Kodak Sues HTC and Apple

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 11, 2012 @03:57AM from the new-business-strategy dept.

alphadogg writes "Here we go again with mobile industry patent lawsuits: 'Struggling Eastman Kodak is alleging that Apple's and HTC's smartphones and tablets infringe on its digital imaging technology, and has filed a complaint and lawsuits with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint to the ITC claims that some of Apple's iPhones, iPads, and iPods, and HTC's smartphones and tablets, infringe Kodak patents related to technology for transmitting images. Kodak also alleges that HTC's smartphones infringe on a patent related to a method for previewing images, which is already the subject of pending actions against Apple.'"

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Kodak's Future... by Frosty+Piss · 2012-01-11 03:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps this gives us a clue about Kodakâ(TM)s future plans to be solvent: Patent Troll? They have already sued Apple and RIM recently...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Kodak's Future... by jank1887 · 2012-01-11 04:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  businessweek article doesn't really detail the patents in question. 'previewing an image'. was 'on a camera' the re-patent everything catchphrase that only Kodak thought of? after generating the image, it's a computer file. it's on a really poor computer. the computer displays the image on a screen, as has been done for decades. transmission of images? again, after generation, its a file. sending a file via some already established protocol shouldn't be patentable for some types of files.
  of course, I'm assuming it's all software, not hardware. If anyone knows the patents in question, it would be interesting to see the claims.
2. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps this gives us a clue about Kodakâ(TM)s future plans to be solvent: Patent Troll? They have already sued Apple and RIM recently...
  I understand what you're saying, and I agree that this seems like Kodak is going straight into Patent Troll territory as a last-ditch effort to survive, but maybe you could rephrase that last part? It almost sounds like "if anyone sues Apple or RIM, ZOMG TEHY MUST BE TEH PATANT TROLLLLLLL!!!1!1!!".
3. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  SCO?
4. Re:Kodak's Future... by elsurexiste · 2012-01-11 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps this gives us a clue about Kodakâ(TM)s future plans to be solvent...
  I see it more like an attempt to capitalize their patents and earn a few extra bucks before the ship sinks.
  
  --
  I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
5. Re:Kodak's Future... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-01-11 04:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Given that Kodak did substantial amounts of actually pioneering work in imaging(I'm sort of saddened that some bullshit about 'preview' was the best they could dredge up for some trolling) and then managed to do for digital cameras approximately what Xerox did for PCs, I suspect that shaking down the people who didn't reach deep into the mouth of victory and grasp hold of defeat will be what their patent portfolio ends up being used for...
  
  The thing that surprises me, a bit, about Kodak's fall from grace is that being a film titan, at their prime, involved substantial chemical manufacturing capacity and expertise. Was that non-transferrable to some other area of chemical production, or did they somehow get rid of their boring-but-solvent departments in some strange reorganization scheme? Same question would go for any departments involved in optics, industrial imaging, etc.
6. Re:Kodak's Future... by alen · 2012-01-11 04:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  the camera screens have smaller resolutions than the photo so you will need an algorithm to downgrade the image, that part is patentable. icloud does something similar where the photo stream images are lesser resolutions than the original. so i guess apple could have ripped them off if they used the same algorithm
7. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Kodak has always been a patent troll. They come up with good original ideas but then release half-assed poor implementations. The market reacts by creating an actual decent product based on the original idea. Kodak then sues the creators of the good product.
  They're not unlike Philips in that way.
8. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't a patent troll when you ACTUALLY INVENTED THE PATENTED TECHNOLOGY. Like, as in, they invented the whole digital camera thing.
9. Re:Kodak's Future... by north.coaster · 2012-01-11 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Kodak is currently trying to sell a large number of it's imaging patents. Maybe they see this lawsuit as a way to motivate one of the defendants to buy these patents. Or maybe they see this as a way to increase the worth of those patents.
10. Re:Kodak's Future... by pclminion · 2012-01-11 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Hehehe.... Manufacturing on US soil? Hehehe. You must be kidding. A company could stay in business that way, you gotta watch out for that.
11. Re:Kodak's Future... by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-01-11 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Four patents are the basis for Kodak's actions, including one for "automatically transmitting images from an electronic camera to a service provider using a network configuration file" and another patent for "capturing digital images to be transferred to an email address."
  
  Yeah those aren't obvious *eye roll*
12. Re:Kodak's Future... by russotto · 2012-01-11 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the camera screens have smaller resolutions than the photo so you will need an algorithm to downgrade the image, that part is patentable
  Or would be, if downscaling algorithms hadn't been known for decades. Of course, if you write "downscaling...on a mobile device", that's a new patent. Then you can write dependent claims like
  "method of claim X, where the downscaling is nearest-neighbor interpolation"
  "method of claim X, where the downscaling is bilinear interpolation"
  "method of claim X, where different downscaling methods are used on the luma and chroma components"
  (stop me if you've heard all this before)
13. Re:Kodak's Future... by EvilGrin5000 · 2012-01-11 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't what you're saying the same as a thumbnail of a pic? or 'fit to screen', zoom in/out ? I agree that this algorithm is (unfortunately) patentable but if this is what they're complaining about (I didn't read TFA, just going off from your comment) wouldn't this be considered prior art?
  
  --
  A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
14. Re:Kodak's Future... by jo_ham · 2012-01-11 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Or push up the perceived value of their assets for a potential buyer.
15. Re:Kodak's Future... by Roonster · 2012-01-11 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  ..snipped... The thing that surprises me, a bit, about Kodak's fall from grace is that being a film titan, at their prime, involved substantial chemical manufacturing capacity and expertise. Was that non-transferrable to some other area of chemical production, or did they somehow get rid of their boring-but-solvent departments in some strange reorganization scheme? Same question would go for any departments involved in optics, industrial imaging, etc.
  Yes, they sold off most of their sustainable viable technologies. See Eastman Chemicals for example.
16. Re:Kodak's Future... by Wilf_Brim · 2012-01-11 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that they have decided to go the route of TiVo. It seems to be working out well enough for them (even speaking as a TiVo fan with 2 boxes with Lifetime subs) they have essentially stopped even the appearance of innovating and are instead milking money in 100-500 million dollar settlements. Next up on the block for them AT&T. The digital imaging world is far, far bigger than the set top box world. If they do have legitimate patents here, they may be able to extract a significant amount of cash. Even one or two dollars per device would spin off plenty. Or maybe. It would be enough to create some breathing space to try something else. Since Kodak appears incapable of doing that, all it would really do is stave off the invevitible for a bit longer.
17. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  You are if you didn't really do much with the patents at the beginning, and are now only trying to extract substance from the few remaining fumes of what you once had.
18. Re:Kodak's Future... by postbigbang · 2012-01-11 05:05 · Score: 2
  
