Kodak Files Patent Infringement Suits Against Apple, Research in Motion

[aegisdesign]

Have to make money somehow.

http://members.whattheythink.com/news/index.cfm?id=40740

Kodak's revenue drops 26%, loss of $81M on quarter
Friday, October 30, 2009

For the third quarter of 2009:

* Sales worldwide totaled $1.781 billion, a decrease of 26% from $2.405 billion in the third quarter of 2008, including 2% of unfavorable foreign exchange impact. Revenue from digital businesses totaled $1.209 billion, a 26% decline from $1.641 billion in the prior-year quarter, primarily as a result of the global recession and continued restrictions in the credit markets that are dampening commercial printing purchases. Revenue from the company’s traditional business decreased 25% to $572 million, in line with the industry decline.
* The company’s third-quarter loss from continuing operations, before interest expense, other income (charges), net, and income taxes was $81 million, compared with earnings on the same basis of $147 million in the year-ago quarter.

So in summary, Kodak is failing because it's failed to capitalise on the money it's spent on R&D into digital cameras, meanwhile other companies are doing fine just stealing their ideas.

Or... Kodak spends N (m/b)illion on R&D which it needs to recoup so forcing up the price of it's products. Apple spends ZERO on R&D and chooses to make huge profits instead using somebody else's work.

Sounds vaguely familiar.

 

[iDisk]

So what you're saying is that either all the claims are clearly valid, or all are clearly invalid. That there is nothing at all ever to suggest that any of these claims are recreational and ridiculous, or that any are obvious ripoffs.

So, clearly, it's fanboyism alone and nothing else. Ever.

How confident for such as sweeping generalization based solely on two screenshots.

Have you considered the notion you should compare the forum sentiments against both the outcome of the actual court cases and the instances of Apple being defendant or plaintiff before leaping to such a judgement? Because there is entirely the possibility that the "fanboys" were, shock and horror, right? Just because you're loud and annoying doesn't mean you're wrong.

Well This is how my mind processed what I viewed.

CREATIVE SUES APPLE: Macrumors Memebers go wild.. BOOOOOOOOO!!!! RAHHHHHHH!!! (That's why all the negatives)

Update!! APPLE SUES CREATIVE: MacRumors members cheer for joy .. HOORAAAYYYY!! YAY!!!!!

.....................

That's how I viewed it lol .... Don't get it twisted either, I LOVE APPLE & Basically Approve of whatever Steve Jobs says to do when it comes to Tech.... I ONLY USE, SAFARI (unless I'm checking browser compatibility for my websites, in which I go seek a windows machine)... I will NOT install anything Microsoft related on my computer... So I'm the "biggest" fanboy here probably, but I do have a sense of reality and in regards to the kodak lawsuit, it seems clear what two companies are being childish and not trying to pay royalties.

 

[cmaier]

If apple had been pestered by kodak prir o the Samsung case about the same patent that was in te Samsung case, apple would have filed a declaratory judgment action. Since they did not, either:

1. It's not the same patent
2. Kodak did not, back then, approach apple and demand royalties on that patent

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.6; en-us; Archos5 Build/Donut) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)



If that is the case, surely it's their fault for not making a deal before the Samsung ruling?

If they were in negotiations before the Samsung case was finished and thought, "sod it, we may not have to pay a thing if Kodak loses" then its their fault that they are now both left open to extortionate charges.

We don't even know what Kodak are asking for anyway.

(Just for clarification, I wouldn't agree with Kodak if they are now trying to rip Apple and RIM off now )

 

[spanading]

The key word here is satisfactory!!!!

APPLE & KODAK DO NOT COMPETE ???


Kodak says it has licensed digital imaging technology to some 30 companies, including major players like Nokia, Samsung, LG and Motorola, and that all those companies currently pay royalties to Kodak over use of its patented technology.

"Kodak has a long history of digital imaging innovation and we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating our industry-leading patent portfolio. In the case of Apple and RIM, we?ve had discussions for years with both companies in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably, and we have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement. In light of that, we are taking this action to ensure that we protect the interests of our shareholders and the existing licensees of our technology. Our primary interest is not to disrupt the availability of any product but to obtain fair compensation for the use of our technology. There?s a basic issue of fairness that needs to be addressed. Those devices use Kodak technology, and we are merely seeking compensation for the use of our technology in their products

Kodak wants royalties like every other company would if their technology was being used.

