Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Kodak Faces Setback in Patent Case Against Apple and Research in Motion

The last screams of a dying company, if not physically at least intellectually.

Kodak need to get with the program and innovate and stop trolling for patent infringement.
 
ericinboston said:
Actually this statement is true...since roughly 1995.

I know a guy that works at Kodak and he states Kodak's mission/goal is simply to invent stuff and get a patent and then license it or sue people. Kodak has basically admitted (internally at least) that lost all it's mojo back in the early 90's when digital and non-digital cameras crushed Kodak. Kodak has a few digital cameras and are basically designed for extreme novices.

Anyway, sad to see such a revolutionary company have to stop making products and start making patents.
Click to expand...

I visited their museum in Rochester NY. (Well worth it:) What once was a great idea company TOTALLY missed the boat when it came to the future.

From what I saw and looking at their digital resume, I sadly thought that they were finished then. That was 5 years ago and I don't see them on the forefront of anything now.

Sad:-(
 
actually, the chips inside most of Kodak's point and shoots aren't even made by Kodak any more. kodak makes a good chunk of their money by making high high end sensors for high high end cameras. i'm talking 30 mpixels and up.
 
n said:
Apple Doesn't sue to make a living. Apple makes a living by making Great quality and innovative products.
Click to expand...

Well said but in todays world rather than go out silently they will hold out till the end using patent infringement as a revenue stream ergo Kodak, SCO, and many others.
 
ctdonath said:
I worked there 5 years; realized it was over when it became clear the company considered drugstores & other retailers their customers, not the picture-taking public.

Drugstores relied on film as a leader: customers would come into the store to buy film, come in again to drop it off, and then come in a third time to pick up prints - that's three opportunities to sell them other stuff.
Problem with digital: customers wouldn't need to visit stores at all for their photographic needs, or would come in just once to pick up digital prints.

Ergo, drugstores made it clear they would stop carrying Kodak products entirely, as retribution for reduced customer traffic, if Kodak started moving away from film as the primary product ... so Kodak stuck with film instead of making the big transition to digital. When the public made the switch anyway, Kodak was way behind the curve.

Yes, Kodak invented the digital camera. Like so many great innovations, the company which created them viewed them as a curiosity and nuisance (ex.: the mouse, GUI, email, networking, and OOP were invented at Xerox and given to Steve Jobs).

A company which sets the interests of the middleman (in this case, drugstores and other retailers) above the interests of end users (photo-taking public) will lose both. I knew it was over when a department meeting featured a top executive making this choice of priority clear.

Kodak is now in the slow process of demolishing most of their miles of factories to reduce their property taxes.
Click to expand...


That part of Rochester is depressing.
 
kdarling said:
IIRC, the patent was about how to preview an image before you take it. Quick resampling or something along those lines. Don't quote me, it's been a while since I looked at it.

Interestingly, last year the same patent resulted in LG paying Kodak a one-time fee over $400 million, and Samsung doing the same with $550 million.

No doubt Kodak thought it was going to end up the same with others. I wonder what's done differently.
Click to expand...

Apple has the money and was willing to spend it to fight the lawsuit.
 
Arcus said:
That part of Rochester is depressing.
Click to expand...

I remember visiting one of the Kodak plants in the early 90's. Amazing. Huge. You needed a cart to go from one end to the other.

But then digital took off and Kodak ignored it. Then digital took over... opps... "maybe we should pay attention? But, what about our cash cow?" said Kodak. The cow was already dead and up for slaughter.

Kodak, like Radio Shack, and others totally missed the boat when it came to computers and digitalization of their industry. Kodak is probably one of the worst cases of doing way to little to late.
 
Apple are one of the worst here.
At least Kodak made something, invented it, released it and now others are perhaps using it, they are getting legal about it.

Apple thinks of an idea that they can't make and patents it, just to stop someone else in the future who may have the same idea making it.
This should be stopped. You should have to make an item to have a patent, not just think up something which you can't make to block general progress in the future.
 
ctdonath said:
IYes, Kodak invented the digital camera. Like so many great innovations, the company which created them viewed them as a curiosity and nuisance (ex.: the mouse, GUI, email, networking, and OOP were invented at Xerox and given to Steve Jobs).
Click to expand...

My favourite quote about this: "If you don't cannibalise your own products, someone else will". Just like here: Kodak didn't want to build digital cameras because they feared (rightfully) they would cannibalise their film camera products. So they left it to someone else to do the cannibalisation.
 
kdarling said:
IIRC, the patent was about how to preview an image before you take it. Quick resampling or something along those lines. Don't quote me, it's been a while since I looked at it.

Interestingly, last year the same patent resulted in LG paying Kodak a one-time fee over $400 million, and Samsung doing the same with $550 million.

No doubt Kodak thought it was going to end up the same with others. I wonder what's done differently.
Click to expand...