  Not quite true. There were lots of early leaders using CCD devices to produce still images; some of them went to tape, others to primitive onboard storage. Sony even used a floppy disk drive at one point.
  There may be a lot of prior art to some of the claims that invalidate them, but Kodak did do a lot of pioneering research in the area. The usual process is to have the defendents claim that the patents aren't legal, and otherwise them invalidated. Barring that, they'll try to get the complaint squashed on other grounds. Barring that, they'll try to settle for the least painful method, which might include exchanging various "rights" or portfolios of "rights" which allows Kodak to use the defendents property. In the worst case, there's a hideous judgment, which will then be appealed. IANAL, but don't be so sure Kodak invented everything they claim.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
19. Re:Kodak's Future... by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-11 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Most screens are lower resolution than the photo clicked by a digicam
  1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP
  2560*1600 which is the highest resolution available for individual displays in the market is around 4MP
20. Re:Kodak's Future... by Synerg1y · 2012-01-11 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they've certainly lost the competitive edge they had in the 90s...
21. Re:Kodak's Future... by larry+bagina · 2012-01-11 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  not if they lose... and their ITC complaint against Apple and RIM hasn't been going to well for them.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
22. Re:Kodak's Future... by martin · 2012-01-11 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  going the way of SCO (and look where that ended up) - as already stated. Seems the accountants now running the place have only one place left to try and find some income. Sad.
23. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/01/eastman-kodak-sues-apple-over-four-and.html Foss Patents details the patents. Filed in 2001 and most seem obvious to me, but hindsight is 20/20. The patents cover the process of uploading photos to the internet directly from a camera without connecting the camera to a computer. The one I read covers storing a config file on the camera that contains the info needed (ip addresses, account name, passwords, baud rate, and serial port info are given as examples) for the camera to connect to an online service to upload the pictures to. If these patents hold up, every single smart phone manufacture (and most dumber phones) would need to license them.
  The question I have is a smart phone a camera? Just because the phone has a camera sensor, is it a camera? Because my laptop has a built in web cam does that make it a camera as well? If si it would seem like this patent would apply.
24. Re:Kodak's Future... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-01-11 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know if this was in a fit of some sort of weird exuberance about the imaginary all-IP economy of the future, where boring things like actually doing stuff will be abandoned; or has the notion that "Kodak" has some kind of hope really just been propped up as long as it has in order to make time to get the real assets shoved into legally separate boxes and centralize the liabilities for the sacrificial bankruptcy of a nearly asset-less shell?
25. Re:Kodak's Future... by delinear · 2012-01-11 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You say that as though coming up with good original ideas and bringing them to market is the easy bit. That's kind of what the whole patent process should be there to protect, otherwise it's almost always better to be second to market, let some other chump do all the costly research and development, then you just bring out a shinier version of their product based on initial feedback. Companies that come up with ideas and put them into production are far more useful than companies who have zero interest in bringing a product to market and just patent the patently obvious so they can reap the benefits in licensing deals/court cases.
26. Re:Kodak's Future... by tlhIngan · 2012-01-11 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps this gives us a clue about KodakÃ(TM)s future plans to be solvent: Patent Troll? They have already sued Apple and RIM recently...
  Well, they're currently offering their patent portfolio for sale, so I'm guessing it's a general sales tactic.
  Of course, it also means a REAL patent troll may come about and pick it up. Or perhaps Apple may buy the portfolio and extract money from everyone. Or Google. Or Microsoft.
27. Re:Kodak's Future... by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 05:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If I recall correctly it had more to do with some arbitrary and insane insistence on 'Consumer Imaging' being the business focus, which is why you got cheap consumer cameras (easy share), printer docs (with attempts to cash in on printer paper consumables), but little pro-sumer stuff, and the occasional/rare super high-end imagers/gear (like those used in telescopes, etc).
  This is also why they sold off/spun off their profitable medical imaging groups, chemicals group, and they've tried to get rid of their profitable Document Imaging group (high-end, high-speed document scanners) several times. They've been constantly trying to push themselves into the most difficult and price-competitive market possible, cheapo consumer cameras. I think the ultimate goal was to maintain some kind of grasp of the photo printing business as their cash cow with consumable manufacturing/selling. To be fair, they still do a good job printing pictures, but people don't really want/need to do that anymore with rare exceptions. And people that still do prints do it in-house or have local labs that do the work.
28. Re:Kodak's Future... by WankerWeasel · 2012-01-11 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Fast Company had an article last month about Kodak saying just that. The only way they're holding on is to sue others. They haven't innovated in years. The article also talked about how this guy in their labs invented a device that allowed you to take a picture and see it on a TV screen. They looked at it and said, who would want to take a picture and store it digitally? Throw that in the pile with all the other ideas we aren't going to pursue. Here is the article: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/161/photography-digital-tech
29. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know if this was in a fit of some sort of weird exuberance about the imaginary all-IP economy of the future, where boring things like actually doing stuff will be abandoned; or has the notion that "Kodak" has some kind of hope really just been propped up as long as it has in order to make time to get the real assets shoved into legally separate boxes and centralize the liabilities for the sacrificial bankruptcy of a nearly asset-less shell?
  Nope, it was just general Wall Street "divest non-core assets to maximize shareholder value" bullshit.
  What you describe has happened over the last five years or so, however.
30. Re:Kodak's Future... by rmstar · 2012-01-11 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  You say that as though coming up with good original ideas and bringing them to market is the easy bit. That's kind of what the whole patent process should be there to protect, otherwise it's almost always better to be second to market, let some other chump do all the costly research and development, then you just bring out a shinier version of their product based on initial feedback.
  
  Then the first one can one-up the copy-cats again. In fact, in this way, patents are anticompetitive and hinder the proper function of a market, because they allow companies to rest on crappy products for twenty years (at least in principle). Not to mention adding to the cost of doing business by converting any sort of development into a trip through a minefield.
31. Re:Kodak's Future... by Grishnakh · 2012-01-11 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who sues over any obvious patent is a patent troll. So yes, Kodak is a patent troll. But so is Apple and most of these other big tech companies, so the trolls are suing each other.
32. Re:Kodak's Future... by jeffmeden · 2012-01-11 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Was that non-transferrable to some other area of chemical production, or did they somehow get rid of their boring-but-solvent departments in some strange reorganization scheme?
  You might say that their solvent business... wasn't! Hahahaha aaahahaha aha ha ha ha. Eh? Srsly, they did divest the profitable holdings, how do you think they have lasted this long given that film use basically bottomed out a decade ago? The only thing left is the name on the door and that's what this move is about. Someone (Apple, Sony, Canon, anybody) needs to do "the right thing" and buy up Kodak and put the name to good use, and spare them from this trolling.
33. Re:Kodak's Future... by Grishnakh · 2012-01-11 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is also why they sold off/spun off their profitable.... They've been constantly trying to push themselves into the most difficult and price-competitive market possible, cheapo consumer cameras.
  This reminds of HP, which spun off their "boring" test and measurement division so they could concentrate on cheapo consumer computers.
34. Re:Kodak's Future... by viperidaenz · 2012-01-11 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Their solvent business is very solvent. Its called Eastman Chemical
35. Re:Kodak's Future... by Smurf · 2012-01-11 07:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP
  Apple's Thunderbolt Display (and the 27" Cinema Display before it) is 2560x1440.
  Dell's 27" U2711 has the same resolution (I think they may be using the same panel), and the 30" U3011 is 2560x1600.
  
  2560*1600 which is the highest resolution available for individual displays in the market is around 4MP
  The Eizo RadiForce LS560W is 3840x2160. The RX840 is 4096x2160. And although most people would not want a monochrome monitor, you can get them all the way to at least 4096x2560, like the GX1030. And that is just sticking to Eizo monitors, I didn't check other high end brands.
  I get your point, but your numbers are quite off
36. Re:Kodak's Future... by Dogtanian · 2012-01-11 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Then the first one can one-up the copy-cats again.
  So they spend a lot of money developing something to give them a very brief advantage- which almost certainly won't recover the cost of the investment- before the other company copies *that* again? Lather, rinse, repeat.
  
  I'm not saying that the patent systems in various countries don't have problems, or that all patents should be allowed, or that all patents should last as long as they're allowed to be just now. However, to dismiss the entire concept in principle, is IMHO wrong.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
37. Re:Kodak's Future... by mehrotra.akash · 2012-01-11 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ah.. well, knew about the U2711 and 3011, but those prices are prohibitive for most people
  The others I didnt know about, but 20k EUR is a LOT for a monitor
38. Re:Kodak's Future... by bloodhawk · 2012-01-11 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like all these patent lawsuits, but to be fair most of the pioneering work in digital photography was done by Kodak, they just failed to turn that into a successfull business model, so how the hell can they be a patent troll?
39. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe someone should check whether Kodak recently hired any ex-SCO staff/management.....
40. Re:Kodak's Future... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Kodak has no profitable product lines left, and are trying to sell some of their patent portfolio to raise cash to keep going. Apple should just buy Kodak for the patent portfolio and be done with it.
41. Re:Kodak's Future... by amorsen · 2012-01-11 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  1920*1080 which is the highest consumer resolution available is around 2MP
  1920x1080 is around 6MP, just with a fairly unfortunate pixel layout. Camera pixels are single-colour.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
42. Re:Kodak's Future... by exomondo · 2012-01-11 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't what you're saying the same as a thumbnail of a pic? or 'fit to screen', zoom in/out ? I agree that this algorithm is (unfortunately) patentable but if this is what they're complaining about (I didn't read TFA, just going off from your comment) wouldn't this be considered prior art?
  Patents aren't about an idea, they are about the method for implementing the idea.
43. Re:Kodak's Future... by N+Monkey · 2012-01-11 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  the camera screens have smaller resolutions than the photo so you will need an algorithm to downgrade the image, that part is patentable. icloud does something similar where the photo stream images are lesser resolutions than the original. so i guess apple could have ripped them off if they used the same algorithm
  Sigh...
  Most smart phones have a 3D graphics processor and those will all support MIP mapping where, to prevent hideous aliasing of textures, the graphics system keeps multiple copies of each texture at different levels of scaling. This concept has been around for decades.
Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yesterday on the news it was about Kodak going bankrupt, now they are suing other company's as a last ditch effort. This is a death rattle, nothing more.
1. Re:Death Rattle by Gideon+Wells · 2012-01-11 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Death rattle, but could be an annoying one. Three scenarios:
  1) Last ditch effort to survive.
  2) Start lawsuits, adds potential value due to potential win/settlement.
  3) They are already going down, already going bankrupt, maybe they can drag down some of those who helped put them in this spot in the process.
  
  --
  by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
2. Re:Death Rattle by Bananatree3 · 2012-01-11 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  It might be their last bastion of profit - lawsuits with their patent warchest. That's nothing unusual with massive companies- they're always suing eachother. The question becomes how bullish - SCO-til-the-last-lawyer-stands?
3. Re:Death Rattle by ad454 · 2012-01-11 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  A death rattle can last for many many years. All that they have to do is follow SCO example, and fire everyone and just spend the remaining money on legal fees. And when the money is dried up, the lawyers can then receive guaranteed cash from future settlements.
  Interesting that most of the innovation in the US is legally based, and not based on science or engineering.
4. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  maybe they can drag down some of those who helped put them in this spot in the process
  I'm sorry, but only Kodak put Kodak into this spot ... they've staunchly refused/failed to move forward, have rested on their laurels while the industry changed around them ... and to be honest, they've made abysmally low quality consumer stuff for years.
  My wife's parents now have their second Kodak camera ... truthfully, it's a POS, but they don't use it much and is simple for them to use. We bought a photo printer that died in a few weeks. The one we returned it for died a few weeks after that. Utter garbage.
  I have no sympathy for Kodak. I mourned the loss of Kodachrome, but that was more nostalgia. Seriously, Kodak hasn't made anything of value in years ... and I currently own something like 5 or 6 cameras, so it's not like I'm not in the market for things you'd think they'd be making.
  This is just the dying throws of a company who has failed to remain relevant in a changing environment.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:Death Rattle by mvar · 2012-01-11 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  In a sane justice system this lawsuit would be rejected the moment it was filed. Has Kodak been living in a different universe for the last 5 or six years? If i recall correctly all those violating products have been in the market for some time now
6. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Missing option:
  4) Desperate attempt to get someone to buy them for their patent portfolio/get them off their backs.
  
