Slashdot Mirror


Kodak's Patent Spat Threatens Photo Web Sites

Alain Williams writes "According to the BBC: 'Kodak claimed it owns patents regarding the display of online images that is being infringed by Shutterfly. The photo-sharing site disputes these claims and has launched a counter suit. But the landmark case could have ramifications for other popular online photo sites such as Yahoo's Flickr and Google's Picasa.'"

171 comments

  1. Great by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    It infringes on no less than 235 Kodak patents!!

  2. Re:Chapter 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot needs to start IP banning these spammers.

  3. Another one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    merry christmas and a happy Sue-year

    1. Re:Another one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a clear day you can sue forever.

    2. Re:Another one by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can sue for miles and miles an- hold on, The Who's lawyers are on the phone.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  4. Going nowhere by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, this goes nowhere.

    On line photos which could be downloaded for a fee (or free) were incorporated on the net before there even was a net.

    Which is long before Kodak even wised up to the fact that their world was coming to an end.

    From the earliest on line p0rn BBS sites right up to the current sync your phone to online photo sites, the prior art is there in huge steaming, jiggling piles.

    Too late Kodak.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Going nowhere by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Oh, but maybe they patented _charging for it_. And that's a huge leap!

      It's like the difference between a slut and a whore, and we all know that's about $250.

    2. Re:Going nowhere by synthparadox · · Score: 1

      If you RTFM you'll know that the summary is misleading. A quote from TFA best explains the claims:
      "The patents Kodak holds are incredibly broad, effectively covering images that are stored centrally and can be ordered online,"

    3. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Call me as a witness. I paid for porn from a BBS long before Kodak patented anything to do with digital image marketing.

      It takes ages to get an image at 2400 baud.

    4. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of service is ancient. Ask any jorno that's used stock images. Mailing CDs of images was replaced by online facilities a very long time ago, even when people were using pre-internal systems.

    5. Re:Going nowhere by icebike · · Score: 1

      If you RTFM you'll know that the summary is misleading. A quote from TFA best explains the claims:
      "The patents Kodak holds are incredibly broad, effectively covering images that are stored centrally and can be ordered online,"

      I did RTFA.

      But online centrally located storage of p0rn on a bbs that you had to subscribe to (with real money) existed well before Kodak patented their "incredibly broad" crapware.

      The broader the patent, the quicker they fall.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Argument thrown out. To obvious.

    7. Re:Going nowhere by autocracy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anonymous Coward demonstrates prior art. Victory is ours.

      --
      SIG: HUP
    8. Re:Going nowhere by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Essentially, they patented "X.....on the Internet!"
       
      We need just a general rule that invalidates that whole train of thought in patents.

    9. Re:Going nowhere by TheReverandND · · Score: 1

      prior art, next case.

    10. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You might have started downloading it before then but at 2400 baud they could have filed & been awarded the patent before you finished your download.

    11. Re:Going nowhere by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      You PAID for BBS porn? Gosh. I got all my 8-bit and 16-bit nudity for free:
      http://girls.c64.org/a__girls64.php

      http://bitworld.bitfellas.org/demo.php?id=309 (Porn Demo) "The 1985 Amiga was considered one of the first CPU's capable of handling high resolution, hard-core porn. This was achieved by putting a big juicy HAM inside the case, allowing the Amiga to display it's entire 12-bit palette of 4096 colors at once." - http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Amiga

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Going nowhere by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Anyone know the date the patent was filed? Rusty n Edie's BBS was around and being sued in 1997 for having online images which they were selling.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    13. Re:Going nowhere by icebike · · Score: 1

      A BBS still operating in 1997?

      I think you must be off by 10 years. You must mean 1987, right?

      In 1997 the web was up and running strong, and dial up BBSs were shutting down left and right.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting how quickly things have moved. In 1997 the web was up and running, but still not in wide use, and a lot of BBSes were half-connected - you could access them through dial-up or via a Web address.

    15. Re:Going nowhere by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this goes nowhere.

      On line photos which could be downloaded for a fee (or free) were incorporated on the net before there even was a net.

      And, indeed, ever since HTML has had the IMG tag. Sites like Flickr and Picasa are essentially hosting services.

      I seriously hope Kodak gets smacked down hard over this. Judging by the quality of the last two Kodak printers my wife bought, I say good riddance to them.

      This is essentially one of those "with a computer" patents.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A BBS still operating in 1997?

      I think you must be off by 10 years. You must mean 1987, right?

      In 1997 the web was up and running strong, and dial up BBSs were shutting down left and right.

      Do you often answer your own questions?

    17. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think "ordering online" in this case refers to ordering physical copies and prints of images online, not paying to download images.

    18. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      A BBS still operating in 1997?

      Yep, why not? In fact there are more then a few hundred BBS running as we speak right now. Sure, 99.9% of them are telnet only but there are a handful that still allow dial-up with a modem (as well as telnet on other nodes).

      The range of systems - currently telnetable, go from BBS running on C64s, Atari 8-bits, Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, PCs running Windows, to PCs running Linux.

      Updates are constantly happening to some major BBS packages like Renegade and definitely Synchronet. New doors are being written; older ones are being adapted to the new 32-bit door standards. I myself am writing a door game for BBS.

      Why you ask?

      Why the hell not.

    19. Re:Going nowhere by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Okay, not only did you not read the claims of any of these patents, but you also didn't even read any part of any of the patents at all, considering that no patents were linked and no numbers were given in the article. Yet you still profess to have countless examples of clear anticipatory prior art that could easily demolish every one of these patents. How's that work, exactly?

