U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Inquiry Into Apple, RIM After Kodak Complaint

[kernkraft]

Where in the world? Everywhere!

Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

Er, sorry to interrupt the 'insult' mode, but the answer to your question is: China. Just where they make the Apple computers. And where are they selling them? Almost in every developed country. This is a link to the American site:

http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/s...fw-ilc-hm_tsr05-con-na-nokiacom-us-na-bkl_002

 

[JakeDTS]

iPad without a camera

To go further with the idea that this could be why there was no camera on iPad, could this be why the iPod touch didn't get the camera most of us expected? Or why the nano only does video? Did this patent come to light after iPhone 3GS? I hope we don't lose cameras over this! If they put a camera on the shuffle they won't be able to infringe on the display part!!

 

[cmaier]

To go further with the idea that this could be why there was no camera on iPad, could this be why the iPod touch didn't get the camera most of us expected? Or why the nano only does video? Did this patent come to light after iPhone 3GS? I hope we don't lose cameras over this! If they put a camera on the shuffle they won't be able to infringe on the display part!!

Almost no chance that this had anything to do with it.

 

[wlh99]

Really? You post a wikipedia link for a definition that depends on the person?



Yes, they are top sellers, but not in smart phones, just check out the latest market share stats, and you will see they have a decline in market share thanks to RIM, Android and Apple.

Market leaders? No, that stopped long ago back in 2004/5. Pioneers? What new device that doesn't mimic one of the Android or iPhones has Nokia come up with? Nokia at this point is a me-too company.



Not rich elitist, but using the market share of dumb phones to prove your argument is flawed.



Where in the world does Nokia make computers? I don't a see Nokia branded laptop anywhere. But they are seeking to stop MacBook shipments. You must be high on something if you think that's fair.

Kodak doesn't make TV's. Nokia doesn't make TV's, and Apple doesn't make TV's. So if Sony comes out with a TV with Kodak's camera tech, Nokia's wifi tech, and Apple's video tech, does Sony get a free ride? Hell no.

Nokia is seeking to stop shipping of products that use their technology. Nokia has tried to come to a deal amicably first and that route failed so they are getting nasty.

Kodak is doing exactly the same thing, seeking to stop the shipping of products that use their technology.

 

[Stephen123]

This patent datas from 2001. The prior art starts with the Sony Mavica in 1981. Anything about this patent which might be valid is not very broad. Every broad claim is invalidated by extensive prior art.

 

[cmaier]

This patent datas from 2001. The prior art starts with the Sony Mavica in 1981. Anything about this patent which might be valid is not very broad. Every broad claim is invalidated by extensive prior art.

You have the date wrong. The relevant date is Dec. 30, 1994.

According to wikipedia, the Sony Mavica did not have a display in 1981, and did not produce stills. It therefore did not contain at least the following elements, and does not invalidate this patent:

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.

 

[ReyesJonathan]

everybody wants a piece of the pie....

 

[Ironduke]

Sick em Kodak

Yeah Gitsome!

 

[knightlie]

Uh, it's not? I'd say they are very similar, except that Kodak hasn't been on top in any way for years.

No, of course they're not patent trolls. Kodak have legitimate patents and have used them to make products (you are apparently unaware that Kodak make cameras) - patent trolls sit around waiting for someone to violate their IP and then sue over it.

Kodak seem to have exhausted every other avenue; this smells of Apple arrogantly holding out for the lowest possible fee - they aren't exactly strapped for cash, after all. I'm sure they can afford a couple of bucks from their 40% margins.

everybody wants a piece of the pie....

Everybody wants what's owed to them. If Apple owed your company patent license fees you'd sing a different tune.


Why are some people blind to the fact that Apple are just as able to shaft companies as any other corporation?

 

[conradwt]

Sad to say but it is a reality, especially considering how many people I know that have been tapped there.

Now that doesn't mean they don't have a point or patent to argue about but it is pretty clear they want to establish revenues streams based on their patents. Management has pretty much said so. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing but it is no substitute for innovation and technology development.

It will be very interesting to see the facts laid out here. Sadly it sounds like a software patent issues which if so sucks.


Dave

Dave, I agree that this does sound like a software patent issue. Thus, if this case goes to trial, Kodak will have to prove that their patent (i.e algorithms) were used and Apple has to prove the contrary.

