Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak Wins $1 Billion Java Lawsuit

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the shake-them-like-a-poloroid-picture dept.

nberardi writes "The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle is reporting that Eastman Kodak Company has just won a patent suit against Sun on the Java Language. According to the article Kodak owns a patent which describes a way for a piece of software to "ask for help" from another application. What they are claiming is that Sun violates this patent when Java byte code uses the Java engine to run the code. This may really upset the industry, because not only Sun uses this technology for Java but Microsoft uses this technology in .Net."

23 of 673 comments (clear)

  1. WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people laugh at me when I say the stock market is nothing but a legalized casino.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    1. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by general_re · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure, the camera people. Their native market - chemicals, film, film cameras - is gradually dying due to advances in technology elsewhere, and so they plan to sue themselves right back into the game. Sound like a familiar plan?

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
    2. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not? Kodak is a huge international corporation, and usually such corps have massive and overreaching research arms. Quite a few companies have patents well outside their normal scope. IBM has pharmaceutical orientated patents, yet its doubtful you are going to see them produce medicines any day soon. What was a telephone company doing developing UNIX? Why does Boeing own patents on bridgebuilding? Its not wierd when you think about it.

    3. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by slAckEr+Of+dOOm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soon we'll be calling every patent lawsuit a "Kodak moment"

    4. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by servoled · · Score: 5, Informative
      Perhaps this will help explain how Kodak came across these patents. From Boston Business Journal:
      Three patents once registered to Lowell minicomputer-maker Wang Laboratories could cost Sun Microsystems Inc. $1 billion, following a jury verdict Friday afternoon in Rochester, N.Y.

      Jurors ruled that Sun's Java web software infringes the patents, which were acquired by Eastman Kodak Co. in 1997, first reported Friday afternoon in the Rochester Business Journal. The same jury will assign damages, with Kodak asking for $1 billion.
      --
      "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
    5. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, the telephone company developed UNIX. Yes, Microsoft is branching out into "entertainment and media". No, the two are not remotely the same. Yes, they both make sense.

      AT&T was a natural user of computer systems. They invented the packet switched network for long distance telephone calling. It only makes sense that they should be interested in computers since their network (on that scale) was not possible without them. Even discounting billing (no pun intended) the fact is that computers are an absolute necessity for switched networks.

      Microsoft, on the other hand, develops software. Are you aware that computer gaming is now a multi-billion dollar industry? That's not even counting merchandising toys and shit. Meanwhile, Microsoft's primary business is making money. They have the resources to do computer games. Meanwhile people are demanding that their computers do all kinds of media shit so it kind of makes sense that Microsoft should move into media.

      The two situations are not at all congruent. AT&T got into operating systems because they had to build the tools to do the job - the tools simply didn't exist before then. Microsoft got into entertainment software because it was a logical progression from what they were already doing. In fact you might say that the two companies' situations are direct opposites.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:WTF? Kodak?! The camera people? by isdnip · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're full of crap, and I do know of what I speak, being well connected to the phone industry.

      The AT&T domestic backbone was for all intents and purposes entirely circuit-switched (TDM nowadays) until the past couple of years. The Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are almost entirely circuit-switched. MCI and Sprint are circuit switched. The phone backbones use SONET transmission and TDM switches.

      There are narrow examples of packet switching in the phone network. AT&T rolled out a Frame Relay-based system in the late 1980s, to compress the bandwidth on high-cost international links. Others have done similar things, for the same reason, with various vendors' technology. It's called "Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment" (DCME). But domestic SONET bandwidth is so cheap that DCME isn't worth using, especially since DCME degrades call quality. And it's used below the switch layer, to make more TDM virtual channels.

      There's a fair amount of ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) floating around too. Some LD carriers may use it, mostly as a multiplexing technique over SONET pipes. Verizon has started using Nortel's ATM switches in its own local networks, especially in New Jersey. But it's still a minority technology. AT&T (back when it owned Lucent, Bell Labs, etc.) was a major advocate of ATM technology, but hardly invented it in house by itself (more like the work a committee -- and I was on the committee, so I know why the camel's so humpy). AT&T also pushed hard for Frame Relay, largely to mix voice and data on DCME.

