Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak vs. Sun Java Trial Date Set

Posted by Hemos on from the stone-in-the-shoe dept.

sirshannon writes "CNET News.com.com.com.com is reporting that the Kodak vs. Sun trial date has been set for September 15. Kodak claims that Java infringes on 3 patents they hold and have been trying to "resolve" the issue for 4 years or so. More info here."

152 comments

  1. Suing for Dollars by mfh · · Score: 1

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with Microsoft paying Sun $2bil.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Suing for Dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Microsoft would have anything to do with it?

      What hold you think Microsoft might have over Kodak?

      Do you think Kodak owes Microsoft any favors?

  2. Great. by DiscordOfFive · · Score: 1

    The litigation wars continue. I'm just curious as to how Kodak decided that litigation against sun was a good idea.

    --


    Only the purest of souls seek enlightenment. Everyone else just wants power.
    1. Re:Great. by saden1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone probably knows that Kodak was falling off but it has just reach a new low. Looking at the patents they claim they own you'll note that every program every written that makes use of an object manager is infringing on their patent. This patent is totally unenforceable. And I can honestly say with confidence that there is definitely prior art out there.

      Kodak is sinking and needs management change.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    2. Re:Great. by serano · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kodak is sinking and needs management change.

      Since they are adopting the SCO business model, they might consider Darl. I hear he might be on the market soon.

    3. Re:Great. by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just reading the first patent (5,206,951) it would appear that Kodak has a patent on Object Oriented software.

      The patent is sufficiently vague as to encompass so many things it probably covers RMI as well.

      But shouldn't a vague patent make it easier to find prior art?

      patent 5,421,012 seems unrelated, unless their trying to tie it in to J2EE application servers in some weird fashion.

      5,226,161 is just gettings stupid. Patenting "object managers" in any way shape or form is stupid.

      They are simply patenting object oriented elements of software. They can not succeed with this vague strategy for a few reasons. One, they do not have enough money to take on the whole software world. Two, their patents are so close to OOD that their must be tons of prior art.

    4. Re:Great. by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alright, these kinds of posts come up in every lawsuit story, and I just don't understand why. Company X sues someone, and instantly people make these grand announcements about how X is falling and relying on the patents in a last ditch effort to remain afloat.

      Kodak is doing fine. They're a very, very big company. They are quite profitable.

      Too bad we don't have some sort of vast network of worldwide computer systems over which one can quickly access such information.

      I'm not defending their actions here, of course. The patents look pretty sketchy, but then again I've only read the abstracts. Maybe in the main body they elaborate something new, so I'll refrain from judgment.

    5. Re:Great. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute, did you read the patents or did you read the abstracts of the patents? There's a difference.

    6. Re:Great. by allyourbasebelongtou · · Score: 3, Informative

      While Kodak was slugging it out with Fuji, Ilford, and Agfa across the globe for the traditional film business, all kinds of new competititive threats like HP (a company no one would have called a Kodak competitor 10 years ago) have sprung up and made mincemeat out of what should have been a natural for Kodak: transitioning people and themselves to digital.

      Alas, someone was asleep at the switch, oodles of people have lost their jobs, and Kodak, a name almost synonymous with quality photography, will likely be sliced into a much smaller company just to stay afloat. What a shame.

      Its only hope is that Hollywood continues using traditional film for feature films forever. Oh, wait, that's not gonna happen, either. Scratch that.

      Ah yes, Wang! Software! We have a way out! Let's get people to pay us for our patents! Nice try.

      I have to give them praise for trying to work out something with Sun amicably (however zany the claim may seem to us now) without pushing the big red LAWSUIT button long ago, but it does quite seem to be an attempt to make an end run for the cash.

      My only advice to Kodak: get HP to buy you. (You heard it here first.)

      --
      ----------
      Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.
    7. Re:Great. by Compenguin · · Score: 1

      KODAK is doing awful though. Just look at tehir 5 year stock chart. I live in Rochester, NY and there is a news story every month or so about what a mess Kodak is.

    8. Re:Great. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Just about everyone's stock chart looks bad when you start it during the boom and end it now. They've recently made a big push away from chemical film to digital, and it appears to be paying off. My point was this isn't some last ditch effort to save the company. Even without the lawsuit they have a viable business going.

    9. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all we know, that may well be the same thing as saying "Consolidated Buggy Whip, Inc. is sinking and needs a management change."

    10. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if Sun is also doomed, perhaps that's just the way the industry works. Meritless lawsuits? I'm beginning to wonder if the IQ of the executive is inversely proportional to the amount of capital he is responsible for.

  3. Kodak v. Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must be a case of overexposure.

    1. Re:Kodak v. Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Must be a case of overexposure. So what you're saying is that Kodak is suing Sun because they forgot to use Flash... Oh shit. Macromedia's gonna get in on this too...

    2. Re:Kodak v. Sun by name773 · · Score: 1

      forgot to use Flash
      overexposure means too much light

  4. Java! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The term Java can refer to:

    * Java (island) - the main island of Indonesia
    * Java, Georgia - one of provinces of the Republic of Georgia
    * Java coffee - a variety of coffee plant which originated on the island
    * Java programming language - named after the coffee
    * JavaScript - A Java-like scripting language used in web pages.
    * Javanese language
    * Java (board game)
    * Java (chicken) - a breed of chicken

    1. Re:Java! by taara · · Score: 1

      Java can also refer to SOL - a kind of shell interface licensed under GNU and running on Hewlett Packard HP48G calculators. It is not made by HP.
      It seems to me that one patent is talking about object oriented programming. So Kodak may fish for money all ower the woeld now?

    2. Re:Java! by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

      Also, Java refers to the east meeting room in my old company. There is also a Borneo meeting room.^-^

      --
      Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
    3. Re:Java! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JavaScript - A Java-like scripting language used in web pages.

      Well... except that it's totally different from Java, of course. Totally different non-class-based object system, dynamic typing, interpreted directly rather than compiled to bytecode. Basically the only similarity is the way it uses the usual C-derived {}; syntax.

      I hate marketing.

    4. Re:Java! by byolinux · · Score: 1

      Capital of Borneo?

      --
      Join the Free Software Foundation
    5. Re:Java! by TummyX · · Score: 1

      FYI, ECMAScript which is the new "standard" for javascript supports custom classes, static typing and at least one implemenation (JScript.NET) supports compiling down to byte code.

    6. Re:Java! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      Borneo is a different island with many provinces. There's no such thing as the capital of Borneo, each provinces in Borneo has its own capital.

    7. Re:Java! by sr180 · · Score: 1
      You completely forgot.

      Java Destop: A sun released version of Linux that is NOT coded in Java, but has java and some cool java things but it costs money and I'm a /.er that only has free software...

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
  5. Vague fluffy patents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like most of the patents that companies sue other companies over, these are particularly vague and empty. I'm surprised there isn't prior art on all of these.

  6. This is so sad... by phunster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These are two companies on the ropes. One of them has decided that litigation is a viable survival strategy. Say what you will about either of these companies, this litigation is not a good thing for either of them.

