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.'"
It infringes on no less than 235 Kodak patents!!
merry christmas and a happy Sue-year
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Court fees, I presume.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
Yeah, tell them you refuse to buy any more of their film!
No sig? Sigh...
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.
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.
. .
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
Legal fees are taxable. The government wins almost every time money changes hands.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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.
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
This is why we can't have nice things!
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...
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."
I knew that there were several Kodaks that share patents among them?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
back to ASCII porn: ( o )( o )
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Does anyone know what the actual fucking patent is? Anyone? Bueller?
Am I the only one missing the time when Kodak was making cameras? I remember my first cheap "instamatic" in the 80s....
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
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
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
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.
This is also true.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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)
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.