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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
*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.