    1. Re:This is so sad... by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Litigation seems to be a viable strategy for Sun too. What goes around comes around in the crazy patent game I guess.

    2. Re:This is so sad... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Kodak's not just on the ropes - it's practically on the floor having seriously missed the digital photography boat after PhotoCD went nowhere. This isn't the only patent case that Kodak is involved in at the moment either. There is an ongoing spat with Sony over patent violations as well where both companies have issued suits against the other about infringements pertaining to digital cameras and related technologies. In addition Kodak has been named as one of 31 defendents in a case over the use of a JPEG related patent that Forgent claims to own.

      As usual, I'm betting on the lawyers being the only winners while the companies themselves suffer death by a thousand paper cuts from all of the legal documents...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:This is so sad... by njcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Just wonder why you say this. The other day I was just curious about Sun's lawsuits and did a few searches. The majority of any Sun info I found were related to their Microsoft trials. Those were all contract and anti trust trials. Not patent trials. I don't think it was bad of sun to spend the time and money to help label MS as a monopoly and point out their anti-competitive practices. They've put a lot of companies out of business and it's good that Sun stood up to them. It's a shame people never recognized that what Sun was fighting for benefitted many independant software companies, not just sun. Maybe if they received that kind of support they never would have settled.

      If it is the MS trials you are reffering too, you obviously have your head shoved up way to far up your MCSE ass.

      There were some trademark related ones, or threats of, over Java. They were just enforcing the fact that people can't call something Java or 100% Java compatible unless it's been tested as such. This is a good thing for the developer community that needs to rely on the claims of something being 100% pure java.

      The only one I found regarding patents was related to Kingston which Sun later dropped. A stupid decision to start the suit in my opinion.

      You want to talk about big patent lawsuits you're looking at the wrong tech company identified by three letters. Even MS is taking big blue's cue and building a patent portfolio to start raising revenue.

      Read this interesting bit on how IBM tried to bully Sun out of $10 million in it's early days."

      My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.

      The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.

      After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

      An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?" After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

      In corporate America, this type of shakedown is repeated weekly. The patent as stimulant to invention has long since given way to the patent as blunt instrument for establishing an innovation stranglehold.

      Gary Reback

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
    4. Re:This is so sad... by foidulus · · Score: 1

      I am not an MSCE, I don't use any Microsoft OS's, and I love Java. What I was pointing out was that Sun is having major financial problems(read the parent) and if it were not for that suit and a good cash injection from Microsoft they would be having more...

    5. Re:This is so sad... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

      That's extortion. It's a felony that can and will get you many years in prison.

      C//

    6. Re:This is so sad... by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "That's extortion. It's a felony that can and will get you many years in prison."

      Can, yes. Will, apparently not. IBM did a lot of this and I never heard of any IBM lawyer going to prison over this.

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
    7. Re:This is so sad... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1


      So is misrepresenting the WMD threat Iraq posed pre-invasion.

      Do you think GWB is seriously concerned about impeachment?

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    8. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's extortion. It's a felony that can and will get you many years in prison.

      Don't give Darl any more ideas.

    9. Re:This is so sad... by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "I am not an MSCE, I don't use any Microsoft OS's, and I love Java. What I was pointing out was that Sun is having major financial problems(read the parent) and if it were not for that suit and a good cash injection from Microsoft they would be having more..."
      Actually... what you said was
      "Litigation seems to be a viable strategy for Sun too. What goes around comes around in the crazy patent game I guess."
      Litigation wasn't a "viable strategy" for Sun. It was a last resort. Sun tried to get MS to conform to the spec before taking any legal action. I'm sure Sun would have rather had MS conform to the spec than have to go through this long trial. Java would have been much better off without it.

      From http://www.post369.columbus.oh.us/ExpNews.d/1997.d /971028.ExpNews.html

      "Sun's first responsibility as stewards of the Java technology is to preserve the significant investments that Sun and hundreds of companies have made. We are required to take this action on behalf of our licensees, the Java industry and Sun's shareholders," said Alan Baratz, president of Sun's JavaSoft division. Baratz added that for the past six months and up until 6 p.m. Sunday, September 28, Sun worked diligently with Microsoft in hopes of convincing them to abide by their agreements.
      You also sait "what goes around comes around". Which makes it sound like Sun deserves this and is a result of the MS case or that the two are even legally or morally the same.

      I don't see how your follow up comment explains your first comment in the way you think it does.

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
    10. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for being relevant and on-topic, fuck-stick.

    11. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck did this get a score of 2, what the fuck is going on????

    12. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the way this game is typically played, IBM isn't looking for cash, they're looking for intellectual property rights. Although it doesn't say so, I bet that the "modest bit of negotiation" also netted both Sun and IBM access to the other's IP portfolio. It was most likely the right to use some of Sun's IP that IBM was *really* after and any money they happened to get was "gravy" (and no doubt covered the legal expenses).

      And IBM isn't the only company who plays this game (although they play it very well). These days it is pretty much imperative that high tech firms maintain an IP portfolio so that when Big Blue (or anyone else) comes knocking you've got something to offer (other than $$$$).

      More recently there seem to be some bottom feeders that really do care about the $$$$ (like SCO and apparently Kodak), but more often than not it's the right to use IP (and more often than not some type of mutual exchange is agreed upon).

    13. Re:This is so sad... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As usual, I'm betting on the lawyers being the only winners while the companies themselves suffer death by a thousand paper cuts from all of the legal documents...

      If you've said it a thousand times, you still haven't said it enough. While tech companies bleed off programmers and other skilled employees and move development overseas, lawyers are getting paid more and more to do... what exactly?

      Now while the U.S. is falling way behind in engineering and sciences, lawyers are becoming even more numerous. Well, what the hell are they going to do in court when we as a country no longer do ANYTHING? The less we do, the pettier the lawsuits become.

      Of course, this doesn't just apply to the U.S., but I think the U.S. is the leader taking all of us down this path.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    14. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it! I'm outsourcing my layers to India!!

    15. Re:This is so sad... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      If the words quoted were the words actually spoken, they probably would have. If, with witnesses of my own present, they spoke those words, I would have called the police and had them arrested on the spot.

      C//

    16. Re:This is so sad... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      I can't help think about the long legal battle between Kodak and Polaroid over patents concerning instant photography. In 1991 Polaroid won a 15 year long infringement case against Kodak. But it wasn't a real win for Polaroid; the fight had cost them immeasurably in other ways. They filed for chapter 11 a few years ago when digital killed chemical-based instant photography. Now Kodak is in big financial trouble and still thinks it can succeed by litigating.

      I wonder what Eastman and Land would have to say if they were still around.

    17. Re:This is so sad... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1
      I thought the polaroid suit was all over and done with around 1985. That's when Kodak pulled their instant cameras from the market.


      Kodak was aware and tracking digital technology then. Six megapixel sensors were the bogeyman for a number of years; at that point, the thinking went, you could stick a fork into silver-halide film chemistry; it was done.


