Slashdot Mirror
Kodak Sues Apple & RIM Over Preview In Cameras
Dave Knott writes "Kodak is suing Apple and Research In Motion over technology related to digital cameras in their iPhone and BlackBerry smart phones. The complaint specifically relates to photo preview functionality which Kodak claims infringes on their patents. The company is asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the disputed practices. Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents, and almost all of today's digital cameras rely on that technology. Kodak has licensed digital-imaging technology to about 30 companies, including mobile-device makers such as LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Inc., Nokia Corp. and Sony Ericsson, all of which pay royalties to Kodak."
Yes. Apple has never raised the bar on anything and nothing progressive has ever come out of Cupertino. No wonder you posted AC.
Kodak's "preview" patent says that you see all of the digital processing and sensor data? How do they manage that one on a tiny LCD? It's simply not the case that you get this with a digital preview. You see an approximation of what you will get. In fact, you see less than what you might using a viewfinder, especially if you are looking through a Minolta Alpha/Maxxum with Depth of Field preview.
Viewfinders, including ones that have a screen you view from a distance, have been around for a long time. In fact, maybe these people would like a few words with Kodak over their apparent patent:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/634635-USA/Rollei_66031_Hy6_Medium_Format_SLR.html
That's called a "Waist-level" viewfinder, and they've been around for a long time (the first Rolleiflex DLR I can find reference to is from 1931). In short, I would like to see the full Patent application, and how Kodak represented the prior art and prior implementations of representing an image on a screen. The other thing I would like to see are the licensing agreements with the other companies. The article only mentions that the companies license patents regarding digital photography, and say nothing of licensing this particular patent. An unusual omission, in my opinion.
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
I don't know about that, they sell:
digital still cameras, digital video cameras, printers, printers, photo-related software, and retail photo kiosks.
Seems to be some real actual products there.
Polaroid cameras were never Kodak products. Back in the day, Kodak and Polaroid were the two dominant players in the consumer point-and-shoot market. When Kodak introduced an instant-print camera, Polaroid used a patent lawsuit to shut down the whole product line.
Displaying an image on a computer screen is in no way novel, nor has it been for decades. Just because there's a CCD hooked up to the computer doesn't make it any more novel. There was a Supreme Court ruling a couple years ago on the obviousness test. In that decision Kennedy wrote "The results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws." This is an entirely ordinary innovation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview. That's not a "real patent designed to incentivise R&D", that's patenting a feature.
My aversion, in general, is that "software" patents are usually algorithm patents, and as such, are too general. They protect the idea of the feature instead of the implementation.
Which is the bloody definition of preview.
Huh?
No, the preview takes other things into account besides just the framing of the picture - like the focus (which non-SLR viewfinders generally wouldn't), the lighting and exposure (flash notwithstanding), the color corrections (daylight/incandescent/fluorescent) and so on.
Bow-ties are cool.
In 2008, Nokia had a net income of 5.77 billion dollars, Apple had a net income of 4.83 billion dollars. Their margins are lower then Apple's but they're a far bigger company. Get your facts straight before dismissing others.
The patent in question covers the circuit design for avoiding encoding and then decoding an NTSC signal that can be used to generate the real-time and preview time image from the camera. It isn't just a patent that says "we patent the idea of previewing an image", it is quite specific in the diagrams and even the background of the invention.
Patent #6292218
Apple has "redefined" less than 3% of current market (and with the uptake of mobile phones in developing countries, areas in which Apple is not interested in, that percentage might as well go down); that's a curious definition of "mobile market" you have there. Also, it seems Nokia wants to go in a bit different direction, as their N900 shows (which is of course directly based on their earlier tablets; which were launched before first news of iPhone)
On top of that, Nokia is the only hugely profitable phone manufacturers. Others are either out of the market, struggling for a long time, or mobile phones aren't their main business (RIM is debatable here - do they market primarily mobile phones or corporate service?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
If you go through the effort of reading the patent (pretty sure it is http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6292218/fulltext.html but it might be a similar, but slightly different, patent) you will find that the Kodak method is, indeed, novel. Previous technology (camcorders as well as the QV-11, which used CCD technology, not LCD technology) converted the signal to NTSC format before displaying it. It appears that Kodak's method "avoid(s) the necessity of generating an NTSC format signal in order to reduce the complexity of the required circuitry". That's about all I have to say about this...
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
Apple's market cap is more than three times the size of Nokia's, and Apple could buy a controlling interest in Nokia using their liquid assets alone.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Bitch.
That's not true. Look at a video that shows camera work on any TV show made in the 50s or 60s. You can see that the cameras being used have monitors on board that give them a preview of the output of the camera, which is what allows them to set up, prior to being committed to recording by the control room. Electronic preview of image(s) prior to recording. It's obvious. It's so obvious they had it figured out half a century ago. As to which button does it, or if it is digital in nature somewhere along the path... feh. Still bloody obvious.
For that matter, ham radio SSTV units (ie ROBOT 400 by ROBOT inc.) have had digital camera preview displays since (at least) 1976. You could preview on the monitor, you could shoot into ram and not commit, etc. Again, as soon as you have a camera that makes recordings of any type, the idea of "preview" is so bloody obvious it's almost painful.
These patents are ludicrous.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Kodak makes:
Digital Cameras (imagine that!)
Memory cards of all types
Printers
Video Cameras
Digital Picture Frames
I'm pretty sure Kodak just rebrands crappy products from China. Does anyone actually buy Kodak digital/computer equipment?
Kodak used to be great, but they haven't done much in a long time.
I'm pretty sure God beat you with the stupid stick.
The world does NOT evolve around what you buy, or how you think crap is being used.
So to answer your questions, Yes, people do buy Kodak's products.
And parts are most likely made in China/Hong Kong/Taiwan, but from what I found, is assembled here in America.
As for them "used to be great, but they haven't done much in a long time." only goes to show how stupid you are.
Because you don't use their product, don't mean shit. You've already proven you can't grasp normal concepts.
If you bothered to look at their website, like this page: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/historyOfKodak/2000.jhtml?pq-path=2217/2687/2695/2704
You'd see they are still putting out products, and from what I can tell, nice stuff.
I guess I could give you some credit, since you must think they are just about camera's, but i'm not going to. You could of corrected the misconception just viewing their website.
Be seeing you...