      In today's LD world, Qwest's backbone is mostly VoIP, using Sonus switches. Ditto Wiltel, a fairly small player. AT&T has started to migrate to VoIP, as have Sprint and MCI, but it's not "over the Internet", it's just using IP headers as a multiplexing technique on fat dedicated circuits. Mainly because the VoIP switches are really cheap, and because Wall Street expects it. (The new switches do circuit switching too; the cost per minute differential is negligible. VoIP actually uses more bandwidth, regardless of what the propagandists claim, but fat TDM switch ports are a bit costlier.)

      In the local world, VoIP is coming on strong in the form of PacketCable, again not over the public Internet. And of course Vonage and its imitators, who for all their bluster have a combined market share of far less than one percent. A little VoIP gets used here and there by other carriers. The Bells are experimenting with it, but it's a negligible share of their traffic. They're backward monopolists, but they also have reasonably high service-level standards, and they know how hard it is to do that with VoIP.

      The signaling network is packet switched (Signaling System 7), but that's a whole story of its own.

  2. That's, like, all interpreted byte-coded languages by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

    Python, most modern basics (GFA, QBasic, ...), Perl,...

    Shall I write the check to Kodak or Eastman-Kodak sir? Cuz I have a script to hack on the server tonite.

    sheesh...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. Oh my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Forget Sun, this is batshit nuts. Bytecode interpreters have been common since Smalltalk in the 70s and are used by a simply huge number of common progrmaming languages.

    Does anyone have the patent in question? Can this be appealed?

    1. Re:Oh my God by illuvata · · Score: 5, Informative

      The patents are 5,206,951, 5,421,012 and 5,226,161

    2. Re:Oh my God by Wavicle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      why the hell did Sun's lawyers not pull CORBA out and show the judge that Kodak's patents were worthless?

      Because it wasn't the Judge they had to convince. They had to convince a Rochester jury that the area's largest employer, Kodak, was full of it.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    3. Re:Oh my God by Steve1952 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The patents are continuations of applications originally filed in 1987, so prior art before 1987 is most relevant in this case. Try to find examples from 1986 or earlier.

  4. Only the lawyers win... by datastalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Kodak praised the verdict and said it was part of an aggressive push to convert innovations -- both homegrown and purchased -- into real money. The company over the past several years has been issuing licenses, filing lawsuits, forming spinoff companies and finding other uses for its technologies."

    It seems that today, companies don't produce products, they produce lawsuits, and that's how they get their money. How long can this continue?

    Furthermore, since 1.06B is about 1/3 of Sun's cash on hand (here), what will that mean for Sun? It's 7% of their total value, so this can't be good for them.

    In the end, it's only the lawyers who win.

    --
    Find out about the Lexus Rx400h Hybrid!
  5. Did NOT win $1 billion by FattyBoeBatty · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was only decided that Sun had infringed on Kodak's patent. Kodak will return to court and they're initial claim of damages is $1 billion. So it's only a worst-case that Kodak would end up with that much, they'll most likely get less.

    However, this still leaves that fact that, unless an appeal overturns this ruling, Sun will need to pay Kodak something for every java product out there. Wow is the patent office messed up... anybody think of some prior art out there?

    -Fatty

  6. My letter to Eastman Kodak Corporate HQ by yeremein · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am a software developer and amateur photography enthusiast, and I have recently learned about Kodak's patent infringement suit against Sun Microsystems. It is a shame that companies with failing business models consistently try to earn money through litigation rather than production and innovation. I realize that the proliferation of digital photography has caused hardship for the Eastman Kodak Company, but the use of this vague and overbroad patent against the software industry is unconscionable. As a direct result of this litigation, I will never again purchase another Kodak product, and I will encourage my family and colleagues to do the same. Malicious litigation is not an acceptable substitute for honest business.