      Kodak Research Labs were a million-dollar-a-day operation. Seeing the problem coming, and being able to do something about it, are two different issues. Kodak didn't have the Integrated Circuit fabrication capabilities to work directly on CCD sensors; they come from other companies.

    18. Re:This is so sad... by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      I had also thought that it was settled earlier than 1991, but I decided to trust this over my own memory. Perhaps Kodak was forced to withdraw from the market and recall the cameras in 1985, but the monetary settlement wasn't done until 1991. In either case, it was long, drawn out, and counterproductive.

      Kodak probably could have produced the sensors if they had been thinking ahead. They, like many other "photo" companies are intimately involved in the semiconductor manufacturing arena. It's ironic that they should be left at the dock while the ship they helped build sets sail.

    19. Re:This is so sad... by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Now while the U.S. is falling way behind in engineering and sciences

      Funny, I had you down as a laissez-faire right-winger. Congratulations for taking an interest in facts. Was it the threat to your career path that did it for you?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    20. Re:This is so sad... by slam+smith · · Score: 1

      Lawyers, in particular lawyers for a large organization, can get a away with stuff that would land more ordinary mortals in jail.

      --
      My Weblog
    21. Re:This is so sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The poster has excellent karma, so he gets +1 on his posts, dipshit.

    22. Re:This is so sad... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
      I have never been a laissez-faire right-winger. Anyway, these days I can best be described as a slightly hawkish progressive.

      Heh, just FYI, I voted for Nader. Not that I like Nader much, it was really a protest vote. This year, I am firmly in the "anyone but Bush" camp.

      I used to think myself a left libertarian, however, I am far to pragmatic to associate with libertarians, who are generally 100% dogmatic. Being a pragmatist, I am against ideology costing lives(or causing serious damage to so many millions), be it regarding economics, war, weapons, etc. OTOH, I recognize that the price of freedom is sometimes the lives of a few.

      So there you go, greenrd! It's been a while since I've argued with you -- I am a bit more moderate these days, so we may be less at odds.

      To answer your question, no, I am not concerned about my career. What concerns me is that so many skilled people can't put their skills to use, the level of corruption in our government(eg. the DMCA, laws literally being written by industry big-wigs -- gotta love Word(TM) meta-data), "free trade" being largely a one-way street and only for large corporations, etc., etc.

      Cheers!

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  7. Kodak is the biggest bunch of whiners by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    But I guess it?s like us Americans to take to court those who we can?t beat in the marketplace?

    ?This is my first post from a Linux box? I?m 1337 now??

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Kodak is the biggest bunch of whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you?re not that l33t because you?ve forgotten where your apostraphe is.

      C?mon. All the l33t people have know where things are on teh keyboard.

    2. Re:Kodak is the biggest bunch of whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also know how to spell apostrophe and "have know" how to construct proper english sentences.

  8. what's the non-obvious innovation here? by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what the non-obvious innovations are in these patents. The first one, for example, seems to describe a perfectly ordinary object system, no different from what has been in languages Smalltalk, C++, and CLOS for twenty years or more. The fact that the object system appears to be intended specifically for management of certain types of data doesn't make it any more innovative. Not that Sun's recent behavior makes me like them, but I wonder if Kodak's patents are valid.

    1. Re:what's the non-obvious innovation here? by the_duke_of_hazzard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Agree totally. The terms of the abstract of the first one at least are so completely vague as to be useless. It's far from clear what's supposed to be new in these patents - they describe various things which have existed in various forms for many years, and not just in computing. For the first one, they'd also have to sue pretty much anyone who uses any sort of standardised object interface technology, including, er, Microsoft and whoever markets CORBA in any way.

  9. This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If it wasn't for the sun, Kodak would have only seen a shadow of its potential.

    1. Re:This is outrageous by mrkslntbob · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for the sun, there wouldn't be any shadows.

    2. Re:This is outrageous by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      If it wasn't for the sun, Kodak would have only seen a shadow of its potential.
      No, not quite. Without Sun, Kodak would not even have seen a shadow of its potential.

      After all, where do shadows come from?

      Tim

  10. Same old same old... by inphinity · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the patent text: "Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types"

    Is it me, or does this summary feel suspiciously like every other programming language ever written? It seems to me that core concepts fundamental to any language shouldn't be a valid basis for IP...

    1. Re:Same old same old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      software patents is pretty lame. It's kinda surprising that it's kodak that is suing.

    2. Re:Same old same old... by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems to me that core concepts fundamental to any language shouldn't be a valid basis for IP...

      I say this every time a patent discussion comes up on /., only it never seems to sink in.

      You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The title and summary of the patent describe what it does. The body of the patent describes how it is done. The HOW is what matters in a patent.

      What Kodak is saying is that it (or rather its subsidiary Wang) invested time and money in devising a novel solution to a problem, then Sun - by whatever means - used that novel solution in its own product without compensating the original developers.

      Perhaps Sun independently came to the same conclusions in their own labs. Perhaps they simply read the patent database and copied Kodak's solution. That's for the judge to decide. Either way, Sun's lawyers should have checked first.

    3. Re:Same old same old... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Either way, Sun's lawyers should have checked first.

      If every piece of new software were cleared against the vast number of vague, overly broad and non-novel software patent claims that the patent office has granted, then the software industry would promptly grind to a halt.

      Not to mention that such checking of each piece of functionality against millions of claims would probably take more effort than writing the program in the first place (and lawyers cost much more per hour than developers).

      Even that wouldn't protect you. Assessing the infringement potential of each patent claim vs. each piece of software is a judgement call. Even if your lawyer thinks that you're clear, it doesn't mean that the patent holder agrees. The only way to find out for sure is a costly trial (and possibly appeals).

    4. Re:Same old same old... by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      lawyers cost much more per hour than developers

      I dunno... it might actually be cheaper to simply contact the patent holder and license it than it would be to develop it yourself from scratch. That's one of the points of the patent system, after all, to encourage investment in research by providing a framework for getting paid for it by people who find your research relevant to them. Xerox has operated this way for years, as has ARM.

      Not that the patent system isn't broken, at the moment. The Patent Office's attitude seems to be "grant the patent anyway, let the courts sort it out" rather than doing the checking they're supposed to. But that's a fault in the implementation of the system, the design is sound.

    5. Re:Same old same old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I dunno... it might actually be cheaper to simply contact the patent holder and license it than it would be to develop it yourself from scratch"

      First you would have to know that what you want to do is covered by a patent, which was the point the previous poster was trying to make. You'd have to do a patent search before deciding to write any software to determine what has been patented to determine if you'd need to do it yourself or if you could licence other work.

    6. Re:Same old same old... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      as the AC said, you have to know first there's a patent in the field. This is not trivial even for older patents. Then, for any new idea one would need to go through not only awarded patents, but pending applications also. And I'm talking obscure patents filed overseas, too. Then figure out whether any vaguely related ones can be infringing. How many lawyers per programmer would that require? any way you put it, all this does is skyrocket the R&D costs of any new application.