  File this under "ugly."
7. Re:Death Rattle by Penguinisto · 2012-01-11 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  All that they have to do is follow SCO example, and fire everyone and just spend the remaining money on legal fees.
  Well, sorta. SCOX lasted a lot longer than they otherwise would have thanks to their little (copyright, not patent) adventure, but there was no settlement, the final death was rather inglorious, and any recognizable name involved with it became pure poison in the industry.
  If anything, I think that the whole SCOX story taught a valuable lesson about how not to run a company's exit strategy.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
8. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  They made some good stuff in the past. I remember their consumer grade photo printers which made surprisingly good prints, because it would print the usual CMYK, but then it would print a clear fifth layer on top of it all for UV protection.
  My fear is that some PHB at Kodak is looking to start suing other companies (what do they have to lose at this time), in hopes that other companies will bid on Kodak's patent portfolio for their own games. Apple would want Kodak's patents because it could be used to sue Android makers into the ground. Same with Google using that as a lever against iOS.
  I'm sure someone is going to buy Kodak out, and my bets likely are on Apple -- it would give them another set of ammunition to choke everyone else out of the market.
9. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not true at all, not when you have so called 'anti-trust' legislation thrown against you by the government.
  I am not saying that Kodak would have survived for sure if government wasn't attacking it earlier, but you can't say they were at fault for their business when government was heavily meddling with it.
  It's similar enough with the government interfering with AT&T and T-Mobile. Gov't prevents the merger and later one or both companies will suffer enough damage that may put them out of business, but you will say: it's definitely their fault, they couldn't survive in the market. Well, how do you know that the merger would not have given them some sort of an edge that they need to survive?
  You can't have government interfering with private businesses, private property with all these unconstitutional regulations and laws and taxes and counterfeiting and then say - these companies were definitely destined for failure or these entire markets were definitely destined for failure.
  The only thing we know for sure is that when government interferes with market, it causes failure.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
10. Re:Death Rattle by Grave · 2012-01-11 05:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't know, I'd bet Google would be willing to give Apple a run for their money on the Kodak patents, given the patent acquisition spree they've been on recently.
11. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  AT&T merging with T-Mobile is extremely bad for the consumer, and a large number of employees within both companies. The only people it benefits are the major shareholders, because they'll be able to manipulate the market. This has absolutely nothing to do with Kodak repeatedly ignoring where digital photography was going, and then hiding their heads in the sand as the world ignored them.
  Kodak have had the tech, the knowledge and the brand name to do well. They fucked up. They should be used as an example of what happens to big players when the market moves and stuffy old farts choose to ignore every warning sign there is.
12. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not true at all, not when you have so called 'anti-trust' legislation thrown against you by the government
  I've read that article ... and, quite honestly, it sounds like a legitimate applilcation of anti-trust legistlation ...
  
  Kodak also asked the Court to rule that the market for a single brand of a product or service -- such as its own replacement parts -- can never be a "market" for assessing monopoly behavior under the Sherman Act.
  "We disagree," Justice Blackmun said, adding that "the relevant market for antitrust purposes is determined by the choices available to Kodak equipment owners," who must use Kodak parts.
  That's like saying that I can't legally have someone else service my car because GM has forbade it. It's my property, and I can employ who I like to repair it. GM doesn't have the right to restrict that, and neither did Kodak
  
  The only thing we know for sure is that when government interferes with market, it causes failure.
  Blah blah blah ... corporations would fuck us all over if someone didn't keep an eye on them. Don't believe me? Go feed your children some melamine laced baby formula.
  The all wonderful free market is a philosophical ideal to some people ... to the rest of us, it's a mechanism which if not controlled will lead to horribly bad results. And, quite frankly, even with controls it does.
  But, I can tell that you kneel at the altar and think it's infallible ... so, whatever ... I completely disagree with you.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:Death Rattle by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-11 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Getting bought out is one of the methods of "not surviving". Doesn't matter if you're T-Mobile or Kodak.
14. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  - except that the regulation itself is unconstitutional and the fact is that all monopolies are created by government, not by market. In free market monopolies don't exist, only economies of scale, only companies that provide good product at good price, otherwise others enter the market with new ideas, tech and better prices.
  
  But, I can tell that you kneel at the altar and think it's infallible ... so, whatever ... I completely disagree with you.
  - that's a straw-man, I don't know what it means 'markets are infallible', I don't know what a 'fallibility' of a market is.
  What I do know is that governments interfere with private individuals making private decisions and they end up destroying the markets.
  
  Blah blah blah ... corporations would fuck us all over if someone didn't keep an eye on them. Don't believe me? Go feed your children some melamine laced baby formula.
  - sure, this happens, and it's a crime, nobody has the right to harm others. There is nothing that needs to be done from 'regulations' point of view, only the existing criminal laws need to apply.
  Of-course governments created the moral hazard by removing legal liability from corporations and so it's near impossible to hold anybody personally responsible and that is a problem, but again, it's a government created problem.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
15. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, not necessarily, often people start companies with the goal of selling them, sometimes owners just want to retire. This is not one of those situations here, but the government involvement is likely to cause massive layoffs in one or both of these companies later on.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
16. Re:Death Rattle by Aighearach · 2012-01-11 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  But, I can tell that you kneel at the altar and think it's infallible ... so, whatever ... I completely disagree with you.
  - that's a straw-man, I don't know what it means 'markets are infallible', I don't know what a 'fallibility' of a market is.
  So you've verified him, and show it not to be a straw-man right there.
17. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In free market monopolies don't exist, only economies of scale, only companies that provide good product at good price, otherwise others enter the market with new ideas, tech and better prices.
  See, there never has been what you term a truly free market ... so anytime someone says that is how it works, I am forced to conclude you're telling me about your religion -- there's no proof of it, only your assertion. You believe it, but I don't believe for a minute it's the natural 'fact' you seem to.
  Name one market that has ever existed in the world that was truly free, and didn't more or less devolve into the strong screwing over the weak? There have always been governments and rules, and people have always tried to be the only game in town.
  I think your free market is a myth, and I think the lovely outcomes people ascribe to it are pure fantasy with no real evidence.
  
  What I do know is that governments interfere with private individuals making private decisions and they end up destroying the markets.
  What I know is that the markets are inherently flawed, don't produce the optimal results people like you claim they do, and would have been abused by people trying to gain the upper hand. And they always have.
  They don't naturally arrive at optimal solutions, the freedom to choose with good information never materializes, and some greedy bastard will always lie, cheat, steal, and resort to violence to gain an upper hand ... but you seem to think that's the optimal method of how such things work.
  Me, I think it's just glorified anarchy that's been elevated to a status where people worship it as if it was the most morally perfect outcome we could ever hope for -- if you apply the morality of a free market to a society, you get a very bleak future of selfish behavior and sacrificing every body else for your own gain. 'Enlightened self interest' translates into "fuck everyone else, give me mine".
  
  Of-course governments created the moral hazard by removing legal liability from corporations
  That may be the only point we agree on ... of course, I don't think the solution is to remove the regulations. I think it's to remove the freedom from liability they enjoy now.
  If we magically went to an unregulated, free market tomorrow ... I'm betting it would take centuries (if at all) to reach any form of equilibrium in which the behavior of companies was regulated by the market. And, since no such economy has ever existed for that long, you will get the exact opposite results that people claim that system would produce.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
18. Re:Death Rattle by Dishevel · 2012-01-11 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  You can completely disagree if you want. That does not make you correct.
  Free markets would work better with a little less government manipulation.
  Take the banking fiasco. FDIC! Federal insurance that says that if you put your money in the bank we guarantee that you are not going to lose it.
  Take away that insurance and people are going to behave differently.
  With it banks can not compete on safety. They can only compete on rates and free stuff. Is it surprising what we got?
  Without the FDIC banks could compete on safety of your money. Those that do not want safety can not have it.
  I am telling you right now that if there had been no insurance on my deposits at banks I would have been very knowledgeable about what they were doing with it.
  So would most of you. We would have created a market of safe banks. We instead created a market of risky banks. And We Still ARE!
  Enjoy.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
19. Re:Death Rattle by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-11 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't actually think the AT&T/T-Mobile case is the rightcomparison for that anti-trust case. I think that the Kodak case is a much more clear case of government meddling (this is not to support the government position on AT&T/T-Mobile, just to point out that people can support that decision and still have a problem with the Kodak decision). In the case that you linked to the only market that Kodak had a monopoly on was the one for replacement parts for equipment they manufactured. Kodak did not have a monopoly on the equipment those parts were for, they weren't even the biggest player in that market.
  