    20. Re:Going nowhere by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Dear God, then how did the Amiga fail??

    21. Re:Going nowhere by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      The way things are going with net UNneutrality and NONprivacy, maybe we'll have to go back to telnet via dial-up.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    22. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should if it gets that bad and the fact that BBS can interconnect/intercommunicate with each other too means information/data/files can still be accessible to everyone.

    23. Re:Going nowhere by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On line photos which could be downloaded for a fee (or free) were incorporated on the net before there even was a net.

      Which is long before Kodak even wised up to the fact that their world was coming to an end.

      Kodak owns so many patents on digital photography and digital imaging precisely because they wised up to the fact that the film world was coming to an end. They wised up to it probably before most of you were even born. They made the first digital camera in 1975. They had professional digital camera gear for the press at market in 1991, the 1.3 MP DCS-100. Consumer digital cameras as we know them today (with a rear LCD) didn't show up until 1995, with the 0.25 MP Casio CV-10. The reason Kodak is still around despite the death of film and their lack of success with digital products is because just about everyone making digital cameras and camcorders pays them hefty royalties to license their patents.

      While what they're doing may seem patent-trollish due to them being unable to successfully market a product based on their patents, they were in fact pioneers in the field of digital imaging. Their patent portfolio was legitimately earned through R&D, and they have marketed products using those technologies. They're not trolls buying up patents from defunct companies, sitting on them until someone else develops a product based on the idea, waiting for it to become successful, then suing. They are using patents the way they were intended to be used.

    24. Re:Going nowhere by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Which is long before Kodak even wised up to the fact that their world was coming to an end.

      Kodak did a lot of pioneering work with digital imaging going back to the 70's (much of it funded by ARPA). They still have active patents on CCDs that are widely licensed. They have also acquired a number of imaging patents from companies like Wang. While they can be accused of sitting on their laurels while film was king, Kodak did lay some key groundwork for present day technologies.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    25. Re:Going nowhere by icebike · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with them shutting down image sharing sites which existed in BBS form even before there was an internet?

      So quick to defend. Do you work for Kodak?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    26. Re:Going nowhere by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The good news is that patents last 20 years, so everything that 1991 camera did should be fair game in a few months.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    27. Re:Going nowhere by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I remember visiting BBSs at 2400 baud. To this day, I continue to read at exactly the speed at which text appears on-scree via a 2400 baud connection -- no joke.

    28. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who sues an independent inventor is a patent troll, as far as I'm concerned. Nobody should be able to own ideas.

      In general, if IP infringement is not willful, it's not infringement.

    29. Re:Going nowhere by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      2400 baud? You were lucky! We only had 1200/75 baud AND someone kept picking up the phone and dropping our connection!

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    30. Re:Going nowhere by oiron · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're using Uncyclopedia as a citation?

    31. Re:Going nowhere by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Oh, but maybe they patented _charging for it_. And that's a huge leap!

      It's like the difference between a slut and a whore, and we all know that's about $250.

      The difference has nothing to do with any set price. The difference is much more simple.

      A whore will sleep with anyone.
      A slut will sleep with anyone except you. ;)

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    32. Re:Going nowhere by vaniderstine · · Score: 1

      Do you know where I can find the "DFG" gifs from the early days of the interpornnet?

      --
      I "AM" ring-0.
    33. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. I'm a product designer for Kodak, and I can contest to this.

      I really wish we would stop panicking and make money by creating some products that are actually worthwhile. But no. There are smart people here, but we rush shit out the door with a quarter of the design, engineering, and QA resources. Then we hack the schedule in half, call a prototype "final," and try our damnedest to market an unfinished product using cheep tricks.

      Ohh... And then we file a ton of BS patents.
      It makes me sad.

    34. Re:Going nowhere by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      You had a phone?

      You flash git.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:Going nowhere by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're using Uncyclopedia as a citation?

      I love the idea that GP thinks it is just the same as wikipedia, and quotes from it in his school homework.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:Going nowhere by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      NASA is everyones prio art, they invented sending online photos from mars to earth ;)

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    37. Re:Going nowhere by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Apologies for dis-agreeing with you, but film is most assuredly NOT dead, especially in the medium and large-format photography world.

      Heck, even the best dSLR of today will have trouble scaling images up to the size of the finest 35mm film. dSLRs have taken a chunk out of film, to be sure, but it is far from dead, despite what Kodak and Polaroid thinks.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    38. Re:Going nowhere by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      sticking with 12bit for too long and not going full 24bit rgb frame buffers early enough.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    39. Re:Going nowhere by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This anonymous coward is the first person who actually gets it. All the sites they are suing are for print ordering online, and it is entirely possible that Kodak did that first. Their patents likely stem from their acquisition of Ofoto, which started doing online print photo sales back in 1999. Shutterfly dates back to the same year. So it's going to come down to the careful study of the dates involved to know whether these patents are valid. That is, of course, assuming that any of these patents are valid in light of Bilski.

      Either way, this is a prime example of why all "on the Internet" patents should be immediately invalidated en masse by a court ruling. Someone will come up with a way to do everything on the Internet, and for the most part, those techniques will not be particularly insightful or interesting. Thus, almost without exception, any patent whose primary difference from an existing practice is that it is "on the Internet" is a bad patent and should be tossed out. The burden of proof for such a patent should be very high.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    40. Re:Going nowhere by yakovlev · · Score: 1

      No way can I read at 2400 baud.

      I remember running a BBS at 2400 and connecting to it with (no joke) the 300 baud modem from my friend's TI 99/4a. THAT was slow. You could read significantly FASTER than the text would show up on the screen. I was surprised the connection even worked at that speed, but it did.