      The patent system as it is was ok for a moderate research pace with very few players in a given field. The way things are now, you have no guarantee you don't start a completely new project and by the time you're done it will be plastered with partially covering patents held by others. It might be useful to have some of the research stages published just to be able to defend against litigation companies.

    7. Re:Same old same old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You cannot patent an idea.


      Yes you can. That's what patents are intended to do. What the can't be is too general, as they are in this case.
      You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea.


      That's misleading. Yes, the patent has to be specific enough so that someone can read and build something that expresses that idea but a patent doesn't cover just one specific impementation of the idea.

      Individual implementations of an idea are subject to copyright not patents. If the implementation is so specific then it may also be covered by trademark rights.

      Here's some links for you. Perhaps then you'll stop spreading FUD and confusing everyone. No wonder you're on my Foes list.

      Patents

      Copyright

      Trademarks
    8. Re:Same old same old... by JPMH · · Score: 1
      You cannot patent an idea. You can only patent the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea. The title and summary of the patent describe what it does. The body of the patent describes how it is done. The HOW is what matters in a patent.

      Well, strictly speaking the CLAIMS are what matter in a patent.

      The author has to give a description of one way what is claimed could be implemented, that is good enough that somebody with normal skill in the art could create a working version of the invention ("sufficient disclosure").

      But what the patent grants is a monopoly not just over this specific mode of implementation, but over any implementation covered by one of the claims. In contrast to the specifics of the decription, the claim is drafted to be as widely drawn as it can be without running into prior art.

      So it's more than a little misleading to think of a patent as only covering one specific implementation.

      In practice actual patent claims tend to be a lot broader and wider and more abstract than this -- much closer in fact to the original poster's notion of patenting /all/ implementations of the particular idea (if the claim is well drafted).

  11. Re:Editting Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    edditing -> editing
    unproffesional -> unprofessional

    What was that you were saying?

  12. patents by jlechem · · Score: 4, Informative

    Everyone knows patents are bad blah blah blah but let's take a look at these patents in question.

    5,206,951 - Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types

    5,421,012 - Multitasking computer system for integrating the operation of different application programs which manipulate data objects of different types

    5,226,161 - Integration of data between typed data structures by mutual direct invocation between data managers corresponding to data types .

    This just looks like object oriented programming to me. So how can they sue SUN over Java. I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly

      BOOPSI gadgets on Amiga was prior "art" if we read it as object data and not object code.

      Even NextSteps objects I believe would fall under prior "art" but I am unsure.

    2. Re:patents by servoled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you read the claims or only the title? Please try to remember that the title is only there to give a quick idea what the patent is about, the summary is there only to give a slightly more detailed idea, the specification is there to tell the reader how the patent may be put into use and the claims are there to define what the patent covers. If you only read the title you have no idea what the patent actually covers or how it is implemented, so you basically have no idea what the patent is actually about.

      It is also important to note that Kodak is not suing SUN using the title of their patents, only the claims which are the only part of the patent which provide any protection at all.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    3. Re:patents by jlechem · · Score: 1

      "If you only read the title you have no idea what the patent actually covers or how it is implemented"

      I read through both the title and description but the not the full claim. How could the system work if the title has nothing to do with what the patent covers. I could see the implementation being somewhat different due to technical problems but the description and title should be very indicative of what the patent covers. Otherwise I'm going to invent a new computer chip or some material and call the patent title flying assbags.

      --
      Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    4. Re:patents by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 1
      I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

      You can attempt to patent anything. Then a patent examiner comes and he has a few hours to decide whether or not your application is valid, despite the fact that he has no knowledge at all about the subject. Sometimes the patent is granted, under the notion that if it isn't valid, this can always be fought out in court.

    5. Re:patents by servoled · · Score: 1

      The title is only there to help people who are looking through a number of patents get a vague idea of what the patent talks about. For example, the first patent listed in the story is entitled: "Integration of data between typed objects by mutual, direct invocation between object managers corresponding to object types" which one tell someone that the patent has something to do with data objects and object managers. If there were looking for something along those lines, they could then read more into it to see what the patent is specifically doing with those data objects and object managers. However, if they were looking for the proverbial better mouse trap, then they would obviously move along to the next patent.

      Titles are just vague descriptions, nothing more. The problem most people on slashdot have is that they read the title and think: "Damn, there's tons of prior art for that" without actually reading to find out what the patent is actually doing.

      If you did file an application for a computer chip with that title the examiner would probably just change it for you, or else make you change it to something which better describes the claimed invention.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    6. Re:patents by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was under the impression you couldn't patent things like this.

      I guess you're new to Slashdot, because we've been complaining about the whole idea of software patents for years.

      The fact is, you can't write any nontrivial computer program without infringing on multiple patents.

      You point out that these "inventions" seem obvious. That's certainly true today, and maybe was true back when the patents were filed (some are 10+ years old). But looking at the validity of patents from the highest level, there's actually a factor much more important than obviousness: "Would the 'inventor' have created and then not hidden this thing if she didn't anticipate patent protection?"

      If the answer is yes, then by the US Constitution, patents shouldn't apply. (Constitution states that Intellectual Property is allowed only to "promote progress of science and useful arts").

      That's why medicines should be patentable (because few people will go through the enormous investment to test a drug if generics can copy it immediately) but most software and business practices (like Amazon's "One Click") shouldn't be (because Amazon would've invented and implemented that system regardless of having patent protection)

    7. Re:patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are saying that because of the costs of clinical trials (in the US), that this justifies the patenting of medical drugs, is wrong. Medical compounds (and devices) are routinely patented, as are their non-medical counterparts. In the eyes of patents, they're not really any different than Pringles potato chips.

      Other chemical compounds are routinely patented (or, more likely, the processes involved to manufacture them are) that are non-medical.

      The fact is, Bayer still makes a lot of money from aspirin sales (as do other pharmas on their products that are no longer patent-protected), it's just that this money is not "growth" money, even though there is plenty of competition from other makers of aspirin.

      I think that things like the Bessemer Process for making steel was patented, and Bessemer did make some extra money from license fees in his time, but the patent ran out long before Bethlehem Steel, Andrew Carnegie et al. became the giant steel-making entities they were. While they used blast furnace steel making for the bulk of their production, they also still had a few Bessemer converters for the particular kinds of steel that were better made in a Bessemer converter.

  13. Fortunatly Sun has clarified lately ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... their position on Patent on Java. That's why maybe some tought "ok, let sue them" ;-)

    Ok, some offtopic now, i saw on /. some dumb things opensource & Java. As a reminder, thanks to Apach Group you have no more (!!) limitation build a opensource version complient with the spec.

    See for instance a "nice" reference in the Tiger specification (upcoming J2SE1.5)

    http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=176

    4.1 This section contains any additional information that the submitting Member wishes to include in the JSR.

    Sun plans to adhere to the proposed new JSPA licensing model for this JSR, including allowing independent implementations, licensing the TCK separately from the RI, minimizing shared code, and licensing any remaining shared code (such as the verifier) on simple non-restrictive licensing terms. In addition Sun plans to make it easier for academic and non-profit groups to obtain access to the RI and TCKs.

