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?"

Comments

Not another one

[mod_critical]

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.

Re:Not another one

[torokun]

Don't always jump to conclusions based on the title or summary description of a patent.

This is probably better read as "a certain type of electronic camera utilizing a certain type of image compression together with a certain type of digital storage"...

There is absolutely nothing here that could lead you to criticize the entire patent system... aggh...

Re:Not another one

[itbwtcl]

One thing you have to keep in mind is, all patented devices seem obvious when you have the
benefit of hindsight. The first automobiles were nothing more than an "assembly of dozens of really
patent worth[y] technologies..." If you have the foresight, the skill, and the facilities to glom
them together and make something new then go for it.

The proper use of a patent system is the best way to encourage innovation. Unfortunately recent
sloppy (and possibly corrupt) patent processing is giving the system a poor reputation. We need to
be encouraging our govenments to fund, train, and staff the patent offices properly.

We also need to be encouraging our representatives to enforce a clear and sane patent policy.
Patents on natural processes, language, and software constructs are purely destructive. Such
patents are the real threat.

I don't know if Eastman Kodak's patents are legit, but if they are not it will be because someone
else thought of the specific device/implementation first. If they legitimately had a "eureka" moment
then they deserve to hold and enforce the patent.

Re:Not another one

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between this and "one-click shopping" or retroactively patenting browser plugins is that Kodak really did pioneer most of this stuff back in the 1980s and early 90s, and there was a lot of serious R&D and technology advances involved.

Think back to 1995 ... pretty much every digital camera was made by Kodak.

Sure, you could get a digital SLR from Nikon or Canon, but it was branded as a Kodak and had a Kodak digital back the size of a coffee grinder mounted onto what was basically a stock 6006 or EOS1.

And those pro MF and LF backs? And that first 320x200 consumer digicam that cost $1,500?

All Kodaks.

Too bad for Kodak they haven't made a competitive digital camera in like 5 years.

Re:Not another one

[jovlinger]

no!

there are so many patents out there that have patented the "desire" not the "implementation".

* I'd like to make shopping on the web easy enough to require only one click!

* I'd like to compress my images on a camera!

* I'd like to have richly marked up pages stored on a server and allow remote clients to access and display them.

These are NOT patent worthy, any more than

* I'd like a non-fire-based, perpetual source of light.

However, the invention of

* carbon filament in a noble gas through which electricity is passed to cause incandesence

IS a patentable invention, because it is a novel IMPLEMENTATION, not a novel desire. ... or rather, above I should have said "... SHOULD not be patent worthy." I'm sure the system has progressed far beyond its original intentions.

While I'm on the subject, I'd like to question whether any patents today actually function to foster innovation. It seems that the strategic patent is a very potent weapon AGAINST innovation (on the part of your competitors) by locking others out of a business endeavor you have no intention to persue--yet--but want to keep others from. See the drug industry for rampant examples: They patent the drug, and just when that's about to expire, they patent the messenger whatsit, and when that expires, they patent the resulting whosit... some of which are produced naturally by your body. Hell, they've even started patenting DNA, which they don't even know what it DOES!

At some point, you have to stop swallowing the propaganda and question these things.

You pick the nice fat targets first...

[StandardCell]

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.

Re:Shoot the big fish first

[kindbud]

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.

Re:Pulling a Darl...

[smittyoneeach]

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.

Maybe Sony is the only holdout

[WreckDiver]

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?

Not even comparable

[Ohreally_factor]

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.

Re:Pulling a Darl...

[GlassHeart]

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.

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?

digital photography wasn't obvious in the 80s!

[ObiWonKanblomi]

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.

Patents themselves are not bad

[HermesHuang]

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.

Re:Patents themselves are not bad

[slipstick]

Well this is totally unsubstantiated.

I could equally say that without "protection" companies would be forced to innovate faster in order to stay ahead. It's as equally plausible because it's as equally untestable.

Hey, this is fun. I can make up a future that doesn't exist as well. Consider that without protection. Innovation may actually occur not only faster but in a more logical and less disruptive manner. Each change may be small compared to previous ideas but they would occur at an ever faster pace. As well small companies would be able to make up ground faster and add their own innovations that a "bigger" less agile company either refuses to try to market or doesn't see a return large enough for their coffers.