  5. Hoo boy. by ak_hepcat · · Score: 1

    Xerox is gonna be pissed! That Alto station is gonna have to be licensed up soon.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:Hoo boy. by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Haha!
      Good one, ya old fart! :D (me too) Of course, these yunguns around here mostly haven't a clue what you're talking about...

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  6. Market cap.. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't Kodak's market cap well less than $2BN? Google should just buy them, fire everyone, sell of the interesting parts, and then salt the land where their headquarters is.

    1. Re:Market cap.. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, that is a specific violation of antitrust law. But there is a loophole for using bleach instead of salt.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Market cap.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea. Destruction of 20K+ lives should really help with the whole "don't be evil" thing.

    3. Re:Market cap.. by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      Can't we just take those responsible, turn them into Torgo's executive powder and use that?

    4. Re:Market cap.. by cvtan · · Score: 0

      No salting the land you moron. Kodak is only a few miles from my house and I worked there for 26 years. I have friends that still work there so no firing either. Trying to get them to sue anybody for any patent infringement was like pulling teeth. I'm glad they are doing something. I just hope it's not something dumb.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    5. Re:Market cap.. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      I'd hoped it was obvious I was only partly serious. I wouldn't actually want them to fire rank and file employees, but anyone at VP or above I'd say fire away.

      Never happen anyway, of course. There would be no value to it, Kodak is dying, nobody wants to buy them. Cheaper to just spend $50mil beating them in court over the next decade.

    6. Re:Market cap.. by cvtan · · Score: 1

      OK, I retract the moron comment. Higher management has not served the company well. It has been sad seeing such a once proud company go down the tubes while the PR people claim everything is "on track". An airplane falling from the sky is also "on track", sort of. Can you imagine I once had stock options at $100?

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    7. Re:Market cap.. by d6 · · Score: 1

      >>Can you imagine I once had stock options at $100?

      that comment made me curious enough to hit google finance. not pretty

    8. Re:Market cap.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Great idea. Destruction of 20K+ lives should really help with the whole "don't be evil" thing.

      I get what you're saying, but your logic is poor. What if those 20K+ lives are part of a company that's doing stuff significantly more evil? For example, I can't find it in myself to be sympathetic to someone losing their job at SCO.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  7. !news by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't news. Filing a lawsuit doesn't say anything; It's a numbers game. Think of it like this: Let's say you have a 10% chance of prevailing, it will cost you 1 million dollars in legal fees to get a shot at rolling those dice, and the payoff if you make it is 150 million in licensing fees. Is it worth it? Now, stop and consider that because of the way the patent system is setup, you can have many additional challenges, each with about a 10% chance of success. If a lawsuit is filed, it is because the risk/benefit analysis is favorable. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or any intangible value you might care to place on it.

    This is one business throwing the dice and seeing if the bet pays off. It isn't news until pay day.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:!news by painandgreed · · Score: 2

      This isn't news. Filing a lawsuit doesn't say anything; It's a numbers game. Think of it like this: Let's say you have a 10% chance of prevailing, it will cost you 1 million dollars in legal fees to get a shot at rolling those dice, and the payoff if you make it is 150 million in licensing fees. Is it worth it? Now, stop and consider that because of the way the patent system is setup, you can have many additional challenges, each with about a 10% chance of success. If a lawsuit is filed, it is because the risk/benefit analysis is favorable. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or any intangible value you might care to place on it.

      This is one business throwing the dice and seeing if the bet pays off. It isn't news until pay day.

      Gee, if you would have only pointed this out at the beginning of all the SCO stuff, you could have saved us years of reading non-news posts.

    2. Re:!news by TheL0ser · · Score: 1

      The problem with expected value like that is to have a good chance of profit you need to file lots and lots of law.... oh, wait, nevermind. They have that covered.

    3. Re:!news by BluBrick · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, or any intangible value you might care to place on it.

      If that were truly the case, any judge in his right mind should summarily dismiss it before it gets anywhere near a courtroom. Alas, it shall never be. For it seems that in the United States of America, the law itself has nothing to do with justice, fairness or any intangible value you might care to place on it.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    4. Re:!news by Myopic · · Score: 1

      It indeed has nothing to do with justice or fairness; it has only to do with applying the law. If it's an unjust or unfair law, then, well shit that's what.

    5. Re:!news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope that before a judge chooses to summarily dismiss my case because he doesn't agree with what I'm doing, he'll let me present some facts for why I have a case.

      And actually that's how the system works. Defendants have multiple ways to end a case before they hit trial. If there isn't a legal basis or the facts aren't disputed, cases are intended to be dismissed quite early.

      Granted, it will still cost you money to get the dismissal, but the problem of excessive costs is a whole different problem.

  8. Oh how the mighty have fallen... by clone52431 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kodak used to be the single leader in innovative technology with their film, cameras, and the invention of the (nearly) instant-print Polaroid. Now, they’re essentially a gigantic patent troll. They haven’t been really innovative for a very long time, and their last resort is to sue.

    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.

    --
    Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    1. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by a_kibitzer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think Dr. Land and Polaroid Corp will be interested to learn that Kodak invented Polaroid instant photography.

    2. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Ah, my bad. Yes, turns out that Polaroid was in fact a competitor of Kodak, and they actually filed a successful patent suit against Kodak for their Kodamatic instant camera line. How ironic.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    3. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Kodak invented Polaroid. I don't even know how to respond to that.

    4. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Migraineman · · Score: 0

      You sure that Kodak invented the Polariod? Edwin Land, rest his soul, is not amused.