    So why is GNU's classpath still lagging ? anybody at FSF care about the advantage this could bring to OSS comunity ? Think of it Mr RMS ;-)

    Let's get GNU's Classpath full Java complient !!!

    This is not at all trollish in mind, it is just something i warn people that is now possible, and whatever Sun is willing to do in the future they can no more do anything about that ;-)

    Of course some people, said that the RI should be OSed (cf. the last ran between Sun & IBM couple of days ago). I agree if it is a GPL, but if is a less viral license then the risk of seen MS take advantage of this to weaken the platform is high.

    Meanwhile, why wait from Sun, when we can get our own ;-)

    1. Re:Fortunatly Sun has clarified lately ... by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Um, why? Why would I spend the time working with a partial implementation of Java, when I can download the complete Java from Sun and use it? Along with the argument of 'What possible benefit would Sun have in open sourceing Java' I really have to say 'Of what benefit to me is an OSS Java?' Considering I can't be all that different from a whole group of people, of what real benefit is there to Open Java, either the current Java from Sun or a Java implementation from someone else?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Fortunatly Sun has clarified lately ... by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Well one cool thing is compiling to native code. Another is being able to do optimisations to make it run faster than sun's. (Stuff like zero-copy which sun can't be bothered to do)

  14. Well..... by 10101001011 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not a fan of Kodak. Their close-minded strategies, their crappy "Easy Share" cameras with even worse batteries, their kiosks that supposedly make photo imaging simple and yet take longer and often don't work and I most certainly detest any company that relies on suing people to make money (yes, this means I hate law firms too). I can however say that it is sad to see Kodak going this way. They were, at one point in my life, a very strong and well-respected company who was on the leading edge of photography and lent a lot to the world. Unfortunely they lack any adaptability at this point in time, their profits are dwindling and their company could be facing bankruptcy if there is no upsurge in 35mm camera purchases...

    As I said, it will be sad to see them go, though when the inevitable does happen, I hope they smile for the camera....

  15. The patents by Pranjal · · Score: 3, Interesting


    The patents deal with objects and the way objects can be manipulated in a computer. Basically it deals with object oriented programming. Now someone tell me that OOPS is not patented a technology and we don't have to pay a royalty everytime we write a program using the OOPS paradigm.

    So the question is what ramifications do these software patents have for the programming world as a whole? And why is Kodak targetting only Java and therefore Sun. Why not C++ or other OOPS languages?

    1. Re:The patents by ites · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there are only two companies that promote and sell OOPS languages on a large scale. 1: Microsoft. 2: Sun.

      When launching patent lawsuits, it is generally best to go after smaller players first. If Sun were to accept Kodak's patents (or were to lose the court action), Kodak would have a better basis for going after Microsoft.

      They're not going to sue the C++ standards committee because it won't earn them anything except hostility.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    2. Re:The patents by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      They're not going to sue the C++ standards committee because it won't earn them anything except hostility.

      Not to mention that the C++ standard committee doesn't actually produce anything other than standards. Individual vendors produce compilers.

      Patents would apply to the latter, not the former.

    3. Re:The patents by Pranjal · · Score: 1

      They're not going to sue the C++ standards committee because it won't earn them anything except hostility.

      True but that doesn't stop them from targetting the small players which come out with C++ compilers. There is something inherently suspicious why they should only target SUN. You have borland, a much smaller player. Is Java technology used in digital camera's? If it is we found our smoking gun.

    4. Re:The patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because there are only two companies that promote and sell OOPS languages on a large scale. 1: Microsoft. 2: Sun."

      Borland promotes and sells Delphi which is fully OO. Where do you get these stats from. Magic 8 ball?

    5. Re:The patents by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "if Sun were to accept Kodak's patents"

      I thought this was the case. In a statement that Sun had put out a couple years ago (not sure on the time but it was during a previous round of open sourcing java discussions) McNealy said they couldn't open source java and specifically pointed out Kodak as a company that they were licensing technology from. They didn't specify exactly what it was from Kodak. It may not be these patents he was talking about.

      If it is these, and Sun wins, could this be the thing that allows Sun to open source Java?

      --
      Open Source Java DAO Generator
    6. Re:The patents by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Looking over the first patent it appears to be a library issue, not a compiler one. Unless I read it totally wrong, this could have even CORBA/COM as prior art. For example:
      • An object based data processing system including an extensible set of object types and a corresponding set of "object managers" wherein each object manager is a program for operating with the data stored in a corresponding type of object. The object managers in general support at least a standard set of operations. Looks a lot like interfaces 'operating on' implementations to me.
      • Any program can effect performance of these standard operations on objects of any type by making an "invocation" request. In response to an invocation request, object management services (which are available to all object managers) identifies and invokes an object manager that is suitable for performing the requested operation on the specified type of data. Can you spell factory class?
      • Data interchange services are provided for communicating data between objects of different types, using a set of standard data interchange formats. err ... marshalling?


      so ... what's innovative here?
    7. Re:The patents by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      I read it totally wrong, this could have even CORBA/COM as prior art.

      CORBA and COM are standards, not products.

      The CORBA standard says WHAT you must do to be CORBA. One CORBA product might implement it one way, another CORBA product might implement it the other way. CORBA doesn't care HOW you do it internally, or even what language you do it in, only that you present a CORBA-compliant interface to the rest of the system.

      What Kodak is saying is that they have developed a novel means to do the HOW. That there are other means to do what WHAT is irrelevant here.

      So you cannot say that CORBA is prior art. You might be able to say that a specific implementation of CORBA is. But then again, without going deep into the details of the HOW, you might not.

    8. Re:The patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like CORBA than C++ to me.

    9. Re:The patents by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well, the first patent at least is just a spec - there's no implementation attached (the filing has only 55 pages, including figures). Moreover, they use generic examples (folders, spreadsheets) about how to use the spec, not exact details (app spreadsheet101 does this and that using ObjectManager105). The bulk of the filing are function names and descriptions, field sizes and such. These are always part of the interface spec, including CORBA.

      and no, it's not Kodak that developed it - they just got the patents of a dying software company ^_^

    10. Re:The patents by JPMH · · Score: 1
      What Kodak is saying is that they have developed a novel means to do the HOW. That there are other means to do what WHAT is irrelevant here. So you cannot say that CORBA is prior art. You might be able to say that a specific implementation of CORBA is. But then again, without going deep into the details of the HOW, you might not.

      Below is Claim 1 of patent 5,206,951 filed August 31, 1992, a continuation of an application filed Aug. 21, 1987.

      As you can see, it's pretty generalised stuff, not about low-level details of the implementation at all.

      Did a draft of the CORBA standard, before that date, mandate the ability for object managers to be able to carry such an operation ?

      If so, then it's prior art.