  That being said, your basic point is correct. It seems likely that the government action in the case you referenced had significant influence on Kodak's failure to get into other business lines (whether because it weakened their attempt to move in that direction or because it led them to be hesitant to make other attempts to get into the business imaging business in a big way).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
20. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 06:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Take the banking fiasco. FDIC! Federal insurance that says that if you put your money in the bank we guarantee that you are not going to lose it.
  Take away that insurance and people are going to behave differently.
  With it banks can not compete on safety. They can only compete on rates and free stuff. Is it surprising what we got?
  Without the FDIC banks could compete on safety of your money. Those that do not want safety can not have it.
  And your lack of understanding of why FDIC exists in the first place doesn't make you correct.
  See, after the Great Depression when banks basically gambled away the money people deposited, people figured out that without some controls and regulations, it would just happen again.
  Unfortunately, starting with Reagan and going forward, people gradually removed the regulations on the banking industry. So, the junk debt which got passed off as AAA became everyone else's problem -- not just the people who had knowingly given risky debt.
  So, the exact same market failure occurred in the 30's as recently .... an unregulated banking industry is basically a ponzi scheme, precisely because all the market is interested in doing is maximizing short term profit, and making sure other people carry the risk. It is just an incentive to rip people off -- essentially the whole world paid for a bunch of greedy American banks to foist off their bad debt while pretending it was secured/safe debt. It was essentially like kiting checks, only on a global scale.
  A free market would never create a safer banking system ... you believe that, I'm sure ... but there is no actual evidence to believe that this wonderful unicorn you think of as the market arrives at good solutions. In fact, it's hard not to reach the opposite conclusion.
  Citing an example of why the regulations were put there in the first place, and showing why the removal of them led to the same abysmal failure isn't successfully defending your point ... it's using an example of failure to attempt to prove something else. That's like saying that murder laws don't serve any purpose, and then showing the murder rate would go up if you didn't have a law against it.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
21. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  See, there never has been what you term a truly free market
  
  - I never said there needs to be a 'truly free market', there are degrees of freedom, and not having Patents/Copyrights/DMCA/SOPA/PIPA, etc. is a good enough DEGREE of freedom for innovation and inventions and for a thriving technological culture to exist.
  Of-course then there are other things, it would be good for example not to have currency counterfeiting, labor price setting, insane laws and regulations created by unelected, unauthorised offices, various wrong-headed social agenda that creates other barriers to entry and raises cost of doing business, the entire concept of income/payroll/corporate taxes. But you see, USA used to have NONE of this for half a century where it did most of what lifted it from a pre-industrial to a real industrial country with huge productive output that turned it into the largest creditor nation, with very strong domestic economy.
  That's not what you have now at all. I just posted a journal entry on a Chinese company constructing a building in 360 hours. They are using innovative technology, they are manufacturing entire floors and panels on factories and are assembling entire building on site by simply putting "lego" like blocks together.
  You couldn't do an EPA environmental report in USA in the amount of time it took them to run the entire project. You couldn't get a building permit in that time. You couldn't do anything in USA in that time.
  So that's where China is today - where USA used to be 100 years back - they are innovating, they are inventing, they are manufacturing, they are finding new efficiencies and this pushes engineering and basic science and education forward.
  USA on the other hand has EPA and FDA and FCC and FAA and FBI and CIA and FDIC and IRS and SS and Medicare and all the union support, and all the other departments and agencies and government officials, with or without guns, all in unions. They wouldn't let you run a building construction that quick if you could.
  So you see, that's an example of a DEGREE of FREEDOM, China has more than USA does.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
22. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  And your lack of understanding of why FDIC exists in the first place doesn't make you correct.
  - no, it's you, who doesn't know better about FDIC.
  Here is a Congressional hearing that did look at that question as well, those guys are definitely more knowledgeable about it than you are and they say FDIC was created to ensure that banks didn't have to compete on quality of service, that people would specifically have the moral hazard of not caring which bank to lend their money to. You can either watch the entire thing, it's pretty educational, or you can skip to this specific questions
  49:30 to 52 explains how banks benefit from counterfeit money
  52:40 - 54 explains how FDIC created the "too big to fail" problem compounded by the counterfeit federal credit system.
  54:40 - specifically explains why you are wrong and that FDIC was specifically created to create false confidence in the banks, it's not to insure YOUR money, it's to ensure that banks can take your money and do whatever with it and you won't give a shit.
  55:50 - FDR's secretary of Treasury quote, a very telling one.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
23. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  - starting from about 22:30 and going for a few minutes, just more people exposing what FDIC is what about, nothing to do with insuring depositors but had everything to do with bailing out banks.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
24. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  LOL.
  Even the most hardline neocons from the Austrian school of economics agree that monopolies are bad for a free market, and should be prevented (by government action if necessary) or heavily regulated; Go read any 101 Economics Textbook. If AT&T and T-Mobile had merged, thats what would have practically resulted. Even the alternative of T-mobile collapsing is better because it might open the door for one or more new players to enter the market.
  American mobile telcom industry absolutely sucks; Virtually no competition; high prices(eg: 1$ for international SMSs); Phones tied to carriers; Carriers refusing to provide SIMs if you have an unlocked iPhone; Can't have a white iPhone unless you switch carriers and what not; . As an Indian, I have to say that even India's mobile telecom industry(which is heavily regulated, and in which a government-run corporation is a key player among the dozen or so carriers) is light years ahead in multiple areas, even when you factor in stuff like the huge 2G/3G spectrum bribery scandal.
  In fact, the US should go further and issue legislation to break-up AT&T (again) to bring about more competition.(Fat chance, that thats gonna happen).
  2 or 3 companies is not a Free market.
25. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Here is a Congressional hearing that did look at that question as well, those guys are definitely more knowledgeable about it than you are and they say FDIC was created to ensure that banks didn't have to compete on quality of service, that people would specifically have the moral hazard of not caring which bank to lend their money to
  I'm sorry, but you're citing a video in which Ron Paul is making claims and offering his assertions as fact ... of course he's saying what you want him to say, but that has nothing to do with the reasons FDIC were created.
  From FDIC's own site:
  
  At the time of its adoption in 1933, deposit insurance had a record of experiments at the state level extending back to 1829. New York was the first of 14 states that adopted plans, over a period from 1829 to 1917, to insure or guarantee bank deposits or other obligations that served as currency. The purposes of the various state insurance plans were similar: to protect communities from the economic disruptions caused by bank failures; and to protect depositors against losses. In the majority of cases the insurance plans eventually proved unworkable. By early 1930, the last of these plans had ceased operations.
  At the federal level, deposit insurance had a legislative history reaching back to 1886. A total of 150 proposals for deposit insurance or guaranty were made in Congress between 1886 and 1933. Many of these proposals were prompted by financial crises, though none was as severe as the crisis that developed in the early 1930s. The events of that period finally convinced the general public that measures of a national scope were needed to alleviate the disruptions caused by bank failures.
  From the stock market crash in the fall of 1929 to the end of 1933, about 9,000 banks suspended operations, resulting in losses to depositors of about $1.3 billion. The closure of 4,000 banks in the first few months of 1933, and the panic that accompanied these suspensions, led President Roosevelt to declare a bank holiday on March 6, 1933. The financial system was on the verge of collapse, and both the manufacturing and agricultural sectors were operating at a fraction of capacity.
  The crisis environment led to the call for deposit insurance. Ultimately, the force of public opinion spurred Congress to enact deposit insurance legislation. The Banking Act of 1933, which created the FDIC, was signed by President Roosevelt on June 16, 1933.
  By almost any measure, the FDIC has been successful in maintaining public confidence in the banking system. Prior to the establishment of the FDIC, large-scale cash demands of fearful depositors were often the fatal blow to banks that otherwise might have survived. Widespread bank runs have become a thing of the past and no longer constitute a threat to the industry. The money supply both on a local and national level has ceased to be subject to contractions caused by bank failures. The liquidation of failed bank assets no longer disrupts local or national markets and a significant portion of a community's assets are no longer tied up in bankruptcy proceedings when a bank fails.
  Just because Ron Paul says it, doesn't make it true .. it's in support of his ideological position, which, based on your sig is the same as your own. In my opinion, he spouts the same drivel as a lot of similar people ... I think he's a crank like Ayn Rand.
  Retroactively saying it was to prevent the need for banks to compete on quality of service is revisionist history at best, and an outright lie at worst. It was created because banks were failing and wreaking havoc on the economy.
  Finding an American congressman who blindly believes in deregulation and a free market is easy ... but I've yet to see any evidence that what these people are claiming works. In fact, it's the la
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
26. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Interview with Vern McKinley, research fellow at the Independent Institute & author of the new book Financing Failure: A Century of Bailouts, on why government interventions have always failed, the governmental propaganda used to expand federal power, and how the feds are covering their tracks.
  Vern served as a legal advisor and regulatory policy expert for governments on financial sector issues in US, China and elsewhere, he testified in front of Congress with the board of governments on the Federal reserve, FDIC.
  Starting from about 22:30 and going for a few minutes, just more people exposing what FDIC is what about, nothing to do with insuring depositors but had everything to do with bailing out banks.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
27. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  video in which Ron Paul is making claims
  
  ...
  
  Just because Ron Paul says it, doesn't make it true
  ...
  