    5. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kodak used to be the single leader in innovative technology with their film, cameras, and the invention of the (nearly) instant-print Polaroid. Now, they’re essentially a gigantic patent troll. They haven’t been really innovative for a very long time, and their last resort is to sue.

      Long before the Polaroid lawsuit Kodak had a reputation in the industry for IP theft and dirty tricks...

    6. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by kdub432 · · Score: 0

      more like: those that can, do those that can't, teach and those that did, sue

    7. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last time Kodak had a good viable product would have been the very early 90's. Digital hit them like a sack of wet cement. It took them a decade to even consider digital a competitor, by then they coffin had been built and they were being ushered to it. It's a pity that no one has told them, in today's market, they have absolutely nothing of value other than a recognized name. Goodbye Kodak, you were good while you lasted.

    8. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Kodak used to be the single leader in innovative technology with their film, cameras, and the invention of the (nearly) instant-print Polaroid. Now, they're essentially a gigantic patent troll.

      Well, no. Not only did they not invent or market Polaroid, they're still a big player in cameras, sensors, printers and printing (both home and commercial scale, photo and text/page), etc... etc...
       

      They haven't been really innovative for a very long time, and their last resort is to sue.

      As above - not even remotely true.

    9. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      No. They’re a wanna-be, and they market a bunch of crap point-and-shoot digital cameras with lousy cheap components that appeal to people who don’t do their homework before buying something.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    10. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Yes, turns out that Polaroid was in fact a competitor of Kodak

      It turns out? That's one of the most fundamental facts of modern photographic history, not something that one should have to look up. You should really read about Dr. Land's life and work.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    11. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      The Kodak you see in Best Buy is only a tiny fraction of the 'real' Kodak. They do quite a bit of medical and industrial imaging. This has nothing to do with their potential to be a patent troll, but it isn't correct to say that Kodak is just a bunch of crappy 100 dollar cameras. Yes, they have a lot of crappy 100 dollar cameras, but it's only a small part of their business.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

      Kodak also invented the digital camera (1975), introduced the Bayer mask for color imaging (1976), and was a leader in digital imaging technology in many other ways (first megapixel detector, etc.). Their handicap was that they had a huge existing business which would be horribly cannibalized by digital technology. As a result, they were unable to take the business decisions which would have commercially exploited these digital imaging innovations.
      They are still a leader in CCD sensors.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    13. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I once read about a really funny trick played on Kodak, back in the very early days. When they first came out with a consumer camera (was it the Brownie?), the consumer would mail the camera back to Kodak and they would process the film. One of their problems was the wastewater from the film processing. So a local guy offered to truck it away for some amount - I'll say $100 per truckload because I don't recall the actual price. After a while, Kodak complained about the price, and the guy agreed to do it for $50 per load. After a while, they complained again, and he agreed to do it for $25 per truckload, and finally for $5 per truckload. Then the folks at Kodak started to wonder how he could do it so cheap. They looked a bit closer to the waste they were getting rid of, and found that it had $$$ worth of silver in each truckload. The guy was extracting the silver and making a mint! :D

      I originally read this in a magazine a few decades ago, and I'm too lazy to look it up online. So it must be true!

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    14. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by a_kibitzer · · Score: 1

      Just tweaking you a bit. Agree that Kodak used to be quite innovative.

    15. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      ROTFLMAO. You're not only utterly clueless, it seems you're willingly so as you're too stupid or lazy to visit Wikipedia or Kodak's own website.

    16. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Since you’re so knowledgeable, see if you can answer this question without referring to Google: What is Kodak’s current status with the Better Business Bureau, and why and how?

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    17. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLMAO. You're not only utterly clueless, it seems you're willingly so as you're too stupid or lazy to visit Wikipedia

      <checks Wikipedia>

      Apparently they invented the self-inflating elephant, and something called the "KODAKSUCKSBALLS".

    18. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Kodak also invented the digital camera (1975)

      No, they built the first CCD* camera in 1975 - but they didn't invent 'the digital camera'. The idea had been around since the early 60's.

      *Not invented by Kodak

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    19. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      That last time Kodak had a good viable product would have been the very early 90's.

      Sorry, but you are wrong. Kodak is still very relevant in motion picture film. Their latest camera films were introduced in 2009 and 2010 (Vision 3).

      And film is often still the preferred original in motion picture production, if you can afford it + a digital scan for post production. It is not only preferred because the cameras and accessories are so good, but also because the film itself captures better pictures in most situations, or is easier to work with in high contrast lighting. Here is a recent comparison with the RED One.

      As for digital, Kodak introduced the first film scanner in 1993 (the Cineon), and the .DPX files used in digital post production today are directly derived from the file format Kodak introduced with the Cineon.

      In their field, this was and still is an innovative company doing fantastic professional products.

      It would be a pity to see them end as patent trolls.

    20. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you're going to start a pedant fight... "modern"?! The Land camera is from 1948. The SX-70 gave up and went out of production 29 years ago. You know, when a new portable computer was a 26 lb suitcase running CP/M. Since then, people have been born, educated, and started families. Polaroid isn't part of modern photographic history anymore. Film barely qualifies now, nevermind Polaroid as an innovator.

      Osborne pic because it's so cool. Note the iPhone for modern comparison.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Osborne_Executive_with_iPhone_in_2009.jpg

    21. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if we all need to know fundamental facts of modern photographic history?

    22. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you're going to comment on the subject then it's certainly useful.