  7. Years of appeals ahead by kansas1051 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Although I know its offical /. policy that everyone should run around in circles yelling its the end of the world everytime a software patent is infringed, this particular dispute is far from over and probably faces 5+ years of appeals before any money changes hands or any technology is changed or restricted.

    First, after damages are decided, Sun will move with JNOV (asking the judge to set aside the verdict because there was insufficent evidence to support to verdict). There is probably a 10% probability of this happening in any given case, even more when there is alot of money at risk.

    Second, Sun will appeal to the Federal Circuit, which usually overturnes 60% of district court decisions because district courts usually dont know anything about technology and know even less about patent law.

    So, IMHO, its too early to start running around in circles over this decision, at least until the Federal Circuit affirms.

    1. Re:Years of appeals ahead by Ruie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Although I know its offical /. policy that everyone should run around in circles yelling its the end of the world everytime a software patent is infringed, this particular dispute is far from over and probably faces 5+ years of appeals before any money changes hands or any technology is changed or restricted.

      I don't know about you, but for me it is upsetting enough that any court upheld this patent at all. So what that appeals can go for another 5 years ? What small business can afford that ?

  8. Re:Kodak vs. Java by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Unbelievable. I'm not completely opposed to software patents but this sure is a great example against them.

    Makes me wonder about PCode, back in the day, ages ago when we compiled UCSD Pascal down to pcode and ran it on what amounted to a virtual machine. That was like 1980.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. Where to send your letter by yeremein · · Score: 5, Informative

    Feel free to use/adapt my letter (in the parent post). Here's where to send your letter:

    Eastman Kodak Company
    Attn: Corporate Information
    343 State Street
    Rochester, New York 14650

    There are probably other reasons to boycott Kodak besides the fact that they pulled a SCRambus--such as their offshoring.

  10. Grand Jury by panurge · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's about time we took "trial by peers" seriously. How many people on that jury could even set the time on a VCR?

    Software parents will likely continue like this while being technically literate is a negative for being a judge, and being literate in anything is likely to have you removed from a jury. It's high time that juries in specialist trials were recruited from (perhaps retired) people with skills from the appropriate areas - yes, and paid - so that the arguments could be properly understood.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  11. Links to the relevant patents by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    I always prefer to get my info from primary sources rather than some newspaper's rendition, so here are the actual patents involved:

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

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

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

    Thanks to Artur Biesiadowski, who orignally posted these at Java Lobby.

    I haven't had a chance to read them in detail yet; they're slow reading. '012 seems to be the broadest, and it's very, very long. They seem actually to patent object-oriented programming, but they reference the Smalltalk documentation so presumably they're patenting some enhancement. I've been unable to determine what that enhancement is over Smalltalk, so I can't say if Java infringes on it or not.

    A note on reading patents: the title is worthless, so please don't write about "I did X in 1967" based solely on the title. The abstract is hardly better, though my quick scan of these indicates that the abstract does actually do a good job of summarizing. The only thing with legal force is the claims, but they're written in a specialized patent language that takes a bit of practice to interpret.

    You can usually learn the most from reading the description section, with background and summary, which has less legal force than the claims but is written in something closer to plain English (or at least computer-ese, which you probably speak if you're reading /.)

  12. Tell Kodak what you feel by TomRitchford · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their contact form

    I told them that I'd never buy another Kodak product again as long as I live... and I'm dead serious about it.

  13. Software Patents are Unreadable! by Chris+Colohan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a PhD student in computer science at Carnegie Mellon. I write C++ code every day. I know at least 7 programming languages well enough to program in them professionally. For my research I design new computer hardware, compilers, database systems, and operating systems. I have helped write (non-software) patents. ...and I'll be damned if I can fully understand the text of most patents, including the ones cited in this article. How in the world is a software developer supposed to avoid infringing on patents if they can't _understand_ them? I don't know of any school which includes a course on "reading patent legaleese" in their computer science programs.

    I have 12 years of post-high-school education in Computer Science. I have no idea how to write a non-trivial program that I am relatively sure does not infringe on any patent. I don't know anyone who does. Doesn't this seem absurd?