  I could show you a vide of Pol Pot of Chairman Mao saying something
  
  --
  All this ad-hominem is fine and dandy, except it's NOT Ron Paul that is making any claims.
  It's a CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, where EXPERTS are called in to testify.
  Thus the people who are making these claims in that testimony are NOT Ron Paul, but are
  Dr. Lawrence Parks and at minute 7 of the video you can hear his credentials (which are better than yours).
  At 15:45 you can hear Dr. White's credentials, not too bad either.
  Of-course I have another comment here, referencing an interview with Vern McKinley on the same topic.
  The point is, enough of the people who actually understood and predicted all of this economic nonsense that's going on decades before it happened are agreeing on the reasons for it, and they are citing very specific sources for their research, unlike you, who is citing either your ass, or people with no understanding of economics, and no, Krugman is not an economist.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
28. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  research fellow at the Independent Institut
  Oooh, they're independent because they say so ... I'm sorry, but what about them makes me believe that?
  Is it that they get funding from Exxon? How about Philip Morris? How about the fact that they're well known shills for Microsoft?
  I'm sorry, but you keep citing groups who are either shills for your beliefs, or the people who espouse them ... so I accuse you of circular logic and sleight of hand. These guys get together into a little self congratulatory circle jerk to put out papers that espouse their point of view, and then use them as sources for when they're later espousing their point of view.
  The fact that you're citing a vitriol filled, libertarian biased think tank who sees the world through the lens they wish to see it doesn't make any of what you're citing as facts.
  In fact, if you're going to continue to rely on a biased organization who exists to provide position papers to support its sponsors ... well, then you have so thoroughly drunk the kool aid as to have become someone who believes in the dogma, and has left rational thought behind him.
  Sorry man, but the "Independent Institute" is a political tool of a conservative agenda. As such, I simply won't take anything they put forth as fact, but propaganda.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
29. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  As I say, these are people who predicted the economic collapse decades before it happened and gave precise reasons for their predictions, and those reasons are all tied to government stealing and selling power and nothing else.
  Of-course I already see what I am dealing with here, pure demagogue with no arguments at all.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
30. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Crappy appeal to authority is crappy. Should I counter with a video about UFO's by some "research fellow" of a UFO institute? Someone saying the same thing as you doesn't make it any more true. Or hell, check what most Nobel laureates in economics have to say about the issue if we are going to go that way...
31. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should read something before starting with more nonsense. There are no monopolies except for government created ones.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
32. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should find a UFO that actually predicted any of the real problems with the economy like those, who actually understand what economics is did in the first place?
  The Keynesians love to appeal to the Krugmans of the world, of-course the Krugmans of the world could be replaced with a simple MP3 recording, and all it should say is this:
  Lower interest rates.
  Print money.
  Buy stuff with printed money.
  Lower interest rates.
  Print money.
  Buy stuff with printed money.
  Put it in a loop, you'll get all of your Nobel prize winning 'economists'.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
33. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Lower interest rates.
  Print money.
  Buy stuff with printed money.
  Lower interest rates.
  Print money.
  Buy stuff with printed money.
  Put it in a loop, you'll get all of your Nobel prize winning 'economists'.
  That may be the second thing we agree on today ... I also think Greenspan was an idiot who mostly just seemed to sound like Ayn Rand.
  Sadly, I just don't agree with the Libertarian models of economics either .. they're far to simplistic, and rely on assumptions I'm not convinced can be justified.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
34. Re:Death Rattle by andydread · 2012-01-11 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Cuyahoga River at one time was one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. The reach from Akron to Cleveland was devoid of fish. A Kent State University symposium, convened one year before the infamous 1969 fire, described one section of the river:
  From 1,000 feet below Lower Harvard Bridge to Newburgh and South Shore Railroad Bridge, the channel becomes wider and deeper and the level is controlled by Lake Erie. Downstream of the railroad bridge to the harbor, the depth is held constant by dredging, and the width is maintained by piling along both banks. The surface is covered with the brown oily film observed upstream as far as the Southerly Plant effluent. In addition, large quantities of black heavy oil floating in slicks, sometimes several inches thick, are observed frequently. Debris and trash are commonly caught up in these slicks forming an unsightly floating mess. Anaerobic action is common as the dissolved oxygen is seldom above a fraction of a part per million. The discharge of cooling water increases the temperature by 10 to 15F. The velocity is negligible, and sludge accumulates on the bottom. Animal life does not exist. Only the algae Oscillatoria grows along the piers above the water line. The color changes from gray-brown to rusty brown as the river proceeds downstream. Transparency is less than 0.5 feet in this reach. This entire reach is grossly polluted
  We don't need no stinking gubmint regulation. Not allowing private industry to dump toxic chemicals into streams and rivers kills jobs and destroys the economy. "You can't have government interfering with private businesses,"
35. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  corporations would fuck us all over if someone didn't keep an eye on them
  - the market keeps an eye on them.
  Here is a little something that's happening in Greece right now - drug shortages. Why are there shortages of drugs in Greece? Because they can't pay and because government forces companies to sell at lower prices than they sell elsewhere, which means that wholesellers simply export the drugs back out of Greece and into Eastern Europe and probably other places, where these same drugs sell for more, this creates secondary market in other countries competing against the pharma companies that produce these drugs.
  So it's very simple - government will fuck you up completely in the long run. A corporation can screw with you only until you go to the competitor, and if there is no competitor at the moment, you'll find a substitute product.
  However once government is involved you are completely fucked, you have to get out of the country to escape that sort of punishment, no company can do that, only government can do that.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
36. Re:Death Rattle by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need no stinking gubmint regulation.
  
  - 100% correct. The reasons for all of these environmental problems is the government in the first place, as it created monopolies, including monopolies in utility sector and the government destroyed liability by protecting limited liability of corporations. The other problem is of-course government owning property, which must not happen in the first place, because government is not an owner and by being this virtual owner, it gives implicit and explicit permissions to the monopolies it creates in various private sectors to do whatever to the environment that the private companies want without retribution by any actual private property owner.
  All of these rivers and parks, everything, must be owned privately, and if government was actually doing ONE thing it's supposed to do - protect liberty and private property, this would never be a problem in the first place.
  You are correct - the government is evil, that's why it must be shackled from doing evil that people don't want it to do.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
37. Re:Death Rattle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  You're arguing with an utter moron. Unless you're doing it to educate the people he might otherwise misinform, don't bother.
When you can't innovate, by BigDaveyL · 2012-01-11 04:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

Litigate
1. Re:When you can't innovate, by demachina · 2012-01-11 04:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Kodak has been pretty capable on the innovation front. They pretty much invented the digital camera. Their problem has been the business execution to make money off their innovation.
  Though of late they probably haven't been innovating so much. Their current CEO has made two failed attempts to become a printer company and a TV company which are two markets which are completely dominated by incumbents and they've been bleeding money throughout the attempt.
  
  --
  @de_machina
2. Re:When you can't innovate, by Nursie · 2012-01-11 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The landlord says the rent is late, you may have to litigate
  Don't worry, Beeeeeeeee Happy....
3. Re:When you can't innovate, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Kodak is far from being capable on the innovation front. They made the first digital camera in 1975 but they where not capable of making it into a practical useful consumer product for over thirty years. This is definitely not a prime example of innovation. On the contrary I would say.
4. Re:When you can't innovate, by BigDaveyL · 2012-01-11 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Rochester where their HQ is, and the town is dominated by their presence.
  I agree that that they came up with good stuff - but the business/marketing people put the kabash on things
5. Re:When you can't innovate, by BigDaveyL · 2012-01-11 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Part of the problem was that there was infighting and lack of vision by the top brass of Kodak. They didn't invest enough in new tech in order to develop it properly until it was too late. Part of it is that they wanted to protect the film cash cow.
Heh... in the 90s... by eno2001 · 2012-01-11 04:05 · Score: 2

...Apple and Kodak were the first two companies out of the gate with the very first consumer level digital cameras.

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
1. Re:Heh... in the 90s... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-01-11 04:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And the QuickTake 100 and 150 were both rebranded Kodak hardware.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
2. Re:Heh... in the 90s... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-01-11 04:20 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Kodak is the Xerox of digital imaging.
3. Re:Heh... in the 90s... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  As the inventors of laser printers, I think you'll find that Xerox is the Xerox of digital imaging...
4. Re:Heh... in the 90s... by arkane1234 · 2012-01-11 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Im thinking in this case that digital has a relation to binary.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Tired of this by senorpoco · 2012-01-11 04:05 · Score: 1, Informative

Are we honestly still to believe that current copyright law is driving innovation?
1. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Am I honestly to believe that Apple and HTC will stop innovating because of this suit? I am inclined to believe that this suit could allow Kodak to avoid bankruptcy and continue their research which previously brought us things like digital photography in the first place. So in this case, current PATENT law is not hurting innovation at all. It's doing even less wrt t copyright.
2. Re:Tired of this by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Are we honestly still to believe that current copyright law is driving innovation?
  Copyright is different from patent ... but, it's hard to believe patents are spurring any innovation. They have quite the opposite result since only the big players can get into the game as they've all cross licensed a bazillion stupid patents.
  These patents sounds like all the ones we joke are "system for doing something well known, but on a computer" ... instead, it's "but on a camera". And, as has been pointed out in this thread, nowadays a camera is a subset of computer, really.
  I'm sure there are some technologies in this ... but transferring an image via email? well, that's MIME. And image preview? My god, nobody ever thought of that!!
  The worst thing is that apparently a bunch of companies have already licensed these patents. The patent system is so horribly broken as to be a joke ... unfortunately, we're stuck with it for now.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Tired of this by taiwanjohn · 2012-01-11 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  My thoughts exactly. This is getting ridiculous. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any solution as long as government is bought and paid-for by corporations.
  Maybe it's time to end corporate personhood?
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
4. Re:Tired of this by Lundse · 2012-01-11 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  So in this case, current PATENT law is not hurting innovation at all. It's doing even less wrt t copyright.
  Uhm. So, because Apple and HTC have big enough war-chests of patents, departments of lawyers on call and huge investments and budgets set aside for these situations, we're fine? I agree that Apple and HTC are fine, but I am not sure I am fine with those things being a requisite for being allowed to innovate...
  
