Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak's Patent Spat Threatens Photo Web Sites

Posted by samzenpus on from the seeing-is-owning dept.

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.'"

5 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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
  2. 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.

  3. !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