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