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."

43 of 152 comments (clear)

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

    Must be a case of overexposure.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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!
    2. 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
    3. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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.

    2. 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).

  7. 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 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".
    2. 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)

  8. 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 ;-)

  9. 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....

  10. 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 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?
    3. 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 ^_^

  11. 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.
  12. 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 _|()|\| · · 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].

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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!
  15. 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.
  16. 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 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".
    3. 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".
    4. 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".
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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.

  24. 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."