Apparently Kodak's attorneys were having a little courtroom separation anxiety -- just a week after
settling that long-running patent case with Samsung, they've filed three separate actions against Apple and RIM. Two of the cases are based on the same patent at issue in the Samsung litigation: the first is an International Trade Commission complaint alleging that iPhones and BlackBerrys infringe the Kodak patent on previewing images, while the other is filed solely against Apple in the Western District of New York and also includes a patent on processing images at different resolutions. Apple's also the sole focus of the third case, which alleges infringement of several patents on computer programs calling to other programs -- sounds obvious, but Kodak's already enforced them against Sun in a 2004 case. Kodak says all it's after is fair license terms, and that it's not trying to push anything off the market -- the man with the gun always sounds so reasonable, doesn't he?
posted January 14th 2010 10:41AM
Patents in of themselves are not bad things. They are intended to protect inventors (be they large corporations or individuals) from having the fruits of their intellectual labor stolen. However, the patent process as it is today is in dire need of an overhaul. It is rare that an initial patent application is rejected. The volume of patents is so great that the Patent Office in all but the most obvious cases leaves it to the courts to decide a patents validity. The problem with that is it puts an individual inventor at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to challenging/protecting his IP from a large corporation. Few individuals have pockets deep enough to take on a large corporation in court.
In this particular case one shouldn't get up in arms over the initial filing of a lawsuit. Its very common for suits to be filed and subsequently dropped once the patent holder is shown how the presumed offending company is actually implementing the technology in question.
@rand
Yes - but I think a huge part of the problem is that the patent office is not prepared to try to make a call on the 'obviousness' of a patent during the application process. Many of the lawsuits that are won are not won on the grounds that it was proven that the offending company stole the intellectual property - they simply came across the same approach because it was the obvious (or one of the obvious) ways to solve the problem. In fact, its getting to be very difficult to just set out to create a product without accidentally 'stepping on' somebodies patents. And part of the problems there is that there is too much allowance for high level conceptual patents. Like patenting the way a user-interface looks or behaves. Creating new software is easy if you want to be cookie cutter (i.e. another shooter game). But attempting to create an innovative product is difficult because you are more likely step on a patent land mine completely by accident.
@SHoe Totally agree. "Obvious" these days would be something like inventing a time machine. Your point brings up another stumbling block for small inventors, the cost of patent searches. When I worked for a Fortune 100 tech company we had a patent review committee to cull through all of the patents submitted from various employees to decide which ones the company would file with patent office. Part of the decision process was the cost of doing a patent search to "attempt" to make sure that the patent submission wasn't for something covered by someone else patent. As I'm sure you know, its an extremely expensive process which unfortunately requires substantial capital to participate in.
@rand In fact, the USPTO operates on a points policy. You get double the points for rejecting an application, i.e. by producing a negative office action, than you do for accepting. Thus, examiners tend to cite unrelated prior art, so they get more points. And, as usual, the more points the better - in fact, there are monthly targets to be met. The huge backlogs at the USPTO are a direct result of this points system encouraging a tennis match of office actions and amendments, rather than working to resolve real issues examiners have with applications.
These patent lawsuits are beyond stupid and pointless. Sure Kodak probably does hold the patent for previewing images and Apple is probably infringing on that patent, but nobody should be allowed to hold a patent on such a basic concept. Not that I'm cutting Apple any slack here. Suing companies over questionable trademark and patent infringements is probably what Apple does best.
@baltwade they are not stupid concepts, someone thought of them , worked out how they should work and protected their idea.
@doomlordis "You can't patent the steering wheel". Someone did invent it and at the time it was a novel concept, but then it became ubiquitous and basic. I don't remember if then the patent was stripped from the inventor or just denied, but now it's a common phrase when dealing with patents on "basic concepts".
@baltwade
These legal tussles between large corporations have little to do with right and wrong. They are more about cross-licensing and getting access to the other guy's technology portfolio. Kodak wants or needs something that Apple has locked down in their patents so they file a complaint based on something in Kodak's patent portfolio. Apple will now counter-sue Kodak, and the game is on. The lawyers will hash it out and reach a settlement involving cross licensing, and everybody will kiss and make up.
@baltwade
It might seem stupid now, but I imagine Kodak came up with this 20 years ago when it wasn't so commonplace (i.e. an invention to display an image in semi realtime).
I love it when Apple get sued. They get to taste their own medicine.
Apple will settle with Kodac and Nokia eventually, the settlement probably wont be cash but access to patents.
Apple or any other company have to pay to use IP , its simple.
1,2,3 Case Dismissed!
4,5,6 Counter-sued by apple!
7,8,9 Case Dismissed!
10 Bunch of patents in the invalidated.
I seriously forgot that Kodak existed. I figured they had gone out of business a whiiiiiiiiiile ago.
At least Kodac (for now) isn't trying to force a product off the market. I can't say the same about Nokia though.......
@Nightwheel: No Kodak doesn't want justice. They just want their pockets stuffed.
@Pyronick Thats probably true, but the seem (for now) trying to impose a ban on the iPhone.
Nokia however is going out on a full out assault on Apple. And seems not only do they want money, it seems they also want at some of Apple's patents to use on their devices. But Apple isn't playing nice in their opinion, so their trying to trying to force their hand.