    23. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the medical and industrial imaging parts were sold off 4 years ago for 2.4 billion - almost a billion more than the current Kodak market cap. New owner is Carestream

    24. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by robogun · · Score: 1

      They've always been dickish with their business practices. I remember in 1980 the price of silver shot up and they quadrupled film prices for the micrograms of silver per roll required for the emulsions. When the price of silver collapsed a few months later, the film prices stayed exactly where they were.

      I shot Fuji ever after, until going digital.

    25. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The Land camera is from 1948. The SX-70 gave up and went out of production 29 years ago. You know, when a new portable computer was a 26 lb suitcase running CP/M. Since then, people have been born, educated, and started families. Polaroid isn't part of modern photographic history anymore. Film barely qualifies now, nevermind Polaroid as an innovator.

      I mean "modern" as in the 20th Century and onwards. You have a pretty narrow definition of modern if you only mean the last few decades. Most of the work and research that is relevant to today's digital cameras was done quite some time ago. It's not like optics, physics and chemistry suddenly changed when we stopped using film.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  9. Business of government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that the business of government benefits from every single lawsuit, even the ones that are thrown out. There's a reason why the US government is the most expensive government in the world, and it's not because having an insanely complex, ambiguous, and exploitable system of law is less lucrative than one based on simplicity and common sense.

    1. Re:Business of government by icebike · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the government benefits when A sues B, and neither A nor B are part of the government.

       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Business of government by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Court fees, I presume.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Business of government by icebike · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, that must be it.

      If we all try real hard we can sue our way to a balanced budget.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Business of government by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      That, and setting the stage for enough people to bitch and moan about further regulation being needed.

      It ends up being a positive feedback loop. Create regulation that causes more problems that in turn requires even more regulation to deal with the problems now being created. That's how government works.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Business of government by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Legal fees are taxable. The government wins almost every time money changes hands.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:Business of government by skarphace · · Score: 1

      If someone could cite this, I'd appreciate it. I hear this thrown around a lot. AFAIK, court fees are there to cover costs, and not much more. That is, ignoring damages awarded to the state if you lose a case against the state.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    7. Re:Business of government by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Legal fees are taxable. The government wins almost every time money changes hands.

      Well, by that argument so does the general economy then. It's not like the government takes 100% as taxes.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Business of government by plover · · Score: 1

      That, and setting the stage for enough people to bitch and moan about further regulation being needed.

      It ends up being a positive feedback loop. Create regulation that causes more problems that in turn requires even more regulation to deal with the problems now being created. That's how government works.

      But that's how experimentation and existence works in general. Try something. Receive pain in exchange for failure. Modify behavior to avoid pain.

      Government just codifies those behavior modifications.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Business of government by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Government isn't science, it's politics.

      The primary purpose of Government is to service its members first and foremost. Sure, politicians must maintain goodwill in order to be re-elected in a democracy. However, laws are often created, bent, and shaped to create a system of dependency at the expense of efficiency. Politicians don't simply trust your vote. They want to twist your arm in the process to ensure that vote.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Business of government by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      This is also true.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    11. Re:Business of government by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the government benefits when A sues B, and neither A nor B are part of the government.

      Well, if A purchased the law that allows him to reap bajillions from B, he'll be back again with more graft.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. 2011: Year of the Patent Spat by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    I think these patent lawsuits will just keep coming, and coming, and coming.

    Are any companies going to have any resources to commit to technological innovation? Not if they are constantly forced to conduct rear guard operations against lawsuit assaults.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:2011: Year of the Patent Spat by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Innovation will simply move to less patent-encumbered locations (i.e. China/India).

    2. Re:2011: Year of the Patent Spat by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Innovation will simply move to less patent-encumbered locations (i.e. China/India).

      China actually became an exporting power after WWII because "more patent-encumbered locations" have 0 power over them: no chasing China's reverse engineering*, and now gray markets.

      It follows that if the tables do turn, you can bet your imported iPhone knockoff that every country will go "it's payback time!" and the next World War will be China chasing its IP in a over-righteous way. But the tables will probably never turn.

      * REAL patent theft consists of reading and then just implementing what the patents describe, while ignoring actual license payments and the arbitrary restrictions of the patent licensor.

    3. Re:2011: Year of the Patent Spat by bgat · · Score: 1

      If you think life with patents is bad, you should try life without them. In my opinion, China's complete disregard for the concepts of "intellectual property", "fairness", and "competitiveness" do more to kill innovation than the USPTO ever does.

      --
      b.g.
  11. Re:Chapter 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many down mods will block an ip address. Either it's not getting downmodded or it's not being posted from the same ip address.

  12. Kodak Innovation. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

    Clarification: The dispute it that not just with hosting images but allowing these image to ordered on-line.

    From the fine article Kodak says "We are committed to protecting these assets from unauthorized use,"

    Translation: We want to make money off a really obvious idea because we missed the digital almost entirely and haven't found a way to be truly innovative.

    1. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kodak didn't miss digital - they were even one of the pioneers of digital photography back in the 70s - nothing commercial though.

      Kodak is quite successful with their Leaf brand of sensors - they're in high end medium format cameras - Hassalblad, Phase One, and a few other $10,000+ cameras to as high as $50,000 for a camera body - no lens.

      Kodak just couldn't get the market penetration into the consumer digital camera market like the Japanese and their Professional camera body just didn't sell. For the low end consumer cameras, Kodak outsources everything. The only thing Kodak about their point and shoot cameras is that name - everything else is just cheap crap.

      Film photography is declining and Kodak just can't seam to get their act together in the digital area. They have been there since the beginning but they just can't compete with the Asian companies: Nikon, Canon, Pentax, SONY, Panasonic, etc...

