands of "virtual people" we call corporations who are no beholden to anyone and whose people do not go down with the ship (even though they are in fact the crooks behind it all when a company does wrong).
Yes, you can say we should just change the laws if we don't like them. But how the frack do you do that when the freaking Congress that passes the laws is bought off and paid for by the corporations through "legal" BRIBES??? It is THAT corruption that makes the system untenable and the government a joke in the end.
Actually sad that Kodak never adapted to changes in technology and tried their hardest to keep the 90s alive.
As far as patents go it is pretty clear they have some good ones otherwise these tech giants wouldn't be going to war over them.
As far as patents go it is pretty clear they have some good ones otherwise these tech giants wouldn't be going to war over them.
Google have been fully supportive of the Motorola law suits since the takeover deal was first agreed some time back and have continued the same stance since it was completed.
There is a mountain of evidence that Motorola and Samsung have acted unreasonably in the licensing of standards essential patents, especially with regards to the licensing fees. Try Googling it and you'll find plenty of coverage.
"Intellectual Ventures has been described as a "patent troll" by Shane Robison, CTO of Hewlett Packard and others, allegedly accumulating patents not in order to develop products around them but with the goal to pressure large companies into paying licensing fees. Recent reports indicate that Verizon and Cisco made payments of $200 million to $400 million for investment and access to the Intellectual Ventures portfolio."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures
"RPX promises to never assert or litigate the patents in its portfolio."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation
Anarchy and patents
And if the inventor forms a company and dies, the rights to the company should be divided up among the competitors.
Why on earth would the law work in so perverse a way?
Just to be clear, if you get a patent, then sit around doing nothing, the patent will expire in the fourth year. But if you keep it current, why should it not be valid for the twenty years? A patent represents an investment of time, innovation, and money. Why would such an investment not be transferable? In your world, is an inventor required to be great at manufacturing and sales? If he can't develop his idea, why can't he sell it to somebody who can?
Also, if you will, explain to me how a patent prevents innovation? It seems to be that it requires it. It you can't copy, what's your alternative?
Finally, why the slam on young people? Are you saying that as a group, we are unable to come up with anything of our own?
And if the inventor forms a company and dies, the rights to the company should be divided up among the competitors.
Why on earth would the law work in so perverse a way?
Just to be clear, if you get a patent, then sit around doing nothing, the patent will expire in the fourth year. But if you keep it current, why should it not be valid for the twenty years? A patent represents an investment of time, innovation, and money. Why would such an investment not be transferable? In your world, is an inventor required to be great at manufacturing and sales? If he can't develop his idea, why can't he sell it to somebody who can?
Also, if you will, explain to me how a patent prevents innovation? It seems to be that it requires it. It you can't copy, what's your alternative?
Finally, why the slam on young people? Are you saying that as a group, we are unable to come up with anything of our own?
Speak for yourself. I don't trust Google one inch. They were find hundreds of millions for directing searches to fake medication scammers. They hacked around privacy protections in Safari and Internet Explorer (and I say hacked, not coincidence, because the Safari hack doesn't work against Internet Explorer and vice versa, so this is done absolutely deliberately). They were found wardriving, ordered to destroy the collected data, and just now it was found they didn't follow that order. There is an official company statement that they will get your Facebook data. One way or another, they will get it. The product that Google sells is _you_ and _your private data_.
And Google will try what they can to destroy who stands in their way. Any patents in the hands of Google are a threat.
Apple probably has even more of our private data because of iTunes, but neither they nor Google "sell our private data". In fact, keeping our info secret is core to how they make their ad money.
You see, both Apple and Google sell anonymous ad space by categories and target demographics. When a request for an ad comes in from our devices, the Apple or Google ad server looks at our profile and decides which ad to download. E.g. an ad for a male, 40-55, seems interested in new cars.
The advertiser has no idea who we are (unless of course we actually click on the link, go to their website, and voluntarily enter our information to buy something). They just know what we are: e.g. a male, 40-55, seems interested in new cars.
Using your Google dashboard, you can even control what demographics they use. For example, they had me still interested in new cars, so I deleted that.
It's good to be paranoid at times (especially if the government is involved). It's even better to understand what's actually worrisome or just myth, and take control of it.
Last edited:
Heh, that's a great idea.
Not likely to happen though, as companies want unique selling points (which these patents might be able to protect) and competitive advantages (such as forcing license fees from a competitor, or blocking them out completely).
"Let's all just get along" doesn't seem to feature in the business vocabulary.
gonna sound like some groupie but i really enjoy reading your posts. informative and well laid out.
and to add i recently bought an ipad and got an email from apple telling me about apps and accessories they sell. can any member of the anti google group here tell me how that is in theory any better than what you criticize google for doing with "your" data?