Apple would go after someone.

RIM would too.

Kodak just wants what the others are doing. Why is that so hard for a company to do?

Oh dear ! Now I see the true trend and I am sorry to say that I have to agree with the people that say Nokia and Kodac are looking for a free ride! They could have both gone to court years ago. They may both have been in discussion for years but that does not mean that the price they asked for using their technology was a fair one compared to what other companies were being asked for. If either thought they had a strong enough case they would have gone to court and either bankrupted Apple or swallowed them up years ago. With Kodac they could probably have done this when Apple had to be bailed by MS (giving MS access to Apple's IP for an unspecified length of time and probably why Apple has not sued them for Vista and Window's 7!). I suspect the truth is that they have waited until Apple has become the dominant figure it is now to either file their complaint in the case of Nokia or crank up the litigation in the case of Kodac. Basically both companies need to up their games in terms of products these days (have you used a Nokia phone the software is awful I have thrown my 6220 classic at the floor in frustration a number of times). And the Kodac cameras are nothing to right home about. So I guess they need the money they think they can get for R&D but whether it would do them any good is anyones guess. Based on current products designing the must have gadget in their respective fields is not their strong point as neither of these brands are in the media spotlight at the moment for their product line up. I am afraid that is the domain of Apple. QED I think. LOL

 

[spanading]

So in summary, Kodak is failing because it's failed to capitalise on the money it's spent on R&D into digital cameras, meanwhile other companies are doing fine just stealing their ideas.

Or... Kodak spends N (m/b)illion on R&D which it needs to recoup so forcing up the price of it's products. Apple spends ZERO on R&D and chooses to make huge profits instead using somebody else's work.

Sounds vaguely familiar.

I don't mean to sound harsh but in having a great R&D section does not make you a great business, If it did I would have been paid a lot more in previous jobs (I'm a biotechnologist just in case you were wondering). Unfortunately like it or not its about taking the inventions you come up with and making them into something people want either creatively or by marketing. This is an area Apple have always excelled. That's why mp3s were not a big thing until the iPod. Apple did not invent them but what is the first MP3 (or should I say digital music player these days) that anyone thinks of!

Sorry its a case of if you don't make what people want then you leave room for someone that will! This is where Apple invests a lot of time money and energy in taking good ideas and making them usable and desirable!

 

[KnightWRX]

This is an area Apple have always excelled. That's why mp3s were not a big thing until the iPod. Apple did not invent them but what is the first MP3 (or should I say digital music player these days) that anyone thinks of!

The iRiver iMP-100, released in 2000, a full year before the iPod. These players were known in the US as being Rio branded. There were others, but this one was notable as being good.

MP3s were a big thing before the iPod. The iPod was an answer to a growing demand for HD based players. In fact, the Creative Nomad was there first, but because the IBM micro-drive hadn't yet been commercialised, so its form factor sucked. Apple was the first to use IBM's drive and thus to get a smaller form factor player out in an already highly competitive market that was growing by leaps and bounds thanks to flash based players.

And the first iPod wasn't a success at all. For one, it had a big problem in the fact that you couldn't use one with Windows. You needed a Mac.

Listen to the iPod introduction, Steve covers all of this. Only the most zealous Apple fanboys try to claim the iPod invented anything. It was Apple's answer to an already well established market. Just like in a few years, we'll hear all about how the iPhone basically invented the smartphone market or that the Apple tablet was the first of its kind...

 

[Terminal.app]

My God, all these lawsuits...

Reminds me of the song "I'll Sue Ya" by Weird Al Yankovic.

I sued Taco Bell
'Cause I ate half a million Chalupas
And I got fat!

I sued Panasonic
They never said I shouldn't use their microwave
To dry off my cat

Huh, I sued Earthlink
'Cause I called them up
N' they had the nerve to put me on hold

I sued Starbucks
'Cause I spilled a Frappucino in my lap
And brrr, it was cold!