      Speaking of SONY and Panasonic, they were a bit late to the still camera game and they still are kicking Kodak's ass.

    2. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you seriously stop capitalizing "Sony"? It's not an acronym and it otherwise looks like it should be followed by a droning chant of "all glory and honor to their hallowed name!".

    3. Re:Kodak Innovation. by rsborg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apparently a study by OKCupid confirms that Kodak's EasyShare cameras are complete shite.

      Anecdotally, my sister randomly bought one right before a trip (from Costco) a few years ago, and not only did her vacation pix suck, the damn thing broke in less than 2 months. The charger/connector looked like ass (a whole damn docking station) , and the whole thing just smacked of bad ideas mashed together without any market analysis or taste.

      Perhaps it's because Kodak didn't want to jeapordize their film business or because the lenses were all made by the japanese companies anyway? If I had a choice of a decent dSLR from Kodak (back in 2003ish), I might have purchased one... I still have my original Canon Digital Rebel and it still takes awesome pictures with a fixed 50mm f1/8.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    4. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll write a PERL script on my MAC to hunt down his falsely-capitalised SONYs and destroy them.

    5. Re:Kodak Innovation. by cvtan · · Score: 1

      This is what I think of Sony... http://www.megatokyo.com/strip/33

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    6. Re:Kodak Innovation. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Kodak didn't miss digital - they were even one of the pioneers of digital photography back in the 70s - nothing commercial though.

      Kodak is quite successful with their Leaf brand of sensors

      Actually, they kind of did. The work back in the 70s was basically ignored by the company. Much like Xerox ignored the company's own work on computing because they are all about selling photocopiers, Kodak ignored digital imaging because they are all about selling film.

      Even your example of Leaf is quite salient. For Kodak, digital was a niche product for exotic purposes. What they missed is that it would soon take over all photography and become a cheap, mass-market product, rather than a rarefied high-margin niche.

      Ask yourself - which would have been more profitable for Kodak - selling a handful of $10,000+ Leaf sensors, or owning the market in consumer digital cameras? Kodak has a terrible reputation in consumer digital, and rightly so.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Phoenix+Rising · · Score: 1

      Further clarification:

      Kodak is going after services like Shutterfly which allow users to upload pictures to servers on the Internet and then allows the user (and his/her friends) to order PRINTS of the stored pictures. This isn't about IMG tags, or delivery of digital files - it's about an online store for printed images.

      Not that this isn't an obvious application in this day and age, but given Kodak's long history of (obscure, but industry-leading) innovation in digital photography, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they got there long before the other services.

      --
      Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
    8. Re:Kodak Innovation. by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Easyshare camera's are a range of camera's with a wide range of specifications. I don't think you can write off all models of easyshare camera's.

      The easyshare is just a feature that allows you to upload pictures straight from the camera probably related to the patent in question. Since the camera is just a mass storage device to a pc easyshare is just a piece of software and unrelated to the camera hardware as such.

      My camera has been pretty good so far it's not excellent, but for a point and shoot i'm happy with it. So saying I wouldn't buy Kodak goods after this little episode. I don't like patent trolls.

       

    9. Re:Kodak Innovation. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's because [...] the lenses were all made by the japanese companies anyway?
      [...]
      I still have my original Canon Digital Rebel and it still takes awesome pictures with a fixed 50mm f1/8.

      Ah, you mean the Japanese company Canon, right? The ones that apparently makes crappy lenses? Just like Nikon, Sigma, Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax/Hoya, Ricoh, Sony, Tamron and Tokina right?

      They're ALL Japanese companies, and they all make really really crappy lenses, right? Unlike Kodak - that All American company.

      Now, if we remove the Japanese lens manufacturers, what are we left with? Samsung (Korean), Carl Zeiss (German) and Leica (German).

      Why do you have such hatred of Japanese companies? And why are you so schizophrenic about it? One moment you're complaining about Japanese companies' ability to make good camera lenses, and the next you're bragging that you're still using your Japanese camera with what is in all likelihood a Japanese lens.

      Dumbass

    10. Re:Kodak Innovation. by rsborg · · Score: 1

      No, what I was trying to say was that if japense companies make most all the lenses, it would be hard to enter the dSLR market for Kodak since it's *the* premier component, and the Japanese have a lock on it.

      I love my Canon lens collection. You need to try decaf.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    11. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently a study by OKCupid confirms that Kodak's EasyShare cameras are complete.

      Repeat with me: correlation does not equal causation.

      It could very well be the case that the typical Kodak customer just SUCKS at taking photos, when compared to the remainder of the population.

    12. Re:Kodak Innovation. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How is this any different than mailing negatives away and requesting prints? I mean, it's a fucking website that likely funnels images to a high-end IP photo printer.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Kodak Innovation. by Phoenix+Rising · · Score: 1

      To me most Internet business method patents are patently ridiculous. They're all either obvious answers to common problems, or extensions of good old fashioned non-Internet practices.

      I have more (though still very little) sympathy for patents on mathematical algorithms like those used to bottle up the GIF format for so long than I do for business method patents.

      I was merely pointing out that this was more than a patent on image delivery to a computer; that, at the time, they were likely the first service to offer click-of-a-button centralized image storage with physical print delivery.

      --
      Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
  13. When will we get some effective patent reform? by serutan · · Score: 2

    Think what the business world would be like if someone had been allowed to patent: "Process for storing products in boxes in a warehouse and later moving them to shelves in a retail store."

    USPTO patent approvers should do that. Especially the thinking part.

    1. Re:When will we get some effective patent reform? by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      We will get effective patent reform when someone with sufficient money buys it. If you can't afford it, like me, you get to either deal with it or leave.