Claims are pretty specific:

1. An electronic still camera for initiating capture of a still image while previewing motion images on a display, comprising:
(a) an image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites covered by a mosaic pattern of color filters including at least three different colors for capturing images of a scene, each captured image having a first number of color pixel values provided in a first color pattern;

(b) motion processing means for generating from the captured images, a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors and representative of a series of motion images to be previewed, the second number of color pixel values being less than the first number of color pixel values, and the second color pattern being different from the first color pattern;

(c) a color display for presenting at least some of the motion images of the series of motion images corresponding to the captured images of the scene, the color display having an arrangement of color display pixels including at least three different colors in a pattern different from the first color pattern;

(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;

(e) still processing means for generating a third number of color pixel values including at least three different colors representative of a processed captured still image; and

(f) a digital memory for storing the processed captured still image.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cmaier said:
Claims are pretty specific:
Click to expand...

Does that mean that any camera producing images with either the same number of pixels as the sensor, or with the same number of pixels as the preview, doesn't infringe on this patent? Same if the preview image uses the same colour pattern as the captured image?
 
Piggie said:
Apple are one of the worst here.
At least Kodak made something, invented it, released it and now others are perhaps using it, they are getting legal about it.

Apple thinks of an idea that they can't make and patents it, just to stop someone else in the future who may have the same idea making it.
This should be stopped. You should have to make an item to have a patent, not just think up something which you can't make to block general progress in the future.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of Apple suing or threatening to sue anyone over a non-utilized patent?
 
gnasher729 said:
Does that mean that any camera producing images with either the same number of pixels as the sensor, or with the same number of pixels as the preview, doesn't infringe on this patent? Same if the preview image uses the same colour pattern as the captured image?
Click to expand...

looks like, yep.
 
WiiDSmoker said:
And Apple is no different.
Click to expand...

You might want to think about that. I believe legitimate inventions and technologies developed by a company and used in real-world products should be protected. Apple does use patent cases to protect their IP, but they don't make a living off of lawsuits. They sell real products.
 
kdarling said:
And yet also broad enough to cover a lot of common use cases.

Thanks for looking it up, btw!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that whenever you see "<blank> means for <doing something>" in a patent claim, it's even more specific than you think - the "means" must are the "means" described in the rest of the patent document; any other "means" are fair game.
 
I agree, stop trolling Kodak and start actually making innovative products (as you used to - many many years ago).
 
Kodak's market cap is about $1.3B.
Instead of forking over hundreds of millions of $$$ like other companies, Apple could just buy it outright for cash, extract all the imaging tech needed (and that's some reeeeealy valuable IP there), and sell/dissolve what's left.

Playing hardball can hurt.
 
Piggie said:
You should have to make an item to have a patent, not just think up something which you can't make to block general progress in the future.
Click to expand...

"Making items" is an expensive investment. Especially if you have no guarantee of exclusivity when you're finished making it. Thus, get legal exclusivity first, then invest. Flipping that process around would stifle innovation far more quickly than the current system. No, it's not perfect, but that's how it is.
 
kodachrome

kodak is so 60/70's........ like me...........

i so much miss the smell of unwrapping a roll of kodachrome 25/64 iso... inserting it into my canon f1, not being able to self-process the roll...... off to america...... 2 months later back to south africa, in a yellow box with the 36 slides beautifully processed.... that is if one had a keen mind for spot on exposure.........non of this modern day digital stuff......., rich warm skin tones, immensely sharp images.........

then e-6 emerged, ektachrome, "colder" images, available in 25/50m rolls, to be bulk (off) loaded? easier to self process...... still great, and my induction to photography!

kodak is dead, long live kodak! francois
 
blackpond said:
"Making items" is an expensive investment. Especially if you have no guarantee of exclusivity when you're finished making it. Thus, get legal exclusivity first, then invest. Flipping that process around would stifle innovation far more quickly than the current system. No, it's not perfect, but that's how it is.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this, as long as you give detailed explanations as to exactly how you can make it, and could make it.

Otherwise, why not just patent the time machine, food replicator, transporter beam etc?

I don't mind patents but they should not be used to stop the world moving forwards. Like someone saying they invented the touch screen 20 years ago and stopping anyone from making a tablet.
 
franswa za said:
kodak is so 60/70's........ like me...........

i so much miss the smell of unwrapping a roll of kodachrome 25/64 iso... inserting it into my canon f1, not being able to self-process the roll...... off to america...... 2 months later back to south africa, in a yellow box with the 36 slides beautifully processed.... that is if one had a keen mind for spot on exposure.........non of this modern day digital stuff......., rich warm skin tones, immensely sharp images.........

then e-6 emerged, ektachrome, "colder" images, available in 25/50m rolls, to be bulk (off) loaded? easier to self process...... still great, and my induction to photography!

kodak is dead, long live kodak! francois
Click to expand...

Apparently you need 20 megapixels to get the same detail as good old film.

20 megapixels from a GOOD CAMERA I should add.
 
Piggie said:
I'd agree with this, as long as you give detailed explanations as to exactly how you can make it, and could make it.

Otherwise, why not just patent the time machine, food replicator, transporter beam etc?

I don't mind patents but they should not be used to stop the world moving forwards. Like someone saying they invented the touch screen 20 years ago and stopping anyone from making a tablet.
Click to expand...

You do have to provide detailed explanation as to exactly how the patent would be implemented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back