I sued Toys'R'Us
'Cause I swallowed a Nerf ball
And nearly choked to death

Ugh, I sued PetCo
'Cause I ate a bag of kitty litter
And now I got bad breath!

I sued Coca-Cola, yo
'Cause I put my finger down in a bottle
And it got stuck!

I sued Delta Airlines
'Cause they sold me a ticket to New Jersey
I went there, and it sucked!

Yeah!!!

If you stand me up on a date
If you deliver my pizza 30 seconds late

I sued Duracell
They never told me not to shove that double-A
Right up my nose

I sued Home Depot
'Cause they sold me a hammer
Which they knew I might drop on my toes

I sued Dell Computers
'Cause I took a bath with my laptop
Now it doesn't work

I sued Fruit of the Loom
'Cause when I wear their tightie-whities on my head
I look like a jerk

I sued Verizon
'Cause I get all depressed
Any time my cell phone is roaming

I sued Colorado
'Cause you know, I think it looks a little bit too much
Like Wyoming

I sued Neiman Marcus
'Cause they put up their Christmas decorations
Way out of season

I sued Ben Affleck
...
Aw, do I even need a reason?

Ugh!

If I sprain my ankle
While I'm robbing your place

If I hurt my knuckles
When I punch you in the face

...

I'll sue ya!
I'll take all of your money
I'll sue ya!
If you even look at me funny

Ugh!

 

[MorphingDragon]

My God, all these lawsuits...

Reminds me of the song "I'll Sue Ya" by Weird Al Yankovic.

I sued Taco Bell
'Cause I ate half a million Chalupas
And I got fat!

I sued Panasonic
They never said I shouldn't use their microwave
To dry off my cat

Huh, I sued Earthlink
'Cause I called them up
N' they had the nerve to put me on hold

I sued Starbucks
'Cause I spilled a Frappucino in my lap
And brrr, it was cold!

I sued Toys'R'Us
'Cause I swallowed a Nerf ball
And nearly choked to death

Ugh, I sued PetCo
'Cause I ate a bag of kitty litter
And now I got bad breath!

I sued Coca-Cola, yo
'Cause I put my finger down in a bottle
And it got stuck!

I sued Delta Airlines
'Cause they sold me a ticket to New Jersey
I went there, and it sucked!

Yeah!!!

If you stand me up on a date
If you deliver my pizza 30 seconds late

I sued Duracell
They never told me not to shove that double-A
Right up my nose

I sued Home Depot
'Cause they sold me a hammer
Which they knew I might drop on my toes

I sued Dell Computers
'Cause I took a bath with my laptop
Now it doesn't work

I sued Fruit of the Loom
'Cause when I wear their tightie-whities on my head
I look like a jerk

I sued Verizon
'Cause I get all depressed
Any time my cell phone is roaming

I sued Colorado
'Cause you know, I think it looks a little bit too much
Like Wyoming

I sued Neiman Marcus
'Cause they put up their Christmas decorations
Way out of season

I sued Ben Affleck
...
Aw, do I even need a reason?

Ugh!

If I sprain my ankle
While I'm robbing your place

If I hurt my knuckles
When I punch you in the face

...

I'll sue ya!
I'll take all of your money
I'll sue ya!
If you even look at me funny

Ugh!

The sad thing that is Satire not pure Humor.

 

[blouis79]

United States Patent 6292218

Someone several pages back mentioned one patent that featured in the Kodak vs Samsung suit.

Electronic camera for initiating capture of still images while previewing motion images
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6292218.html

One would think *all* cameras without optical viewfinders would be included in this patent.

Given that there are 28 claims in the patent, only a patent attorney could figure it out.....

There are bits about integration in a single ASIC; Bayer checkerboard patterns; JPEGs; half and third green filters

 

[spanading]

The iRiver iMP-100, released in 2000, a full year before the iPod. These players were known in the US as being Rio branded. There were others, but this one was notable as being good.

MP3s were a big thing before the iPod. The iPod was an answer to a growing demand for HD based players. In fact, the Creative Nomad was there first, but because the IBM micro-drive hadn't yet been commercialised, so its form factor sucked. Apple was the first to use IBM's drive and thus to get a smaller form factor player out in an already highly competitive market that was growing by leaps and bounds thanks to flash based players.