    2. Re:When will we get some effective patent reform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will we get some effective patent reform?

      Soon, I hope. I'm going to be completely unscientific and state, it seems sheathed patent swords are being drawn at an alarming rate these days. We're probably headed for Patentgeddon, where companies will go nuclear, Nazgul and sharks and slimeballs will be fully released, and all innovation in the US will stop completely.

      One would hope that when that happens (when, not if - it's going to happen, the stakes are fast becoming simply too high/juicy), one would hope this would wake up our idiot politicians.

    3. Re:When will we get some effective patent reform? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      Politicians only wake up when someone waves money under their noses. The ones with the money want things to stay as they are. So politicians are essentially paid to stir the food around the plate so it looks like we might have eaten some of our vegetables, but actually haven't.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    4. Re:When will we get some effective patent reform? by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      Imagine what the patent system had been like if someone had been allowed to patent:
      "Process for making vague statements and forcing others to pay for using, doing or making anything roughly matching any such statement".
      I just invented the meta-patent: A patent on the patent system.

      Too bad there is plenty of prior art in the American legal system.

  14. Re:block by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There was that Asteroids Game a while back that let you fire bullets and blow up fragments of a page that you didn't like. I'd like a turbo version of that, maybe as a browser add-on, that lets you automatically delete the first thread on Slashdot.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  15. Send a message to Kodak customer relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send a message to Kodak customer relations department here:

    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=15718&pq-locale=en_US

    1. Re:Send a message to Kodak customer relations by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 2

      Yeah, tell them you refuse to buy any more of their film!

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    2. Re:Send a message to Kodak customer relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would, except, well, I just don't give a fuck.

  16. Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

    Sorry, this goes nowhere.

    On line photos which could be downloaded for a fee (or free) were incorporated on the net before there even was a net.

    Which is long before Kodak even wised up to the fact that their world was coming to an end.

    From the earliest on line p0rn BBS sites right up to the current sync your phone to online photo sites, the prior art is there in huge steaming, jiggling piles.

    Too late Kodak.

    If the claims of the patents are "1. A method for receiving photos, comprising (a) downloading, either for a fee or for free, photos via a network," you'd have a point. But they aren't. You have to find prior art for each and every element in the claims, not just each and every word in a patent's title.

    1. Re:Claims by icebike · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      I just have to show prior art for the portion of the claim they alleged as being infringed.

      That they chose to include a claim for which there is ample prior art speaks to the sloppiness of their patent preparation, and in many cases proof of prior art on a single claim is enough to topple the entire patent.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wrong.

      I just have to show prior art for the portion of the claim they alleged as being infringed.

      No, you're wrong. To invalidate a claim of a patent, you must show that each and every limitation in the claim is either anticipated by the prior art under 35 USC 102 or obvious under a combination of prior art references under 35 USC 103(a).

      Similarly, to infinge a claim of a patent, you must infringe each and every limitation of the claim. If the claim says "A+B+C+D" and you only do "A+B+C", you have not infringed.

      Your statements about "the portion of the claim are simply incorrect.

      And yes, I am a registered patent agent.

    3. Re:Claims by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I believe you, but I have to point out that this state of affairs is why so many people hate the patent system. If I can file a patent with an absurd number of absurdly broad claims, and then sue you for infringing on some specific part of one claim for which prior art exists, and to use the prior art defense you have to show that every claim in my patent is covered by prior art -- then the laws and regulations which allow this situation to exist are badly, badly broken. I defy anyone to explain how such a troll-friendly setup "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Claims by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Emh, please read again what the GP wrote: if you are only "infringing" on a specific part of a patent claim, you are in fact not infringing at all. So the situation you are describing cannot happen. A patent with an absurd number of parts will be harder to invalidate, but also less useful, since less people will infringe upon it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe you, but I have to point out that this state of affairs is why so many people hate the patent system. If I can file a patent with an absurd number of absurdly broad claims, and then sue you for infringing on some specific part of one claim for which prior art exists,

      Once more, from my prior post:

      Similarly, to infinge a claim of a patent, you must infringe each and every limitation of the claim. If the claim says "A+B+C+D" and you only do "A+B+C", you have not infringed. Your statements about "the portion of the claim are simply incorrect.

      It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim. Thinking logically about this should make it obvious... Say I invent a working teleportation machine and claim "1. A teleportation machine comprising: (a) a seat for the operator to sit in; and (b) [a whole bunch of stuff required for a teleportation machine to operate]." It should be immediately obvious that I can't sue chair makers everywhere.

      In summary, the situation you think exists does not actually exist. There may be other legitimate arguments regarding the patent system - this is simply not one of them.

    6. Re:Claims by lahvak · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it is that if the claim says "A & B & C & D", it is not even enough to find a prior art for each of A, B, C and D, you would have to find a prior art for the combination of A, B, C and D, unless that combination is "obvious".

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The way I understand it is that if the claim says "A & B & C & D", it is not even enough to find a prior art for each of A, B, C and D, you would have to find a prior art for the combination of A, B, C and D, unless that combination is "obvious".

      Yes, although if you can find separate art for A, B, C, and D, the motivation to combine them may be obvious to try, particularly in the predictable arts such as mechanics or software. It's a lot tougher in chemistry, where all of the individual elements are known, but that doesn't meant that it's obvious to make some new cancer-curing drug. But in software, where you can find compression algorithms and sorting algorithms, it's relatively trivial to say "sort and compress!"