 

[conradwt]

Nokia was the market leader in smartphone shipments, with an estimated 2009 market share of 36.4 percent, followed by Research in Motion (BlackBerry) at 19.4 percent, Apple at 14.9 percent and HTC at 6.3 percent. (Source: http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222900036)

And look up in the dictionary what a pioneer is. Hint: Apple wasn't one of the companies that pioneered the phone market. Copying a concept (and improving on it) isn't considered pioneering.

I would recommend reading this report on the subscriber marketshare because it's a better indication of what people are using within US:

http://www.comscore.com/index.php/P...mber_2009_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share

Now, Gartner.com is one of the best for generating these types of reports and here's the worldwide marketshare sale for Q3 of 2009:

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1224645

Note: The Q4 2009 report hasn't been published but the numbers should
look even better for Apple's investment in the UK and Asia regions.

From the Gartner report, it's very impressive for Apple to have 17% of worldwide marketshare sales in less than 3 years.

 

[Erwin-Br]

From the Gartner report, it's very impressive for Apple to have 17% of worldwide marketshare sales in less than 3 years.

Yes. Impressive... Eh, what's your point? Nokia is still market leader, that's what the discussion was about.

 

[cmaier]

Dave, I agree that this does sound like a software patent issue. Thus, if this case goes to trial, Kodak will have to prove that their patent (i.e algorithms) were used and Apple has to prove the contrary.

1) it's a hardware patent. See my previous posts.
2) kodak has to prove that apple hardware contains each element of at least one patent claim (a display, a motion means, etc.)
3) apple has to prove nothing. The burden of proof is on kodak to prove that more likely than not, each element of at least one claim is present in apple's devices. If apple wishes, it may allege that the patent claims are invalid. In that case apple has the burden of proof (and it's a higher burden - clear and convincing). Apple may also allege that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, in which case they also have the burden of proof for that.

 

[JAT]

No, of course they're not patent trolls. Kodak have legitimate patents and have used them to make products (you are apparently unaware that Kodak make cameras) - patent trolls sit around waiting for someone to violate their IP and then sue over it.

Kodak seem to have exhausted every other avenue; this smells of Apple arrogantly holding out for the lowest possible fee - they aren't exactly strapped for cash, after all. I'm sure they can afford a couple of bucks from their 40% margins.




Everybody wants what's owed to them. If Apple owed your company patent license fees you'd sing a different tune.


Why are some people blind to the fact that Apple are just as able to shaft companies as any other corporation?

Hmm. My point is that Nokia did the exact same thing as Kodak. They went to Apple in a civil, business-like manner. Later, after the two companies started arguing, it turned ugly and both started threatening each other with ludicrous things. (like blocking PC shipments over a cellphone dispute) This news report is early in whatever happens with Kodak and their patents. This could also turn ugly.

My other point is that Nokia is actually on top of the cellphone industry, while Kodak is treading water attempting to survive. I wouldn't say either is a patent troll since they are both very active in their respective industries. But Kodak potentially is in a more troll-like position than the number 1 producer of cellphones on the planet.

It's called logic people, try some. The fact that some people don't like Nokia's current phones doesn't make them a patent troll. Neither does the fact that many people have apparently forgotten all but the latest event in the Nokia vs Apple saga.

SJ shares quite a bit of blame as he seems to have a policy of not paying for previous patent use. Apple may be the best innovator in the PC industry, but other companies have done things, as well. He needs to grow up and get along with others. (what, did he skip kindergarden?)

 

[kudukudu]

Those who can do. Those who can't sue.

 

[cmaier]

Those who can do. Those who can't sue.

Those who don't like their s*$& ripped off also sue.

 

[hill60]

So where do you think this would fit in, given the collaboration between Apple and Kodak in it's development, prior to 1994 and the obviousness of displaying the images it captured on a computer screen at different resolutions?

Prior art?

Preexisting licensing agreements?

Patent attorney here. Kodak is not a troll, so let's stop that, eh?

The claims of the patent are very broad, covering pretty much any device that shows a preview image on its own screen while also capturing an image. Given the fairly late priority date of the patent application, it may not be valid, but that remains to be seen (and I certainly am unaware of any invalidating prior art.)

Should be fun - the FTC moves very quickly - faster even than the Rocket Docket in Delaware.