      CLAIMS

      1. A data processing system in which data is represented as typed objects, the system comprising:

      (A) a plurality of object managers for performing operations with respect to objects, each object manager including

      (a) means for performing at least one operation with respect to at least one corresponding type of object,

      the means for performing at least one operation being responsive to a request to perform an operation of the at least one operation with respect to an identified object of the corresponding type for performing the requested operation with respect to the identified object,

      (b) means for identifying in a first, corresponding type of object a reference to a second object,

      (c) means responsive to the identification of a reference to a second object for generating a request for an operation with respect to the second object,

      each request including an identification of the second object and an operation to be performed with respect to the second object,

      (B) means for receiving from a requesting object manager an identification of a second object and an identification of an operation to be performed with respect to the second object,

      (C) means for using the received object and operation identifications to identify an object manager that includes means for performing the identified operation on objects of the type of the identified second object, and

      (D) means for invoking the identified object manager, and

      (E) means for communicating to the identified object manager a request to perform the identified operation on the identified second object,

      wherein an object manager can both request invocation of other object managers and can itself be invoked by other object managers.

  16. sun vs kodak by ardiri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this i think will be an interesting debate - first, the patents can be flagged as suspicious; however, they do predate java (just) :P i think that kodak has been spurred on from this due to the sun vs m$ settlement recently.

    first things that come to my mind

    - why wait nearly 10 years?
    (i started Java development in 1995, certified 1999)
    is there any reason why kodak didn't come forward when Java became public in 1995? they say they'll been trying to resolve it for 2-3 years, but that still marks it as 2001-2002 (6-7 years after creation).

    - can you really due if no money is being made?
    sun doesn't sell Java, so, technically kodak is not losing money from the language itself. sure Sun gets side-effect benefits from Java (publicity et al). but, as the Java creator, its always been free - and, not a single dime has been made on the language itself. the sun vs' m$ was for anti-trust issues, not the language.

    these type of things make me want to patent anything i can think of and then wait for an innocent company to make it a reality and then sue their asses off.

    1. Re:sun vs kodak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is six figures for embedded runtime no money? If I had that much "no money" I would not be reading this crap on a beautiful saturday evening. I'd be drunk.

    2. Re:sun vs kodak by _|()|\| · · Score: 2, Informative
      why wait nearly 10 years? ... can you really [s]ue if no money is being made?

      Kodak only acquired the patents in 1997. Wang didn't know or didn't care about the alleged infringement.

      "A patentee has the exclusive right to make, use, or sell the invention ... Anyone who, without permission, makes, uses or sells the patented invention is a direct infringer of the patent" [Intellectual Property in a Nutshell].

    3. Re:sun vs kodak by abulafia · · Score: 3, Informative
      - can you really due if no money is being made?
      sun doesn't sell Java, so, technically kodak is not losing money from the language itself. sure Sun gets side-effect benefits from Java (publicity et al). but, as the Java creator, its always been free - and, not a single dime has been made on the language itself. the sun vs' m$ was for anti-trust issues, not the language.

      Of course you can sue. The intent of a patent is to grant a limited monopoly. Any unauthorized use of the patented invention is covered.

      If that weren't the case, (a) people involved with Open Source wouldn't be so freaked out about patents, and (b) strategic attacks on patent holders that didn't involve making money directly on the covered invention would make the value of a patent significantly significantly smaller than it is today.

      I'm not defending patents; I'm just stating the obvious. (Hey, what's slashdot for?)

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    4. Re:sun vs kodak by Euler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A patent attorney would say: patent defenses a patent must be enforced within a reasonable amount of time that infringement is known, and there must be an intended use claimed by the patent.

      Kodak certainly is pretty late in enforcing its patent, and I think its unlikely that they have a practical use either.

      It seems to me that the reason Sun couldn't settle before going to trial is that there is nothing to settle here. Kodak is just wasting everyone's time and money.

  17. The patents aren't about OOP. They're about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distributed objects and object brokerage. CORBA, etc.

    I can think of two earlier examples. NeXT's Portable Distributed Objects (PDO) did exactly what the patents claim -- and in 1990. Apple also had a distributed object system in their embedding system for OS 9 (I forget the name).

  18. domino theory by moviepig.com · · Score: 1
    One of [Sun or Kodak] has decided that litigation is a viable survival strategy.

    ...or both.

    Each has a name much larger than its likely litigation-defense resources. If the patents are as broad as claimed, a good first step towards exploiting them might be a death-match with a highly visible opponent.

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  19. The case may not be well founded, however... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    the legal action maybe for something in the decision of Sun to not release Java to the open source community.

    I may be totally wrong, but this kind of action altought not directly profitable to the suer, may accomplish other goals, read FUD.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  20. More shady MS$ financing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if, in a few months, we'll hear about how The Evil Empire (Redmond) has been providing back-door financing to Kodak (like M$ did with SCO).

  21. Kodak Trying to Revive Itself with Litigation? by FlipmodePlaya · · Score: 1

    We talk to much here on /. about companies like SCO trying to dig themselves out of the red by suing for money. I don't know anything at all about this case, but I'm wondering if this is happening here. I live in Rochester, where Kodak is our largest employer, and all we ever hear about is Kodak losing money, closing divisions, and outsourcing labor.

    I'm always appalled when the RIAA steals money from 12 year olds to try and keep from dying. Yet now that it may be (probably not, I trust that they have a ligitamate case) happening to a company that employs many of my friends, I'm rooting for them.

    1. Re:Kodak Trying to Revive Itself with Litigation? by r.jimenezz · · Score: 1
      I'm always appalled when the RIAA steals money from 12 year olds to try and keep from dying. Yet now that it may be (probably not, I trust that they have a ligitamate case) happening to a company that employs many of my friends, I'm rooting for them.

      It is only human, I guess. I just hope you weren't part of yesterday's bashing against SCO employees for not leaving a company with dubious business practices? That would be too ironic IMHO.

      Guess I must be new around here...

      --
      The revolution will not be televised.
    2. Re:Kodak Trying to Revive Itself with Litigation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm always appalled when the RIAA steals money from 12 year olds to try and keep from dying. Yet now that it may be (probably not, I trust that they have a ligitamate case) happening to a company that employs many of my friends, I'm rooting for them.

      Then you're an asshole. The difference between right and wrong is not the same as the difference between what is good for your friends and what is not good for your friends.

  22. That domain name by Talrias · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute, that domain name doesn't resolve!

    --
    aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
  23. Do companies... by Phidoux · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...in the USA ever take time off from their busy legal schedules to do business?

    --
    Free Firefox news reader.
  24. There's one Good Thing about this... by Prototerm · · Score: 1
    Sun has to fight this suit, and not someone in the Open Source community. IANAL, but I wonder if their liability would be the same if they had GPL'd the code.

    From looking at the patents, however, I'd imagine there's a lot of prior art. For example, would sharing data structures between programs or libraries using Inter Process Communication, and semaphores (handled by code serving as a manager of data objects) be in violation of the patents?