And the first iPod wasn't a success at all. For one, it had a big problem in the fact that you couldn't use one with Windows. You needed a Mac.

Listen to the iPod introduction, Steve covers all of this. Only the most zealous Apple fanboys try to claim the iPod invented anything. It was Apple's answer to an already well established market. Just like in a few years, we'll hear all about how the iPhone basically invented the smartphone market or that the Apple tablet was the first of its kind...

I am sorry but please read my comments before sounding off. I did not say that Apple invented MP3s but I think that most people would agree it did more than most to make them desirable and that is why the iPod is the best selling music player and the iTunes store has gained ground and i 'THINK' is the number one music store in the US. I realise that you HATE Apple and that is your right but not everyone does and I do not want to lose a great company that makes computers that make sense to me through these law suits. In the end it is the lawyers who win as they charge huge fees all the way and 'fair' seems to become a very relative term in legal circles so while it may be fair to charge more to one company than another at the patent holders desecration that leaves a huge loophole to stifle competition and I would expect the anti-competition laws to deal with this somewhere, but as I say I am not a lawyer and have no intention to go wading through American law to find references for something that is only my opinion. Oh by the way POOR means not well off and POUR means to tip liquid or other substances out of or over things, if you want to be pedantic!

 

[KnightWRX]

I realise that you HATE Apple

Wait, where did you get this ? I've been accused of being an Apple fanboy on this very site many times. Of course, I've been accused of being : Google fanboy, Nokia fanboy (by you), Microsoft fanboy, Palm fanboy (when I was against their iTunes shenigans to boot...)...

I'm a "objective view" fanboy if you really need to label me something. I look at facts first, and try to ignore emotional responses to inanimate objects.

 

[SimonMW]

Tis the season to be suing, tra lahlah lah laah lahlah laah laaaah.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Wait, where did you get this ? I've been accused of being an Apple fanboy on this very site many times. Of course, I've been accused of being : Google fanboy, Nokia fanboy (by you), Microsoft fanboy, Palm fanboy (when I was against their iTunes shenigans to boot...)...

I'm a "objective view" fanboy if you really need to label me something. I look at facts first, and try to ignore emotional responses to inanimate objects.

Welcome to the world of apple forums.

I tend to agree that you are much more object than some people.

I know you are big apple fan but at the same time you do not attend the church of apple and proclaim SJ as your god.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The iRiver iMP-100, released in 2000, a full year before the iPod. These players were known in the US as being Rio branded. There were others, but this one was notable as being good.

MP3s were a big thing before the iPod. The iPod was an answer to a growing demand for HD based players. In fact, the Creative Nomad was there first, but because the IBM micro-drive hadn't yet been commercialised, so its form factor sucked. Apple was the first to use IBM's drive and thus to get a smaller form factor player out in an already highly competitive market that was growing by leaps and bounds thanks to flash based players.

And the first iPod wasn't a success at all. For one, it had a big problem in the fact that you couldn't use one with Windows. You needed a Mac.

Listen to the iPod introduction, Steve covers all of this. Only the most zealous Apple fanboys try to claim the iPod invented anything. It was Apple's answer to an already well established market. Just like in a few years, we'll hear all about how the iPhone basically invented the smartphone market or that the Apple tablet was the first of its kind...

I think what your post shows is what apple is good at is spotting a wave and jumping on it at the right point.

Apple let others start the MP3 player wave and then took its chance and release the iPod on it just as that wave was really taking off and made it king.

In the Smart phones apple spotted that smart phones were becoming bigger and touch screen was starting to be more popular. What apple did was release the iPhone just as that wave was forming and really took avatage of not dealing wtih the legalcy support and limiting changing to the OS the other guys had to do to lay ground work for it.

Apple does really damn well. It picks and chooses it markets and it tends to launch product just as a wave is starting to form and well does really damn well at it. But really when you take stuff appart and look at it more in detail you see apple is good at seeing what others ideas are and combining them into what the consumer wants and catches a wave right off the bat.