  --
  IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
5. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  The point of patent law is to protect property, not foster innovation.
6. Re:Tired of this by mcgrew · 2012-01-11 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright is different from patent
  Indeed, both are fatally flawed, but in different ways. Copyrights are free, and cheap to register, and are easy to get, but they lasy WAY too long and carry way too many restrictions.
  Patents, otoh, only last 20 years but they cost so much that you have to be rich to get one.
  Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted 95 years longer than their inventors? That's how art is stagnating. But patents could spur a lot more innovation if you or I could reasonably obtain them.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  Are we honestly still to believe that current copyright law is driving innovation?
  Patent lawsuit... Kodak's patents... infringe on a patent... copyright law. You obviously didn't read any of it, so you probably don't care as much as you want us to believe.
  Companies copying other companies' technologies or ideas, at no cost, does not drive innovation, no.
8. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Intellectual property laws allow investors to reduce risk when putting money into innovative, and hence inherently risky, projects. Without copyright or patent law, the second mover advantage would be crippling.
  Without those laws there would be no investment except internal investment made by incumbents who already hold effective monopolies. Any innovative product made in a skunkworks would instantly be ripped off by larger companies capturing the entire market with cheaper production methods and zero research costs.
  Is that really the world you want? Because it doesn't sound like a very innovative place to me.
9. Re:Tired of this by Khyber · 2012-01-11 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  "I am inclined to believe that this suit could allow Kodak to avoid bankruptcy and continue their research which previously brought us things like digital photography"
  Too bad they're light-fields behind Lytro. See what I did there?
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
10. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well this is Patent law, entirely different from copyright law. But it seems when you can't do anything without stepping on half a dozen patents, that something is wrong.
11. Re:Tired of this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  "I am inclined to believe that this suit could allow Kodak to avoid bankruptcy and continue their research which previously brought us things like digital photography"
  Too bad they're light-fields behind Lytro. See what I did there?
  That's not a very focused joke.
12. Re:Tired of this by arkane1234 · 2012-01-11 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  What if someone wanted to innovate and DIDN'T have a war-chest of patents to protect the gates? Besides, money diverted from research & innovation is money wasted in this case.
  Let's not get stupid in the discussion.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
13. Re:Tired of this by phantomfive · 2012-01-11 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Are we honestly still to believe that current copyright law is driving innovation?
  No, but it definitely drives people to write more. The situation in this story has nothing to do with copyright, but it's been demonstrated that authors write more because of copyright.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
14. Re:Tired of this by senorpoco · 2012-01-11 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently I committed the cardinal /. sin of mistaking copyright for patent. I will leave now with my head held low.
15. Re:Tired of this by myowntrueself · 2012-01-11 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  My thoughts exactly. This is getting ridiculous. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any solution as long as government is bought and paid-for by corporations.
  Maybe it's time to end corporate personhood?
  Either to end corporate personhood or to make corporations have the responsibilities of persons as well as the rights...
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by elrous0 · 2012-01-11 04:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by alvinrod · 2012-01-11 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  I know you're being facetious, but that really sounds more like a Microsoft patent. They're the ones that have been shaking companies down for money. Apple seems more interested in getting products or product features pulled.
2. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."
  Awesome!!!!!
3. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Halliburton, actually. Far more evil company. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/08/11/10/1651236/halliburton-applies-for-patent-trolling-patent
4. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Oh wait he removed part of the patented wording that makes it Apple.
  "With a touch screen"
  There fixed that for him.
5. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by jamrock · 2012-01-11 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."
  That's closer to the truth than you think, except that I personally don't believe that they have the slightest interrest in monetary compensation. The feeling I get is that Apple started the patent litigation ball rolling for the express purpose of doing as much damage to Android as possible, not for the potential of licensing fees or financial relief.
  By raising the specter of lawsuits among hardware manufacturers, with the attendant legal costs, as well as the massive wastes of time and resources, Apple may well be gambling that a lot of manufacturers, especially smaller ones with limited resources, wouldn't be willing to take on the huge headaches of tackling a well-funded, utterly ruthless titan like Apple. Apple seems to me to be far more interested in chilling, or better yet killing, the adoption of Android than collecting money, a la Microsoft.
6. Re:No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by mjwx · 2012-01-11 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Apple recently patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation over patent rights."
  Not true.
  
  Apple just purchased the company who patented "methods of extracting monetary compensation by engaging in litigation of frivolous, over-broad and ill defined patents".
  
  They got "methods of halting competition by engaging in litigation over frivolous, over-broad and ill defined patents" in the same acquisition.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Ah, more drektastic patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:10 · Score: 0

Assuming this is a sufficiently accurate summary of two of the patents:

"automatically transmitting images from an electronic camera to a service provider using a network configuration file"
Ok, so use a local configuration file...

"capturing digital images to be transferred to an email address."

I have prior art in all the photo-emails that I was getting back in the days of 14.4 baud modems. Those took way too long to load.
The 'obviousness' test... by Assmasher · 2012-01-11 04:10 · Score: 2

How obvious do things have to be?
FFS, 90% of the patents you hear about are things that simply come from a software engineer implementing a feature the way just about any other software engineer would do it. It's "obvious" that this is a potential solution.
I can understand patenting things that seem to be game changers, real breakthroughs (some algorithmic work for example), but methods of previewing images? The Amazon 'one-click' patent? FFS, how that hasn't been "obvious"ed to death, I'll never know. Hmmm, do you think people like to do things easier or faster. What? Remember their default choices and offer them a "do the same sh** you did the last time I bought something" button? HOLY CRAP THAT IS GENIUS! Lol...

--
Loading...
1. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Frosty+Piss · 2012-01-11 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  I can understand patenting things that seem to be game changers, real breakthroughs (some algorithmic work for example), but methods of previewing images?
  Methods for previewing images taken at x resolution and held in some specific format THEN down-graded to y resolution in some other specific resolution for the display (perhaps in hardware OR perhaps in software, but probably BOTH) does involve algorithms that might very well involve "innovation".
  But that doesn't mean Kodak hasn't made a fundamental shift in their basic revenue concept from innovating products that they eventually ship, to trolling their existing patent portfolio.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
2. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't be so quick to define it as *trolling*. If it were YOUR idea that YOU had patented, you would be more likely to call it "protecting my intellectual property rights". It's all in the side of the argument you're taking...
3. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Assmasher · 2012-01-11 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Anything 'might' be innovation, the likelyhood is that there is none, especially given the patents I've reviewed. Hell, my company owns a patent that is reasonably innovating in the field of Natural Language Processing, and it is RIDICULOUSLY broad. Basically, if you perform a statistical analysis of textual input (including input from a voice recognition system) in order to discern a goal or request of the initiator you're bordering on a patent violation - how crazy is that? The patent office should never have approved it without greater specificity.
  The good news is that we filed it for self-protection purposes, the bad news is that I may not always be making the tech decisions for this company, we may be purchased in the near future - who knows what that means for the patent. Technically a whole slew of IVR systems are in violation of it.
  Software Patents need to go away. The harm far outweighs the good.
  
  --
  Loading...
4. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  FFS, 90% of the patents you hear about are things that simply come from a software engineer implementing a feature the way just about any other software engineer would do it. It's "obvious" that this is a potential solution.
  I can understand patenting things that seem to be game changers, real breakthroughs (some algorithmic work for example), but methods of previewing images?
  Even though its simple and fun to think "Software engineers are just so smart; all of these patents are obvious", I don't think that is the reality.
  If you tell the average software engineer to go write an algorithm to subsample an image by 10, they will probably just write something that strides through the array and outputs every tenth pixel. There's a lot more science to what Kodak patents than that.
  For example, what interpolation methods do naive users find acceptable? What about expert users? Can you get away with Lagrange in a given situation, or do you need to step up to Lanczos4? If so, what trade offs are made with component cost and battery life? What about all of the color space issues? Taking into account the gamut of the sensor, the gamut of the display, and the ambient viewing conditions, what's the best way to convert 12 or 14bit source data into 8bit display values. LOL indeed...
5. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by arkane1234 · 2012-01-11 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  If it's the algorithms that Kodak invented it's another story. It's not though, that's the problem.
  Downgrading/upgrading resolution is not something you patent...
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
6. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Frosty+Piss · 2012-01-11 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Downgrading/upgrading resolution is not something you patent...
  If you do it with a particularly "innovative" algorithm, sure you do.
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
7. Re:The 'obviousness' test... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-12 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Then patent the particular algorithm not the whole damn idea! That is trying to create a monopoly so you can try to shake the whole industry for money! But the ugly truth is if you do not patent the whole idea, someone else will find another way, and then the incentive to patent disappear : why bother patenting, if you won't get money anyway (except if your idea is truly innovative and novel that it would require some investment to imitate or build upon)? There goes the money input of the USPTO ... The patenting system, like the banking system BTW or the free market unicorn, favors abuse to reap maximum profit, because the controlling mechanism is run like a fucking company! Why isn't it obvious to everyone?!
Stop sueing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 04:22 · Score: 0

Leave HTC alooooone. Their android devices are far and away the best of the pack I've used. Just...just stop.
1. Re:Stop sueing by arkane1234 · 2012-01-11 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... you sound like that crying gay boy on youtube...
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Restructuring by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 04:23 · Score: 1

