Kodak's Patent Spat Threatens Photo Web Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak's Patent Spat Threatens Photo Web Sites

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 22, 2010 @06:58AM 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.'"

32 of 171 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Going nowhere by icebike · 2010-12-22 07:06 · 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 · 2010-12-22 07:07 · 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 autocracy · 2010-12-22 07:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Anonymous Coward demonstrates prior art. Victory is ours.
  
  --
  SIG: HUP
3. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-22 07:39 · 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.
4. Re:Going nowhere by cpu6502 · 2010-12-22 07:47 · 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"
5. Re:Going nowhere by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-22 08:34 · 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.
6. Re:Going nowhere by Solandri · 2010-12-22 10:44 · 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.
7. Re:Going nowhere by Andy_R · 2010-12-22 11:41 · 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
Market cap.. by RightSaidFred99 · 2010-12-22 07:09 · 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 · 2010-12-22 07:17 · 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 publiclurker · 2010-12-22 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  Can't we just take those responsible, turn them into Torgo's executive powder and use that?
!news by girlintraining · 2010-12-22 07:09 · 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 · 2010-12-22 07:39 · 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 BluBrick · 2010-12-22 07:53 · 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!
Oh how the mighty have fallen... by clone52431 · 2010-12-22 07:11 · 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 · 2010-12-22 07:16 · 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 ColdWetDog · 2010-12-22 09:18 · 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!
3. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by AliasMarlowe · 2010-12-22 09:28 · 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
4. Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... by garyebickford · 2010-12-22 09:32 · 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/
Re:Another one by Mitchell314 · 2010-12-22 07:12 · 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
Re:2011: Year of the Patent Spat by TooMuchToDo · 2010-12-22 07:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Innovation will simply move to less patent-encumbered locations (i.e. China/India).
Kodak Innovation. by Camel+Pilot · 2010-12-22 07:26 · 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 · 2010-12-22 07:39 · 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 rsborg · 2010-12-22 08:29 · 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
When will we get some effective patent reform? by serutan · 2010-12-22 07:27 · 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.
Claims by Theaetetus · 2010-12-22 07:35 · 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 Theaetetus · 2010-12-22 08:02 · 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.
2. Re:Claims by Theaetetus · 2010-12-22 08:41 · 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.
Re:Business of government by icebike · 2010-12-22 07:46 · 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.
Re:Send a message to Kodak customer relations by Anonymous+Codger · 2010-12-22 07:52 · Score: 2

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

--
No sig? Sigh...
Re:block by BattleApple · 2010-12-22 10:18 · 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.
SCO Redux by U8MyData · 2010-12-22 12:26 · 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...