    8. Re:Claims by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry, I misread.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:Claims by Myopic · · Score: 1

      "Broken"? Hardly. As a senator to "fix" that bug in the law the way you and I "fix" bugs in software, and the bug report will simply get marked "Works as intended".

    10. Re:Claims by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim.

      Strictly speaking, this isn't true. It's theoretically impossible to win when suing for infringement of only part of a claim, but you can certainly file the lawsuit. And depending on whom you sue, that could be just as good as actually winning.

    11. Re:Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim. Thinking logically about this should make it obvious... Say I invent a working teleportation machine and claim "1. A teleportation machine comprising: (a) a seat for the operator to sit in; and (b) [a whole bunch of stuff required for a teleportation machine to operate]." It should be immediately obvious that I can't sue chair makers everywhere.

      In summary, the situation you think exists does not actually exist. There may be other legitimate arguments regarding the patent system - this is simply not one of them.

      Does it work the other way? From your example, if I make a teleportation device, but leave out the chair for the operator, would it be non-infringing since I don't violate the first claim?

    12. Re:Claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that obvious. You cannot sue chair makers, even if chairs had previously not been invented? ... And, you cannot sue people for [a whole bunch of stuff required for a teleportation machine to operate] because your patent includes a chair?

    13. Re:Claims by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      So, if 9 (or however many) months earlier I had completed a seatless version of an otherwise nearly identical machine, it would not count as prior art?

      Cheers!

    14. Re:Claims by makomk · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim.

      Except that you sort-of can using the doctrine of equivalents. What's more, under current US patent law, the definition of what's broad enough to infringe the patent due to the doctrine of equivalents seems to be massively wider than the definition of what's similar enough to count as prior art.

    15. Re:Claims by thirtyfour · · Score: 1

      Your earlier machine would render the newer machine+seat invention obvious, and the machine+seat patent application would be rejected (assuming your teleportation machine worked the same).

    16. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      So, if 9 (or however many) months earlier I had completed a seatless version of an otherwise nearly identical machine, it would not count as prior art?

      Cheers!

      As another person answered - your seatless version would not anticipate each and every element of my claimed machine... But, seats are well known. The combination of your seatless machine and any other prior art that includes an operator's seat would be an easy combination that would render my claims obvious.

    17. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim.

      Except that you sort-of can using the doctrine of equivalents.

      No - you still need each and every element, or an equivalent to each and every element. You can't simply disregard some of the limitations, which is what the parent was suggesting.

  17. Web-based flight planning patented. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  18. Re:block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://erkie.github.com/

    Always on tap here.

  19. flawed by chronoss2010 · · Score: 0

    you assume that 10% chance in the first place for such ridiculous prior art ...thats bad risk man. ok you have a 10% chance a surviving surgery should you do it? 9 times out of ten your dead. AND then think of the counter lawsuits.....

  20. Only the lawyers win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you imagine what kind of innovation would be possible if these companies spent their legal budgets on R&D?

    1. Re:Only the lawyers win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to imagine it, China is kicking our butts with it.

  21. Anti Competition by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    What ever happened by competing for business by enticing customers through a combination of innovation, product, value, service and marketing?

    What I see more and more is "competition" defined as stifling the progress of competitors who dare to try and work in the same field that you do.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
    1. Re:Anti Competition by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      What ever happened by competing for business by enticing customers through a combination of innovation, product, value, service and marketing?

      Ammagawd, that is SO last century!

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  22. Screen by santax · · Score: 1

    So, one invents a screen whoms sole purpose is to present picture. And then someone finds a way to get a patent to present a picture on a screen... hahahahaha

  23. Re:Chapter 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What for? Is there a problem with being offered a free ebook?

  24. Re:block by BattleApple · · Score: 2

    I have a hardware version of this that exists as a small vertically mounted wheel between the buttons on my mouse.. I just flick the wheel with my index finger, and voila! first post disappears.

  25. Kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the words of the Bard: Time to kill all the patent trolls and their lawyers.

  26. Patent law stikes again *sigh* by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    This is why we can't have nice things!

  27. SCO Redux by U8MyData · · Score: 2

    Did it strike anyone else that this feels like a SCO type of argument? Technology company turns litigious in a last gasp to remain relevant. Just a thought...

    1. Re:SCO Redux by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's my thinking as well. The last gasp of a company that technology has left behind, using the courts in an attempt to become a parasite on newer businesses via licensing fees.

      How exactly anyone could meaningfully patent retrieval of image files from a server is quite beyond me.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  28. Re:Chapter 1 by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Right. Because IP adresses and users have a 1:1 relationship.

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/22/0023220

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  29. Kodaks' patents? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I knew that there were several Kodaks that share patents among them?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  30. Well, it looks like we'll have to go... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    back to ASCII porn: ( o )( o )

  31. Re:Chapter 1 by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    In this case it's the equivalent of someone dumping a pile of free fertilizer on your front lawn.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  32. WHAT'S THE FUCKING PATENT?!?! by The+Dodger · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know what the actual fucking patent is? Anyone? Bueller?

  33. farewell... by alien9 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one missing the time when Kodak was making cameras? I remember my first cheap "instamatic" in the 80s....

  34. Re:Chapter 1 by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    What for? Is there a problem with being offered a free ebook?

    I'm sure spammers always think they're doing you a favour by letting you know about their fabulous products, too.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  35. news groups by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    News groups were first here before http servers.
    and also technically, IRC servers had bots that served images too in 1991.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  36. sue unto others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, this countersuit situation ably illustrates the Golden Rule of patent litigation: Sue not, lest ye be sued. Or is it: Sue unto others as you would have other sue unto you?