Here is what will happen to the company if it goes bankrupt: various auctions, where parts of the company will be sold, or maybe just one buy out for a fraction of the cost, then there will be restructuring, which means assets will be salvaged, jobs eliminated, maybe departments will be sold off maybe technologies will be sold off, maybe the company will be rebuilt as a different company with some income generating streams, whatever. This is the same thing that happens when they take down an old ship or a plane or a train for example - parts and materials are salvaged, whatever can be sold is then sold.
The point of this is huge - it's to allow reuse/recycle of technologies and possibly jobs (even departments). Of-course Buffet is in this business, that's why he likes death taxes, because it gives him more opportunity for business, because taxes mostly can be paid only after assets are sold, such as businesses. Romney was in that business and now Gingrich and Santorum and Huntsman are saying he is a 'bad person' for doing this? Those sell outs.
When companies go down, just like any other assets, you have to reclaim what can be reused and recycled, otherwise untold amounts of useful technology and knowledge can be lost and even existing customers will go without any support. This is useful.
Of-course Kodak was attacked by the government in an anti-trust case and that is likely why the existing company with its existing management couldn't make the company survive.
Government loves to talk about jobs. Well here are a bunch of jobs they helped to destroy.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Restructuring by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Having lived in Rochester and worked at Kodak I'm quite saddened by the current state of the company, although it's a fate completely self inflicted. As for the 'government attacking business' line, Kodak deserved it's anti-trust come-uppance. You didn't mention Kodak also got barred from selling private label film for anti-trust reasons (1921). As well they were barred from mandating Kodak processing for Kodak films (1954). (just like Ford can't force you legally to go to for for repair service) a short summary of Kodak's history with the Sherman Antitrust Act
  In short, Kodak did some illegal things and got busted. Stuff that's illegal for very very good reasons. However, Kodak ultimately failed because they lacked foresight and made bad business decisions. Here's a Forbes article citing a few cases: How Success Killed Eastman Kodak
  The ultimate Irony that will probably be lost on you is that based on free market principles Kodak is a perfect example of the market doing it's job and punishing a company that has not kept up and is no longer producing valuable products services that people want to buy. By EVERY measure they deserve their fate. If they HAD NOT been 'attacked by the ebil gubment' this fate would probably have been avoided, and we probably wouldn't even have digital imaging now because they would have invented it, sat on it and/or prevented digital cameras from being imported. When I think about the amount of astronomy tech and science, defense tech, consumer imaging (camera phones, etc), professional imaging that would likely have been prevented or severely retarded (as in slowed down) by allowing Kodak to throw it's weight around owning all imaging/picture taking back in the 20's and 50's, I'm in fact quite grateful that we prevented a monopolist from abusing it's position.
  Imagine where we would be now if we continued with that policy instead of abandoning it. *sigh*
2. Re:Restructuring by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  The ultimate Irony that will probably be lost on you is that based on free market principles Kodak is a perfect example of the market doing it's job and punishing a company that has not kept up and is no longer producing valuable products services that people want to buy.
  - this is funny combined with this:
  
  If they HAD NOT been 'attacked by the ebil gubment' this fate would probably have been avoided, and we probably wouldn't even have digital imaging now because they would have invented it, sat on it and/or prevented digital cameras from being imported.
  
  You don't see the obvious stupidity in those statements? You don't clearly. It's government that created the copyright/patent system that even allows companies to use government force to prevent others from reverse-engineering or even coming up with their own solutions that are similar in nature to solve the same problem, and you are saying: government monopoly creation is a good thing?
  The government CREATES the monopoly in the first place, by granting these 'copyrights/patents' and protecting them for the businesses. There should no government involvement in any of it, copyrights and patents and limiting liability and "insuring" against anything, thus creating moral hazards etc.etc.
  This is lost on you, that the only entity that creates monopolies is government. As to businesses, they are using the government provided laws in order to attempt and ensure their 'walled gardens'.
  How else would it be possible for a company to lock anybody into their own walled garden if there was no government laws CREATING and PROTECTING the walled gardens of patents and copyrights in the first place?
  Patents, copyrights, DMCA? Now SOPA and PIPA? All the other protectionist stuff? And you are saying it's going to be "lost on me"?
  It's thick irony, layer upon layer.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:Restructuring by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh*
  Free market capitalism isn't some some kind of ideal or philosophical paradigm to be pursued in it's own right. Looking at the US economy BEFORE the Sherman anti-trust act we see it's great for a few guys to get incomprehensibly wealthy (see: Robber Barons, followed by the fallout exposed by the 'muckrakers'). I'd like to point out this included deploying private armed men to shoot people (look at the early history of the labor movement). Power is power, whether it's the legal cudgel or the physical one doesn't matter. Monopolies make power easier to maintain so they are the natural result of any unrestricted economic system.
  Free market is a tool society uses to make society better. Unrestricted free market doesn't do that, so we don't practice it. Whether you like or not, anarchy doesn't work. However, the free-ish market is a very useful tool for distribution of limited resources when certain assumptions are valid. Under those assumptions the market is a wonderful and powerful tool capable of frankly astonish feats. Without those assumptions it's an unstable system, and just like in control theory, a little negative feedback makes all the difference.
  I've not heard any good arguments for the complete abolition of all IP laws. Instinctively I favor that ideal knowing the power of information flow, but then you have nothing protecting the little guys and history is replete with the consequences if we care to look. So a middle ground is sensible, there are some really good arguments for drastically limiting the scope of the artificial monopoly which is granted by IP laws.
4. Re:Restructuring by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  You call them 'Robber Barons', I call them successful entrepreneurs. Nobody should be in a position to steal power from the people with the use of the government system, as long as that rule is enforced (and obviously it's not), then we don't have a corruption problem, because with politicians having nothing to sell, nobody would bother buying anything from them.
  
  Monopolies make power easier to maintain so they are the natural result of any unrestricted economic system.
  - yeah, again, there are no such things as monopolies unless government is involved, because only government can create LEGAL barriers to entry into any market and that's what it does, legal barriers to entry enforced by the police, FBI, military, whatever. No company can create LEGAL barriers to entry for anybody else into any market, they can only compete and create barriers to entry that have to do with price/quality ratio. As long as the market is satisfied with price/quality ratio there is no problem with the economy that provides that product/service. Once the ratio is such that there is space for another company to make profit there it will.
  You need to look at how the government actually creates monopolies and destroys competing markets, it happens all the time, here is a good read.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
5. Re:Restructuring by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  ANY barriers to entry, legal, capital, physical, destroy the assumptions implicit in a free market, and thus turn it into a detriment to society. The whole system is flawed that way. I don't know why you get hung up on legal type barriers to entry into a market when there are so many others which are larger, more significant and more detrimental to a functioning (non-monopolistic) economy.
6. Re:Restructuring by roman_mir · 2012-01-11 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The government creates legal barriers to entry, which are the only barriers to entry that have court, police, military and legal (and often public opinion, no matter how mistaken) power behind them, which makes the government barrier to entry the only type of barrier that cannot be overcome without actually penetrating the government, thus creating further corruption of the political system.
  The very fact that government deals with business in the first place, by regulating and taxing it, is corruption, because it takes power away from individuals, wraps this power into legislature wrapper and puts it for sale to those who already have money to buy this power.
  That's how monopolies are created, everything else is not a monopoly, because there are no laws protecting it.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
7. Re:Restructuring by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  The jackass you're attempting to argue with is a troll, by definition - keeps posting the same garbage no matter how many times he's corrected.
8. Re:Restructuring by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. :) It took me a while, but I think I caught on eventually.
So it's like this ... by Lord+Kano · 2012-01-11 04:31 · Score: 1

Kodak is the new SCO.
Just wait until they start asking for a $699 fee to use a digital camera.
LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
wait wait wait... by roc97007 · 2012-01-11 04:49 · Score: 1

Wasn't Kodak pretty much last into the consumer digital market? Quite famously so, as I recall. That DCS monstrosity from the eighties doesn't count.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:wait wait wait... by Alioth · 2012-01-11 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  They were one of the first. They were selling Kodak Digital Science cameras in the mid-90s. But they never really developed it much (and the optics weren't much good in those cameras either)
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
2. Re:wait wait wait... by roc97007 · 2012-01-11 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  I know Kodak did some early work in the area; wonder if they have patents from that era that they waited to exploit until now. The thing is, the company continued like the digital camera was a novelty that had some specialist (scientific) application but no broad consumer base, long past the time when it was apparent that film was on life support.
  For instance, in my opinion Kodak could have dominated the home printer market, had they made an effort sooner to migrate their kiosk technology -- pigment-based ink and superior photo paper -- to consumer printers. By the time they started getting serious about home printing, the market was already dominated by other manufacturers.
  My point is, I believe that someone with more foresight at Kodak could have absolutely owned the digital photo market by now. They had the technology, just not the will. And to go after patents while filing for bankruptcy just seems like a cry for help.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
There is a common misconception here at Slashdot.. by Frosty+Piss · 2012-01-11 04:56 · Score: 2

Yeah those aren't obvious *eye roll*
There is a common misconception here at Slashdot that doing something "obvious" makes the patent frivolous.
The issue usually *IS NOT* what end result is, but *HOW* the patented process does it.
There are all sorts of incredibly novel and innovative and not-so-obvious ways to do very obvious things.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
No, it's n by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:00 · Score: 0

ot, it makes me stand out and feel special in an online comment forum, since that's the only possible means of individuality I have the capacity to comprehend!
In fact, I'm trying to make it even more annoying so that everyone notices me! Me me me me! MEEEEEE!
Re:"low quality" flatters them too much by Jerry+Atrick · 2012-01-11 05:04 · Score: 2

