Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak Sues Apple & RIM Over Preview In Cameras

Posted by timothy on from the about-that-rent-we're-seeking dept.

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."

2 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Here is an idea by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They mean different things, for starters. Are you complaining that words exist outside your vocabulary? Really?

  2. Please Understand WHY we have patents... by paulsnx2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I need to make a point more clearly than I did in my, er...., rant (I admit it) ... above.

    The coward asserted: "What the patent system is meant to do is allow companies/individuals to recoup research and development cost."

    To which I pointed to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

    The point I wish to make clear is that the U.S. Government has no constitutional motivation in seeking to insure that any company "recoups" anything.

    Let's make that clear. EVEN if striking patents led to the damage of numerous companies, this is no justification for patents.

    If an inventor or company fails to make money off their inventions, they will join a pantheon of historical figures and companies suffered that the same fate in the past.

    No, what is important is the efficiency and the productivity of our companies, and the advancement of knowledge and progress. Most of us believe that it is only competition that drives progress. This is supposed to be why communism failed (no competition) and capitalism (competition) succeeded.

    So why do we need to limit competition again? Because we need patents to compete with other such government defined and constricted systems like communism? Nobody would be willing to build a company unless the government set up a little space for it to thrive without anyone else competing with it?

    I am just trying to understand the logic here....