    If Sun looses, however, it looks to me like C# and .NET would also violate Kodak's patents. Was this on Sun's mind when it signed that agreement with Microsoft? It might be to Microsoft's benefit to help Sun fight this one. It would be ironic, though, if Microsoft had to come to Java's rescue to save their own skin.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
    1. Re:There's one Good Thing about this... by Rick+and+Roll · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      From looking at the patents, however, I'd imagine there's a lot of prior art. For example, would sharing data structures between programs or libraries using Inter Process Communication, and semaphores (handled by code serving as a manager of data objects) be in violation of the patents?

      No. That would be quite a stretch, to call processes objects, and system calls messaging. The fact that they accomplish the same thing doesn't matter. Applying it to objects here is the innovation. You wish you thought of it before Kodak. These are dealing with object management interfaces, objects, run-time structure. None of these are any part of what a kernel does. You folks wish you could be as innovative as Kodak.

      --Patent Apologist

  25. Kodak is Dumb. by DAldredge · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is the same kodak that is offshoring film production because they are unable to compete with Fuji Film.

    Fuji Film is made in the USA.

    Kodak exes are just a bunch of idiots who could not give away the cure for cancer.

    1. Re:Kodak is Dumb. by treerex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is the same kodak that is offshoring film production because they are unable to compete with Fuji Film.

      Offshoring is being done because it is cheaper. Period. Kodak has many problems, for sure, but film competition is not one of them any more. Their Portra line of professional films is outstanding: I certainly prefer them to Fuji's portrain films. Their black and white films and their chemicals are still some of the best.

      The biggest recent problem for Kodak has been the onset of Digital photography. This has hit all traditional film manufacturers: Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa...

      Fuji Film is made in the USA.

      Fuji Film for sale in the USA may be made in the USA. There are many types of Fuji film emulsions that are made and sold outside of the United States.

  26. Oak existed before 1993 by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Kodak patents are dated 1993 and 1995. The Oak programming language, which is the basis of Java, existed by 1992. See Wikipedia.

    This appears to me to be a case of prior art, by Java itself. I guess Kodak thinks changing a product's name is equivalent to it being born. Anything that existed before never happened.

    1. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 4, Informative

      To bad the 1993 and 1995 dates are meaningless as far as prior art is concerned. The important dates are the filing dates and priotity dates, the issue date does not matter. All three patents have priority to United States patent application Ser. No. 07/088,622 entitled Data Integration by Object Management by Dana Khoyi et al., filed Aug. 21, 1987.

      So, for an item to qualify as prior art, it must be data prior to August 21, 1987 which by the dates you have given, Oak does not meet.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    2. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by mr_majestyk · · Score: 1

      All three patents have priority to United States patent application Ser. No. 07/088,622 entitled Data Integration by Object Management by Dana Khoyi et al., filed Aug. 21, 1987.

      Interesting...that means the 17 years of exclusivity granted by the patent are almost up, right? In that case, Kodak doesn't have much more time to grab what they can.

    3. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least, Smalltalk exists since the 70's.

    4. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Under the pre-1995 patents were granted terms of 17 years from the issue date (i.e. the 1993 and 1995) dates. After 1995 it was changed to 20 years from the filing date. So, these patents would be in effect until at least 2010.

      See here for more information on determining the expiration dates of patents.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    5. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by geoff+lane · · Score: 1

      But this is essentially about programming style - Lisp has been around a long time and programs using object-like access methods for about as long.

    6. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure that is all this patent is about? If so, why not try looking at the claims and see what LISP covers.

      Here's a little exercize for you: Try comparing LISP with the independent claims word for word and see if they match. Also, don't assume anything about LISP that you can't prove. Go back and find some old user manuals from before August 21, 1987 and see if LISP actually meets all the limitations of the claim. I'm interested to know what you come up with.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    7. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      You seem to be wrong.

      Their first '93 patent refers to the '87 application (not patent) as 'now abandoned'. There's no patent issued to Dana Khoyi prior to 1993 - 5,206,951 and that one was filed in '91. So any pre-'91 prior art should be ok.

    8. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is absolutely incorrect. The original application (07/088,622) may have been abandoned, but they filed a new application (07/681,435) prior to the abandonment date (i.e. "This is a continuation of copending application Ser. No. 07/088,622"), which means that the new application gets an effective filing date of the previous application's filing date. This is allowed under 35 U.S.C. 120.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    9. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by greenrd · · Score: 1
      If the start date is 1987... doesn't that mean the patent expired over five years ago? If not, why not? Do they get over 20 years by submarining?

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    10. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by greenrd · · Score: 1
      Sorry, ignore above post. Too tired to think straight.

      --
      Female Prison Rape in NY
    11. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected :-)

      hmm ... given that the previous application was submitted some 4 years before this gives rise to an interesting perspective ... say you file for some crap now and after 2-3 years snatch some new idea in the field and just amend your previous filing (ok, that's a bit overblown, but not entirely impossible). Would that make your application take precedence to any other one since the original filing date is earlier?

    12. Re:Oak existed before 1993 by servoled · · Score: 1
      They have that covered by 35 USC 120 which states
      An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States
      This basically means that the application filed must conform the to rules of 35 USC 112 first paragarph. Let's see what 112 first says:
      The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
      Basically this means that a patent application can not claim anything that the specification does not give a clear description of. So far so good, but theres still nothing stopping them from adding new stuff later. Thats where 35 USC 132 comes in. 35 USC 132 states:
      No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
      Since they can't amend the specification to include new matter, and they can't claim and invention which they didn't describe in the specification they really can't add new inventions down the road and get the advantage of the earlier priority date. More information about new matter and how examiners handle in can be found in the MPEP Section 2163_06.
      Would that make your application take precedence to any other one since the original filing date is earlier?
      Yes, the applications with the earlier effective filing (i.e. the filing dates taking into account any priority applications) are given precedence over any other applications.
      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  27. In keeping form... by Roached · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...with the finest traditions of companies going down the toilet, Kodak has resorted to the "litigate to make a final buck" tactic.

  28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how you slashbots sit there and demand commercial products are open sourced, and when a company actually does it, you 'forget' about it, and demand even more open source software from them while constantly slagging them off at the same time.

  29. Software Patents storm in Europe by frankie_guasch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We europeans have luck because the European Parlament decided against software patents. Now this is in jeopardy.
    The patent officials in the Commission and Council are abusing the legislative process of the EU. Their convoluted and misleading Patent Newspeak, negotiated in intransparent backroom dealings, is an insult to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of Regions and the innumerable experts and concerned citizens who have engaged in serious investigations on this directive project. It is unacceptable that the Council is throwing away all their hard work without any substantial justification whatsoever.
    One to blame is the Irish Presidence, Sponsored by Microsoft.
    FFII web site with more info about software patents.
    Soon there will be ellections for the European Parlament, take care of what you vote and if you have the ocasion, ask the politians about this issue.

  30. Better act fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's that .NET SDK download you nerds keep talking about in hushed tones?