I bought a 5MP Kodak camera long ago as an upgrade from a Konica Minolta X20 (very tiny 3MP digicam - wife's still using it). Immediately discovered the highest quality settings on the Kodak were worse than the lowest quality settings on the X20, worse even comparing 3MP vs 5MP images. So badly compressed you could see the artefacts even on the camera LCD. Went back the same day.
Kodak were so intent on protecting their film business they never took digicams seriously and ruined their own business by crippling their own cameras. They deserve to die, no-one killed them, it was suicide.
Re:There is a common misconception here at Slashdo by Khyber · 2012-01-11 05:05 · Score: 1

"There are all sorts of incredibly novel and innovative and not-so-obvious ways to do very obvious things."
And 99% of those are kludged, bloated, and dog-slow.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Go Kodak! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:09 · Score: 0

Learn those IP stealing bastards in Cupertino a lesson!
Kodak is not a patent troll by voss · 2012-01-11 05:10 · Score: 3, Informative

It invented most of the stuff, and it licenses its patents to most everyone(some 30 companies at last count including LG Electronics, Motorola, Samsung Electronics and Nokia ). It just wants Apple and HTC to pay up. I would recommend they do because having a nice friendly little Kodak license your patents is better than having
a competitor acquire kodak. Also the company is using the patents in its own products.
1. Re:Kodak is not a patent troll by arkane1234 · 2012-01-11 05:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Are you seriously going to say (with a straight face, we'll have no giggling or chuckling) that transmitting a digital image by reading a configuration file to know where to put a file and then transmitting it to that location is considered innovative?
  Or how about previewing a picture? I mean.. these are ideas that were out since MS-DOS was around. Using the idea in another product is not innovation.
  If I invent a hovering wallet, do you think it's innovative if I patent how to open that wallet? It's the same kind of thing... so obvious.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Kodak is desparate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:12 · Score: 0

Sounds like a last ditch effort to save themselves from bankruptcy .
Re:There is a common misconception here at Slashdo by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-11 05:13 · Score: 0

And 100% of your comment is irrelevant.
Re:"low quality" flatters them too much by gstoddart · 2012-01-11 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Kodak were so intent on protecting their film business they never took digicams seriously and ruined their own business by crippling their own cameras. They deserve to die, no-one killed them, it was suicide.
I think the word you want is hubris.
It wasn't suicide, it was stupidity and arrogance.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
First, it's patents, not copyrights. by wiredog · 2012-01-11 05:35 · Score: 1

Second, Kodak is a company that can actually claim to have developed real, patentable products in the imaging arena. One of the few such companies, actually.

--

Best Slashdot Co
Good by naasking · 2012-01-11 05:35 · Score: 1

The more this escalates, the better the chance we'll get some meaningful reform.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
1. Re:Good by Aighearach · 2012-01-11 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Normally I would agree, but the public already has a positive perception of Kodak, and they can easily draw sympathy since they were not only still at the top of their field, but providing a lot of the advancement of that field, when computers sidelined them. The invented narrative that the computers were stealing patented technologies from other fields is emotionally satisfying, and people might cling to it even before having looked at the facts... and therefore, not caring about claimed facts.
  That then leads to people renewing their comfort with patents, or even wanting to strengthen them.
  It is a dangerous game, especially without any large US companies joining on the anti-patent side. What we really need is for a few companies that aren't benefiting and are only acquiring patents defensively to quit dreaming of being the oppressor, and join the fight for legal, level competition.
The only way that anything's going to get made... by forkfail · 2012-01-11 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

... is to either tear down the patent system, or just allow monopolies/collusion.
Because otherwise, the way things are going, nobody will be able to manufacture anything given this circle of choke holds we seem to have.

--
Check your premises.
no time limit on patents...not like trademarks by Chirs · 2012-01-11 05:43 · Score: 1

There's nothing that says you need to defend a patent immediately. It's not like a trademark where if you don't defend it then you lose it.
I talked to a Patent Clerk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 05:49 · Score: 0

I actually talked to a patent clerk about all these patents that seem so stupid to give and that the people giving them out should know this. His answer was that if people don't like it then they can do the following to try to get it removed. File a Lawsuit. I told him I have no money or time to be able to that. He said well then that's it. He didn't understand that they should be very particular on what is going on since they make the burden on the rest of us. Again he said he has to follow rules and guild-lines and that with patents stacking up on each person things go though but they followed the rules on it. So if you don't like it "File a lawsuit" to over rule them.
1. Re:I talked to a Patent Clerk by arekq · 2012-01-11 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Did you beat him up afterwards?
Re:There is a common misconception here at Slashdo by advocate_one · 2012-01-11 06:03 · Score: 2

and here you're completely INGNORING the issue that it's software that's been patented yet again when it SHOULD NOT BE PATENTABLE IN THE FSCKING FIRST PLACE...

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Those who can, do.... by repetty · 2012-01-11 06:20 · Score: 1

Those you can, do. Those you can't, sue.
1. Re:Those who can, do.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  So I should sue everyone I can't do?
Gotta pay for the shysters by billybob_jcv · 2012-01-11 06:59 · Score: 1

Kodak needs some way to pay for the bankruptcy lawyers...
Resizing an image is not patentable by Augusto · 2012-01-11 07:13 · Score: 1

the camera screens have smaller resolutions than the photo so you will need an algorithm to downgrade the image, that part is patentable. icloud does something similar where the photo stream images are lesser resolutions than the original. so i guess apple could have ripped them off if they used the same algorithm
You can't patent the general concept of resizing and image, you could potentially patent a particular algorithm to do this, that is non trivial and not well known (like compression algorithms can be patented).

--

- sigs are for wimps.
What's the difference between Kodak & the Tita by Ensign_Expendable · 2012-01-11 08:02 · Score: 1

Answer: The Titanic had a band.
Bankrupcy avoidance by nurb432 · 2012-01-11 09:35 · Score: 1

Might work, but if they are almost broke, how can they fund a long term fight with people that are HUGE and have deeper pockets?
Or... could they just be looking for a outright buy-out to get them to go away?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:"low quality" flatters them too much by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 12:01 · Score: 0

I've got a Kodak EasyShare Z885, and it was really good value for the money. Before buying it, I spent hours on Flickr comparing different cameras in the same price class, and this one was the winner. It's got some weak spots, but the integrated manual mode (which none of the other ones had) more than made up for it.
It also still works, even though it's slightly aged now and a clumsy friend dropped it once. It also looks decent, not like a toy.
Death throes of a once great company by tiqui · 2012-01-11 13:17 · Score: 1

The CEO who has been driving that company into the grave recently commented that he was looking for ways to maximize the profits of their patent portfolio. Being unfamiliar with the guy, and suspecting he was some hired-gun CEO with a degree in patent law I figured I'd look him up.... He turns out to be on Obama's jobs council:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council/members/perez
To be REALLY competitive, you invest in R&D, create new products, create new services, or find ways to deliver existing products or services better than your competitors. When your company is a sinking ship, you have no ideas, and you are just trying to delay the inevitable plunge, you look for ways to squeeze-out the last bits of value by selling-off property and converting your patent portfolio into cash. This guy's no better than Romney or McBride; anybody who works there and is not a lawyer should be prepping a resume; anybody with a product or service that might be sued by a desperate patent troll named Kodak should prepare to be sued. Very sad end.
say hello to a devout ron paul cultist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-11 14:29 · Score: 0

Ron Paul is making claims and offering his assertions as fact
maybe you're not familiar with who you just replied to, but roman_mir is a devout cultist and open worshiper of ron paul. to roman_mir the only fact is that which comes directly from his lord and savior ron paul. thinking people realize that half of what ron paul says is not based in reality, and most of his proposals are not remotely within what is allowed to the president under the laws of the constitution.
however, ron paul hates democracy and representative government so that doesn't matter, either.
Patent lawsuits: The business of failing companies by msobkow · 2012-01-11 14:40 · Score: 1

'nuff said.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Early runner for Digital Caneras by mcrbids · 2012-01-11 16:58 · Score: 1

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC210. One of the first megapixel cameras, it was simply a good camera that took nice pictures available at a good price. Honestly, one of the best cameras I've ever had without getting into SLR lenses and such.
I have yet to see a point-n-shoot digital camera that took pictures that were of the quality (if not the resolution) of my original DC210.

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
1. Re:Early runner for Digital Caneras by Asmodae · 2012-01-11 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  My question to you would be: How do you define quality? Optical lens quality and overall camera quality, auto-focus, shutter-lag, etc? And at such a low resolutions many of those factors are remarkably forgiving. You don't need that good a lens to get decent in focus pictures at (1152x864), it also depends heavily on what you're taking pictures of and where (indoors using lots of flash, and tungsten lighting, outdoors with natural light, etc.), and it was also only any good if you were printing no larger than 4x6. Even if it was the best digital point and shoot camera on the market at that time, the market moved forward and Kodak did not. I think one of my relatives had that camera actually, if I recall the shutter lag was horrendous making it virtually impossible to take anything but still photos. Granted most PHD digital cameras of the time had similar faults, but again that's why they progressed while Kodak lagged behind.
So that's the future of high tech companies by Pecisk · 2012-01-11 21:16 · Score: 1

Invent something truly original, patent it, enjoy success and monopoly, get caught into surprise web when suddenly everything changes (including market), fade away, go bankrupt, go...not to die, but to rise as patent troll, because it is all what's left for you.
Why people don't let companies die with dignity? Money? Debt? Why to scullf....k company good name for sake of few millions?

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!