Apple and Google Lead Separate Groups in Bidding for Kodak Patents

[charlituna]

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.

More like they are banding together because they would do the same thing if they could get the patents but Apple got them. And actually they do, but we don't hear about it because the companies are such great hit fodder so the stories aren't posted and reported ad nauseous

It's not illegal or trolling to protect your IP, nor is it to refuse to license non essentials patents. In fact these two rights are the core of patent protection. These rights don't change because you are a giant company.

 

[charlituna]

Second, where is the evidence that Samsung or Moto refused to offer a license at a fair and reasonable rate.

Tied up in court.

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?

To a degree yes. Same as any company. If the owning company disagrees then the courts decide when it is forced into a lawsuit

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.

If it was just a case of entitlement then Apple will lose.

But if it's 'Samsung wouldn't let us license this standards essential patent if we don't let them have this non essential one', Samsung will lose. It's against the rules of play to hold a SEP hostage in such a way

If Samsung is asking them to pay but the chipmaker already paid a use license nd passed that on to the buyer, Samsung will lose for trying to double dip.

If Samsung is asking for a cut of the retail price, they could still lose because Apple's stuff is priced much higher, regardless of the percent used.

And Samsung could lose for asking for a cut of the retail price and have to set a flat rate based on the chip alone and this case could become precedent for everyone else that is paying on the full price even if they didn't want to to sue.

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.

They avoid it because it's not SEP and they don't have to license the stuff. The whole FRAND system was set up to avoid attitudes like this, the whole 'they have more money so they should have to pay more etc

----------

If the patents were registered to a person, they could keep using them for another venture, etc., .

regardless of your feelings, tin hat claims etc in general, keep in mind that Apple is claiming these patents because they say THEY, not Kodak, created the invention. Kodak just helped them make it physical. But, according to Apple, Kodak never should have filed for any ownership. And they have been fighting is for a while.

 

[firewood]

Why patent can be transferred? I think a patent should only protected its inventor, if the inventor (a person or company) broken or died, or doesn't use its patent to make profit or benefit human in a limit period, this patent should expired.

That would basically screw all the small ma and pa garage inventors with a great new product idea, but who can't afford a multi-million dollar factory to manufacture it.

Am I the only one that thinks if a corporation (not a person) goes bankrupt, their patents should become public domain?

If you loan big money to a company or a person, and they go bankrupt, you'll still want your money back. You won't want them selling their stock (or whatever) and giving the money to charity instead of paying you back first.

 

[dru`]

Why patent can be transferred? I think a patent should only protected its inventor, if the inventor (a person or company) broken or died, or doesn't use its patent to make profit or benefit human in a limit period, this patent should expired.

A lot of patents is very simple, funny simple, it is unfair for young people, and it will greatly prevent innovation.

What does this have to do with "young people?"

If the patent isn't an asset that can be sold, what's its value? How will the inventor secure loans to build a company based on something that can never be sold to cover debts?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

That would basically screw all the small ma and pa garage inventors with a great new product idea, but who can't afford a multi-million dollar factory to manufacture it.



If you loan big money to a company or a person, and they go bankrupt, you'll still want your money back. You won't want them selling their stock (or whatever) and giving the money to charity instead of paying you back first.

WTF does "loaning" got to do with being able to resell patents from corporations? If it's not legal, then there would be no money to be made from selling them when the company goes bankrupt and thus no issue (other than all companies benefit from not having to deal with patent lawsuits).

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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?

But if the rate charged for everyone has always been 2.4% SRP then it is fine.

 

[dbrewster]

But if the rate charged for everyone has always been 2.4% SRP then it is fine.

No, it's not. Do you know how many SEPs are needed to create a modern electronic device? Read up.

 

[charlituna]

And then is when the clock rings and you wake up from your sweet dreams

You are so smart and such an expert on US IP law and the history of this particular situation that you can declare that Apple has no case and needs to shut up about the whole thing.

Do you hear that Judicial System, Oletros has spoken. We have the expert declaration. Time to go home.

Yeah something tells me no. So given you are no expert where do you get off saying smack to me like I'm a moron.

 

[newagemac]

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?

Have you ever written the software code to produce the slide to unlock for a multitouch based screen? If so, is the code produced to achieve that effect the same as opening an aluminum can? There isn't even code required to open an aluminum can. The method and process couldn't be more different.