    1. Re:Better act fast by theguywhosaid · · Score: 1

      right here

    2. Re:Better act fast by Mattwolf7 · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't worry about Java just falling off the face of the earth tomorrow. The worst I can see happening is either

      A)Sun pays Kodak some money

      B)Kodak makes Sun pay for every Java distributed, Open Source will pool together and write a java substitute or use existing langs (C#)

  31. Freaking Kodak parasites... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Take a look at those patents.

    Didn't those idiots ever hear of CORBA?

    Of course, its Sun's own fault. If they weren't so anal-retentive about control of the language, they could of submitted it to an open-standards body, and then Kodak would have had a hell of a time trying to enforce those patents...

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  32. Kodak Products are a Proprietary Nightmare by wheelgun · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kodak's biggest fault is a tendency to rely on proprietary products for profit. Ask a vintage camera collector if he uses any of his old Kodak cameras. The answer will likely be "hell no!"

    This is because most Kodak cameras were made to use propietary Kodak film formats like 620 instead of superior open formats like 120 and 220. I have a Kodak II Tourist bellows camera that collects dust because it uses 620.

    My mom's old Instamatic is a another example of this Kodak problem. Her Instamatic 700, which she took around Europe in the 1960s is useless, as it uses a film format Kodak decided to stop making in the late 1980s.

    Kodak could be raking in the dough from film sales for these old cameras. They exist in attics and storage boxes by the hundreds of thousands. But Kodak will never see that money, because they themselves chose to stop making the film and nobody makes modern cameras for those formats anyway.

    1. Re:Kodak Products are a Proprietary Nightmare by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Kodak could be raking in the dough from film sales for these old cameras.

      Kodak stopped making film for these cameras precisely because they weren't making money on them. Anybody using a bellows camera in the US with a format smaller than 4"x5" after about 1965 was in for a lot of ridicule. Instamatics were always regarded as junk by anybody doing even "advanced amateur" photography. (The Instamatic cartidge can't hold film in a dependable enough position to get reliably sharp pictures at wide lens apertures.) Once disposables became popular, the Instamatic format was doomed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Kodak Products are a Proprietary Nightmare by jlockard · · Score: 1

      Kodak "decided to stop making" the Instamatic film in the late 80s because of a little lawsuit problem with Polaroid. If Kodak continued to produce the Instamatic film they'd have had to pay out the nose to Polaroid, which was not something they wanted to do. Instead they offered to buy back the Instamatics or trade them for other Kodak models.

      --
      --JLockard - "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." - Emo Phillips
  33. 5,226,161 sounds like Perl's tie by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The claims are a case study why software patents should never be allowed.

    I am not trained in reading patentease but Patent 5,226,161 sounds a lot like Perl's tie feature where you can "link" a variable to a "data object" such as a file, database, serial port, shared memory, etc. I am sure prior art will crush this claim.

    1. Re:5,226,161 sounds like Perl's tie by servoled · · Score: 1

      When was the tie function created? According to Perl history Perl wasn't released until December 18, 1987. These applications have priority to August 21, 1987, so Perl itself might not even qualify as prior art given the first public release date. It is also possible that the tie function wasn't even released with the first release of Perl.

      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  34. Kodak bought out the Wang ImageBASIC controls by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Ugh, I worked with them. Once IE upgraded to 5.0 those ActiveX controls broke. We had to move to LeadTools instead. Also I do not think those controls worked too well with Windows 2000 either.

    Perhaps MS broke those controls, who knows? All I know was that they were awful and a real pain to work with. There are easier ways to display a TIF file. We used TIF files for displaying documents, WTF? I told them to migrate to Acrobat Reader, but nooooooooo, the managers were too cheap to do that and forced us to use Wang ImageBASIC instead. We also used TIFs for Employee photos on an Intranet web page when PNG, JPEG, or even BMPs would have worked better and not required an ActiveX control to view them.

    Glad I do not work there, the DotNet confusion and bugs delayed converting apps to DotNet since 2001, and it is now 2004 and they still have not converted every app. Oh well, there is always 2005 for them to finally finish it. ;)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  35. without sun by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    Without sun, Kodak would never have seen the light of day, and there wouldn't be any such thing as photography!

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  36. I have a great idea for a business by ScuxxletButt · · Score: 1

    Someone should offer virtual boating trips and fishing expeditions to companies who can't keep up with technology.

  37. Re:Capital of Borneo by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    'B' is the capital of "Borneo". Why do you ask?:D

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  38. Litigating businesses by UrgleHoth · · Score: 2, Funny

    If SCO and Kodak merged to form a single litigation corporation would we then see Scodak?

    --

    Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
  39. Re:The patents aren't about OOP. They're about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're probably thinking of OpenDoc.

  40. Sinking Ship Litigation Technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also has nothing whatsoever to do with Eastman Kodak's steadily dropping stock and market share.

  41. How Object-Oriented Programming Started by kappa701 · · Score: 1

    ...by Ole-Johan Dahl and Kristen Nygaard can be found here

    I also found an intersting quote on Kristen's memorial page.

    From: Ian Benson (UK)
    Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:42:26
    The top 10 things I learnt from Kristen:
    ...
    4. Legislation is national culture at work
    ...
  42. Kodak Interactive UNIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These patents are not without merit - Sun was a reseller of Kodak's Interactive UNIX product.

  43. I'll have to speak GPL'd Klingon by Satan's+Hand+Puppet · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see a law against frivilous patents like Kodak's one. It's so invalidated by prior art in well established OO programming.

    It just seems terrible that companies can tie up the courts and stifle innovation like this. I probably don't even hold the rights to my own DNA.

    There's an Australian add for our yellow pages directory and their slogan is "Sorted(TM)". If they can trade mark the word "sorted", then I guess we'll have to start paying somebody for speaking English soon too. Either that, or we'll all be forced to speak an open souce artificial language. Anyone got a Klingon dictionary handy?

  44. Patents for OOP and Multitasking by malachid69 · · Score: 1

    Briefly looking through the mentioned patents (because they are very long and dull), it appears that they are claiming that they invented the concepts of OOP and Multitasking. I can't remember what year I started doing OOP, but I do remember using Deskview to multitask DOS many years before that patent.

    There has to be a better solution that the Patent process these days. It should be obvious to the actual people who invent things that the big businesses end up winning any Patent issue, not the individual developer. Couldn't we, as people who invent things, find some way to protect the inventor without reverting to the outdated and archaic bigBusiness/lawyer-friendly Patent Process?

    --
    http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
  45. The patents are for... by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

    and object-oriented language. Is Kodak also going after Objective-C? C++? Python? Smalltalk?

    OR is this just a ploy to further erode Sun? I'd be interested to know whether Kodak is in Microsoft's pocket.

    --
    Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  46. Disgust by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1


    So, what exactly is flamebait?

    That CORBA will probably invalidate the patents?

    Or that Sun exposed itself to the lawsuit by not putting java up to a standards committee?

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  47. Kodak invested in Sun long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the data www.linksv.com has on Sun Microsystems, early corporate investors in Sun were HP, IBM's Pension, and Kodak.