By the way, somebody had to "innovate" the candle too at some point. I'm pretty sure they didn't have patent protection.

Companies, large or small, will always innovate because that's what they have to do to stay competitive. If all it took were a few patents to keep a company on top innovation would actually grind to a halt.

Lastly, in my brave new world, companies would not only innovate with technology but maybe they would actually spend time innovating in customer service because that's what would really count.

Gee that was fun. Thanks for playing.

Re:Patents themselves are not bad

[HermesHuang]

*sigh* here we go again.

Perhaps I was a bit general. I will be specific in that I will say what I personally deal with:

I do R&D in microelectronics. Most of the projects I work in involve an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, of equipment and manpower. When the final product comes out our profits are figured not only on production costs, but those development costs. If we did not have a patent for our devices, a week after we come out with a new product, another company would be able to sell the same product at a lower cost because they did not have to spend the money to do the development work. Hence anything they make over production costs will already be profit.

Thus at least in my own specific experience (and yes, in my self interest, since I'd be out of a job) cutting edge technology would not be able to exist as it is today. There is no way we can just make small changes, because every little change we make means we have to retool at least some of the fab line. So when we turn out a new product, it has to be a significant step above what we previously had, to justify the expense of the changeover.

I respect your idealism, but as someone who is in the middle of it, I don't see it as a matter of being agile or innovative enough. From my standpoint, developmental costs are simply too great to be ignored, and so the first person to make something would always lose out.

This is not to say that all research and development is necessarily expensive. But If you want to look at it abstractly, The person who makes a product first has to set their price according to production costs and development costs. The second person to make that same product can set their price based solely on production costs (and perhaps the cost of buying 10 or so items from the person who first made it to take apart). Thus the second person will be able to out-compete the first person. If the development costs are fairly neglegible (like with a candle) then the market is still competitive between the two sellers. But if development costs are high like in microelectronics, even selling at a loss the person who developed the device would still be selling for a higher price then the person who copies them.

This is not to say patents cannot be abused. One example I can think of is patenting gene sequences and the like. The purpose of a patent is to give whoever develops something a grace period within which to recoup the costs of doing the development.

I am not playing. This is my livihood we're talking about here. If we were not able to patent our products, I would not be able to go to my boss and say "I have a new idea, but we'll need to order this $300,000 PECVD to fabricated it in our lab to work out all the details." I suppose I could try to make a new device within the constraints of what we already have the capability of making. But in the competitive world that I live in, if we already have the capability to make it, chances are someone else has already done it.

Re:Patents themselves are not bad

[JuggleGeek]

In such an environment, almost nobody will be willing to innovate.

As things are going, the patent system makes it darn near impossible to innovate.

I think email programs have been stuck for a long time. I can think of a number of things I'd like them to do that they don't do currently. So lets say I write my own, with plans to sell it. I'd want it to have some protections to help get rid of spam, to help avoid the common viruses, etc, in addition to some things that would simply make email more useful. I'd also probably want it to be able to do essentially the same thing with usenet messages - usenet isn't that different from email, so go for the gusto, right?

How long before I get hit with a ton of "You used our patent here" stuff? Not long after it went public, I suspect.

Companies have filed suits claiming they own patents to HTML links, for god sakes. And to websites that use a menu system which stays the same as you go from page to page. And all kinds of other things. More than one company using Challlenge/Response as a solution to spam (nothing more than a hand-shake, IMO) have claimed that they own the patent to that.

If patents had been available for software back then, Visicalc would probably still be the best spreadsheet program around, as nobody else would be allowed to design a spreadsheet. Lord knows what we would be limited to when it comes to word processors and databases.

I can understand a reasonable amount of protection for non-obvious ideas that take a lot of time and effort to make work, but the way the patent system is going is *not* going to increase the number of people/companies who develop technology, it's going to limit the number who can do it.

Only companies with lots of money and good lawyers are going to even have a shot. How does that help anyone except a select few?