I don't think you understand patents very well. You can only patent specific methods and processes, not just ideas or what something looks like. You can even patent specific methods to achieve the exact same thing as long as the method to achieve it is different. And that is one of the reasons why patents are great for innovation.

 

[dbrewster]

Have you ever written the software code to produce the slide to unlock for a multitouch based screen? If so, is the code produced to achieve that effect the same as opening an aluminum can? There isn't even code required to open an aluminum can. The method and process couldn't be more different.

I don't think you understand patents very well. You can only patent specific methods and processes, not just ideas or what something looks like. You can even patent specific methods to achieve the exact same thing as long as the method to achieve it is different. And that is one of the reasons why patents are great for innovation.

Let them be. You should know by now that:

1. Software patents are bogus when Apple files for, buys, asserts, etc. them.

2. FRAND-pledged patents should be more expensive than non-FRAND ones.

3. Software patents are bad for the industry because apparently, monkeys work at the patent office because they can't decipher between ideas and methods to achieve an idea.

4. If you can't stand the lack of intelligence of someone in this forum who is hell-bent on defending Google's (or any Android OEM for that matter) lack of business decency, he'll report you to the moderators. Really!?! Haha.

 

[Masterfox72]

Excellently replied, saved me the trouble of saying the same thing.

Let's all not forget: Patents expire. That's why now you can get a reproduction NES/SNES unit made by a Chinese company that plays the cartridges just fine, for hours of retro fun, dirt cheap. So as much as a patent granted may seem like it locks away innovation, in reality all it does is what it is supposed to do: protect the inventor's investment by securing for the inventor a limited period of exclusivity on the sale of that invention.

Now if only copyrights still expired ever...

Copyrights do expire. They expire in 99 years after the death of the inventor.

 

[lzyprson]

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.

Sorry buddy, I strongly disagree. Maybe you need to re-read the article and learn a bit about business in the 21st century.

 

[Mike Valmike]

Copyrights do expire. They expire in 99 years after the death of the inventor.

Corporations, trusts, and other artificial legal holding entities don't die. Not involuntarily, anyway. A copyright held by an entity not encased in flesh and blood never expires.

 

[codefuns]

The patent law should protect "what I do is what you can't do", but not "what I do is earlier than you". If somebody can prove he archive the same result without help from a early patent, or even never know there is such a patent in the world, then the patent law shouldn't trouble him.

If two person register a similar patent almost at the same time, just because one meet a traffic block, then he lost his patent, is that funny?

BUT, you will say, it is not possible, it is hard to say if the person copy a early patent or invent it himself, that is why I want add some limitations to patent just make it more fair.

Moreover, patent law should encourage a person to keep inventing, not benefit from one old, out of date patent all his life, even for his son or grandson.

What does this have to do with "young people?"

If the patent isn't an asset that can be sold, what's its value? How will the inventor secure loans to build a company based on something that can never be sold to cover debts?

 

[Lochias]

All his life?

Moreover, patent law should encourage a person to keep inventing, not benefit from one old, out of date patent all his life, even for his son or grandson.

You do know that a patent is good for just twenty years. Moreover, nearly all patents build on other patents, your own or those of others. Look at the history of any great invention -- the airplane, with all its patent suits and licensing among the Wright brothers, Curtiss, etc. will do nicely, though it ain't pretty.

Patent law, protecting key innovations (e.g., three-axis control), can and often does open the way for complementary technologies (e.g., power and range).

Even in this century-plus old field, innovation has not exactly dried up.

 

[codefuns]

What I am seeing is, the big company spend a lot of money to buy other's patents, and use it as a weapon. And this is an aftermath or side effect from the current patent law system, I don't think it is good. They should be encouraged to use that money to invent more things, not pay for lawyer.

You do know that a patent is good for just twenty years. Moreover, nearly all patents build on other patents, your own or those of others. Look at the history of any great invention -- the airplane, with all its patent suits and licensing among the Wright brothers, Curtiss, etc. will do nicely, though it ain't pretty.

Patent law, protecting key innovations (e.g., three-axis control), can and often does open the way for complementary technologies (e.g., power and range).

Even in this century-plus old field, innovation has not exactly dried up.

 

[Sackvillenb]

Kodak... I'm kind of sad to see the remnants of what was once and important and pioneering company in the world of photography.... oh well, times change...

 

[PracticalMac]

Saying all along, Apple should just buy it, save a lot of money fighting for it later!