@Nightwheel whoops typo, this is what I meant to say:
"Thats probably true, but they seem (for now) not trying to impose a ban on the iPhone."
@Nightwheel Maybe because Apple counter-sued Nokia? When push comes to shove...
Ahhh Patents again??? When will this end?
Everytime I read the news, its always about:
1) Companies laying off workers
2) Companies filling Chapter 11
3) Patent Patent Patent
4) Apple freakin tablet
5) Tiger woods
It gets more boring everyday.
@keplenk
I agree with you completely. News is either celebrity fart or corporate fart.
At least kodak actually sells products, true trolls wait till something similar comes out, sells well and the sues, but never releases a product
there are so many patents
is there a patent against breathing?
"The man with the gun always sounds so reasonable, doesn't he?"
the man with the golden gun does
Kodak has already won on these patent claims against Sun. Apple & RIM will lose too.
@airmikee Apple has a pretty burly legal department, and I think Kodak has a pretty weak case.
@(Unverified)
Oh? Please explain how they have a weak case that has already won against another extremely large company. I'm dying to know.
Wins in the past don't weaken a companies case in the future, they strengthen it. The courts have already said that Kodak has a legitimate claim to these patents, I'd love to hear why you think makes that case weak now.
Apple's profit scheme:
Step 1: Fuck Nokia patents
Step 2: Fuck Kodak patents
Step 3: Build expensive device
Step 4: PROFIT!
If I put in an application at RIM would I get a RIM job?
Engadget just may make me eat my words. I said that they couldn't go 3 days without posting SOME kind of rumor /crappost about the Apple tablet or iphone, and here they are - almost 2 full days in without matching GIZ's iphone rumor craziness. Wonder if they can continue to resist the urge for just one more day.
If you ever have some spare time, go to the US Govt patent site and browse the titles, then pull up a few that interest you. You'll be amazed at the simplistic and obvious stuff people get patents for.
I'm working on a patent as we speak for a process that turns water into steam.
Patents are stupid? Does anyone here actually know how much time and money it takes to get one? Probably not.
@jakeZ Quick answer: long and a lot.
Longer answer: about four or five years in the US depending on subject matter, and $5,000-$15,000 depending on subject matter.
Umm, I don't get it?
"the first is an International Trade Commission complaint alleging that iPhones and BlackBerrys infringe the Kodak patent on previewing images"
So, phones can't preview images or what, is that what Kodak is suggesting? Someone explain that part, because it sounds ridiculous
@abdelm This is all from the title of the patent, which is, as usual, unhelpfully vague. The abstract is more helpful:
An electronic camera uses a relatively more complex digital image processing technique in a still image mode to produce high quality still images, and a relatively more simple image processing technique in a motion preview mode to produce preview images of acceptable quality prior to initiation of the still image mode. The more complex digital technique is done in software in a general purpose processor section 35, while the more simple digital technique is implemented in a fixed digital circuit in an application specific integrated circuit 27, which also implements timing and control functions. The motion preview mode uses a shorter image readout period than the still mode and further involves mapping image sensor pixels into a fewer number of color display pixels on a color LCD display 10. The mapping further converts color pixel signals from a mosaic array into a different color pattern on the color LCD display 10.
As you can see, it's a little more than "oh lol look image preview patent time". It's the METHOD of doing it, and the use of a first processing means to produce the high-quality image when you take the photo, and the lower-quality integrated circuit for converting and downscaling bayer-filter images into ones suitable for display.
In Russia, patents own you !!
Its just wrong how they can patent the simplest thing. This type of patenting stifles creativity. I just patented the dust that accumulates on your tv or your computer monitor so every time you wipe it off you have to pay me a dollar. America corporate greed is so out of control!
I don't know the details of this case. It might very well be infringing on their patents. On the other hand...
The patent could be so vague as to be "A process for capturing an image with a hand-held electronic device and stored in digital format for later viewing and transfer to another device" which would make any digital camera, video camera with still function, cellular phone with a camera, PMP with a camera, hand-held game system with a camera, etc. Which would be so blatently wide in its coverage that no one could ever make any gadget without infringing.
A patent should have to be absolutely precise in its description. It should have to name the exact details of the cmos sensor and lens configuration, supported resolutions, meathod of storage and conversion of the image to the storage format etc. and only cover that single method. If someone else comes up with a way to do the exact same thing without using any of the EXACT same pieces then they should be able to produce a product without fear of patent cases.
@dennisheadley Patents DO have to be absolutely precise in the description and the figures - the so-called enabling embodiment, which has to satisfy sufficiency requirements in law.
The difference comes when you get on to the claims. The claims are nasty pieces of legal jargon that don't really make sense. But it's a patent attorney's job to capture in the claims the broadest definition of the invention. What's the point of investing time in R&D, inventing something, and only being able to patent the exact thing? You want to cover the essence of the invention - the thing that is inventive.
GO KODAC! Down with Apple and RIM!
@Bash23 Kodak*
i hate apple so this serves them right... their next os should be codenamed "pitbull"... kodak is still cool. i have a kodak camera. very useful in taking pics of my dogs!
all joking aside i have a kodak camera! there aint nothing better dan a kodak moment my niggs
Excuse me? "Computer programs calling to other programs"??
I think Apple can safely chalk that one up to prior use, since that's been around AT LEAST as long as the System 6.0 MultiFinder.