Slashdot Mirror
Kodak Sues Sony Over Digital Camera Patents
KenC writes "Kodak has filed a lawsuit against Sony alleging that 10 of its patents have been used without permission. Included among the patents as reported via Reuters is electronic camera utilizing image compression and digital storage . Kodak claim the patents involved were issued between 1987 and 2003. More from Bloomberg." As reader Nekura2025 asks "Um, doesn't that apply to all digital cameras?"
I was unable to find any more sources for this information, as something like Kodak sueing for a patent on "electronic camera utilizing image compression and digital storage" seems like one of those typical press exaggerations.
However, if this really is a patent held by Kodak this is just another example of the failure of the patent system to issue appopriate tecchnology patents. This is just like the "One Click Order" patent that Amazon was trying to enforce a while ago.
I don't understand how a patent could be issued for "electronic camera utilizing image compression and digital storage" when it is simply the assembly of dozens of really patent worth technologies: CCD image sensor, electronicaly programmable non-volitile memory, compression algorithims, and the like
I sincerely hope that this is either a press exaggeration, otherwise it is clear that technology patent problems are still persisting.
As reader Nekura2025 asks "Um, doesn't that apply to all digital cameras?" Sure it does...but you need to pick the target with the most money first.
Besides that, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus and many others use Kodak CCD chips in their cameras. Sony uses Sony chips in their cameras.
Say what you want about obvious patents, but Kodak is no SCO - they aren't desperate or stupid enough to sue their own customers.
Edith Keeler Must Die
True enough, assuming a spurious lawsuit.
However, if you had tremendous amounts of R&D money invested, and someone else was turning your effort into market share and killing you, you might fail to detect humor in the situation.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I was about to say the same thing along the lines of "Doesn't it sound a bit familar that when a company discovers that its business model is based upon an obsolete technology that is leading them them to bankrupcy, they decide to sue the biggest of the companies that are using the new technology."
Although unlike sco I think that Kodak is probably looking for a buyout. Good idea really. Kodak's brand is still the largest consumer brand. I can easily see us all buying sony camera's in the future that include "Kodak Colormatch technology" or whatever new tech they want to associates with Kodak's old film brand image (no pun intended).
-?-
Before raking Kodak over the coals, has anybody bothered to check and see if maybe all the other digital camera manufdacturers are already licensing Kodak's patents?
First of all, SCO probably was hoping IBM would buy them out.
Secondly, Kodak has been at the forefront of digital imaging technology research from the outset. Kodak has been making the transition from film to digital over the past 15 years. Since film is still used in many industries and in many parts of the world, they are correct not to completely abandon the film business. That doesn't mean they haven't been developing and using cutting edge technology.
Thirdly, SCO didn't invent IP lawsuits. SCO's innovation is in substituting a media circus for solid evidence and good lawyering. There are many IP lawsuits you never hear about because the parties DON'T call press conferences.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
That situation is never funny, but not all bad situations should lead to litigation. You may have spent millions in R&D, but were you working on something non-obvious?
I see a lot of people saying how digital photography was supposedly "totally obvious" in the 1980s. Totally wrong.
I was watching this Japanese documentary (thank goodness it was subtitled!) about canon's development of the digital camera. Some things to keep in mind of the time:
- the processing power to display the image on a computer was so great, it wasn't perceivable to make such an affordable device. Did anyone have 32 bit graphics on their PC in 1983?
- even if the device could be made it would weigh a lot!
According to these canon engineers that developed the digital photo camera, digital photogaphy wasn't perceived as a reality in the early 80s. In fact, the only real r&d (way more r than d) was being put into digital video cams, and that was considered bleeding edge, since a lot of the effort was being put into having a more portable tape-recording video camera.
When Canon finally made a successful prototype, they took it out to a park in Tokyo, where they took a picture of a young lady with a dog. The device was the size of large pizza box! This box weight a lot and took up a lot of power. Sure, it was a prototype, but this was the result of almost 6 years of development.
What we may see as obvious from our 21st century standpoint definitely wasn't so in the early 80s.
If this were the case, then the blame would fall squarely on your shoulders for poor execution. Kodak had products based on outdated technology, and did the research for new technologoy but did not bring it to market fast enough (perhaps to milk the film products for all they are worth). If Sony managed to bring newer technology to the market faster, Kodak deserves to lose market share because of this.
This is just competition. When businesses compete, they compete in technology, marketing, price, time to market and other aspects. Kodak should have been out their making products using their R&D, not sitting on their butts working on licensing agreements. They had a better idea of the market because they had several products out there, and we know now that they had the technology for the next generation of products as well, but when Sony beat them to it and made better products because Kodak weren't competitive enough, they want to litigate?
That's why patents are stupid. If you do the R&D, keep it a trade secret until you are ready to release the product and then use the revenue from that product to innovate the next one. That how you beat your competitors, not by sitting on your laurels. If you aren't willing to replace your own products with better ones, other people will do it for you.
Perhaps for individual inventors, patents might make sense, because individual inventors have to overcome the barriers of entry in markets. But the current patent system itself creates a huge barrier of entry... 10K for a patent? Gimme a break.
Perhaps the best thing to do to the patent system is to "open source" it. Basically, anyone can apply for a patent. The docs are posted online. The patent is valid until someone demonstrates why it is obvious, or has been done before (exactly or in another medium). No patent examiners and no lawyers are needed in the application process. If there is a dispute, a judge looks over the body of comments and decides whether the patent is legit. (The judge's involvement invariably happens with current patents anyway, except that right now the judge does not have any peer-review comments to look over, just those submitted by the disputers).
Without the possibility of a patent to let a company make some money off of a new invention for a bit, very few companies would be willing to spend money on research and development. Yes, patents can be misused. But without patents you'd have a "free-rider" problem where everyone wants everyone else to put up the time, money, and resources to develop new things, so that they could then simply copy it. In such an environment, almost nobody will be willing to innovate.
The businesses that will die will be the ones who put money into R&D. That includes those who fund university research. I sincerely doubt in the environment you seem to want we would be able to innovate or create anything. However, since our forefathers got along fine with whale oil and candles, I guess we don't actually need too many of the innovations since then.
That tired joke got modded up not because it's almost chuckle-inducing, but because it's social commentary. The funny part is that the idea is blindingly obvious and shouldn't be worth (puts pinky to lips) one million dollars. The sad part is that, yes, it is.
Imagine that a slashdotter wrote one e-mail to a representative or a government body for every 20 posts he or she wrote here. Even better if a physical letter were sent through the mail.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.