Good chance that all those other companies paid up for a license to Kodak. Kodak is one of those companies who invested a lot in fundamental long range research. Basic optics, basic chemistry. and so on.
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.
Kodak Files Patent Infringement Suits Against Apple, Research in Motion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good chance that all those other companies paid up for a license to Kodak. Kodak is one of those companies who invested a lot in fundamental long range research. Basic optics, basic chemistry. and so on.
When I get some free time I'll have a paralegal pull up the complaint. They have to be disclosed in the complaint, which is public record.
More likely these other companies have patents that Kodak's cameras/printers are likely infringing, and Kodak prefers not to start a fight where it isn't carrying the biggest guns.
I would argue Apple hardware is beyond a mere "cool" image. The OS is more intuitive than even Windows 7, the hardware made of better materials than PCs of similar price, and general operation is generally less of a headache compared to Windows.
You are correct, a computer is just a tool. But I think that is why people who buy Macs buy them over PCs; they recognize they are the better tool. Maybe I don't hang with many materialistic people, but I don't know anyone who sees Macs as a status symbol on the level of say True Religion or Joe's Jeans.
Well, there's this bit from the article:
Would that be why they are now going after Apple and RIM?
They both went about it the same way. The only immaturity going on is the community of people standing blindly behind Apple at every turn. This Kodak suit in my opinion bring validity to Nokias. Apple is refusing to negotiate with the people whos patents they are infringing upon.
It might be one of them, though it's not clear from the article. This particular one uses means-function claims, which mean the claims aren't as broad as they might appear to a layman - not clear that iPhone would infringe.
People FALL IN LOVE with APPLE cause their different with their approach to how we use computers and what they do. Your right they market much better then the competition.
People gravitate to NEW things NEW="COOL", since Apple can continually produce beautifully designed hardware and very capable software, they set themselves apart from the competition.
Plus the companies mystic of secrecy has made it the spotlight of attention no matter what it does.
People are curious about those who are secretive... If you like a girl/guy your curiosity compels you to learn more about them and to want them more and more, that "wanting" grows even more if the person shows signs of "playing hard to get" with you.
Apple has done this on the consumer level. People want to know more about what the company does but Apple plays hard to get with the industry, thus creating fascination and appeal or "cool" factor amongst the industry.
The "FANBOYS" who defend Apple defend them like a boyfriend defends there girlfriend or vice versa, due to this environment created by the company.
This made no sense.
Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, and yet its hoarding the marketplace. Kodak may have invented the digital camera, but its canon and nikon that have capitalized with better products (and likely other patents that have restricted kodak from going further; Image Stabalizer comes to mind).
Well it certainly wasn't the switching campaign. That was a fail. I think the iPhone era started all of this. These days it's all about image... I just prefer. (See sig)
This is not trademark law. Kodak could sit on its patent for years while competitors and other manufacturers “infringed” on the patent before making a legal move.
Not enforcing your patent, doesn’t invalidate it.
"A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
Many companies knowingly wait for competitors to build and sell products that infringe on their patents simply to obtain more money from them.
In fact, by Kodak suing Apple for patent infringement they open their patent up to being invalidated by the court. It’s a major risk for the patent holder. That’s why private patent licensing agreements are ideal.
Apple should just pay this one, they don't compete in products, they just want their research to be respected.
By the way, without KODAK lithography techniques to produce microchips would not be where they are today! And since Apple stuff is packed with microchips I'd just pay them!
By the way, without KODAK lithography techniques to produce microchips would not be where they are today! And since Apple stuff is packed with microchips I'd just pay them!
Kodak should just sue every electronic company out there. Everyone makes digital camera's.
This is very true. Notice how anytime a news story is posted about apple it always gets positive rankings, but any time it shows a competitor of apples with equally good/potential products gets negative rankings? Or how about when apple sues another company, the fanboys rejoice, but when someone sues apple, they fight like its for their life.
I can only see people on macrumors (and especially the guys behind engadget.com) as apple evangelicals/cult radicals with blinders on. Steve Jobs says 'Jump' and the sheep say 'how high?'
Anyone remember Apples 1984 advertising? It looks a little like this:
I haven't had a chance to read the patent in detail, but the short description scares me. It sounds like a patent on *displaying* the data coming from a sensor whose only point is to record light so it can be *displayed* later. Hopefully there's more going on than that. If not, my (already badly damaged) faith in the USPTO has taken (yet another) hit.
Why would Kodak want to compete with Apple. Other than phone cameras, does Apple have their own line of cameras that I didn't know about?
Absolutely not true. Kodak doesn't have to do _anything_. This case is only about getting money from Apple and RIM; not suing these doesn't make a patent invalid at all. (When I say "only about getting money", that shouldn't be seen as negative. That is what patents should be for: To produce some valuable IP and license it to others for money).
Trademarks need to be defended; if Dell built a phone and called it "iPhone" and Apple didn't do anything, then after a few years Apple's "iPhone" trademark would be gone. Patents and copyright don't need to be defended.
This is very true. Notice how anytime a news story is posted about apple it always gets positive rankings, but any time it shows a competitor of apples with equally good/potential products gets negative rankings? Or how about when apple sues another company, the fanboys rejoice, but when someone sues apple, they fight like its for their life.
I can only see people on macrumors (and especially the guys behind engadget.com) as apple evangelicals/cult radicals with blinders on. Steve Jobs says 'Jump' and the sheep say 'how high?'
Anyone remember Apples 1984 advertising? It looks a little like this:
Some one should post a story of a new piece of nice looking hardware with specs, including a picture of an Apple logo - watch the "fan boys" love it to pieces. Then, later, give an Update that reveals, the hardware is not indeed from Apple.
That would be fun!
( the objective: not to make them feel stupid, but to allow them time to think about things )
You are presuming context to the "discussion" that may not be there. Here's a possible dialog:
Kodak: You are infringing our patents & you should pay us $X/unit sold.
Apple: We aren't infringing your patents, this is technology we developed. Go away.
Now every 2 months, Kodak calls up Apple & has the same conversation. So, yes telling Apple the same thing for years could be argued as a discussion, but without knowing the content, we can't make an argument that Apple believed Kodak had any sort of a case based on one side's definition of a conversation.
Can someone please tell me how Apple is infringing? Specifically what aspect of their product is infringing on Kodak's intellectual property. Is it a certain gesture or how pictures slide from left-to-right on an LCD screen?
[/QUOTE]
So, when Apple next sues for patent infringement, this would be an indication that Apple are failing?
So, your saying Kodak shouldn't be protecting their IP?
Anyway, how is protecting their IP allowing them to move on?
I'm sure Kodak have more than enough $$ to venture into other related markets.
--
Wish people would think about things over more....
We don't know what patents are allegedly infringed. One patent that has been mentioned, however, covers displaying an image on an LCD screen and then capturing it into memory (uninteresting details omitted).