Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kodak Sues HTC and Apple

Posted by Unknown on 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.'"

12 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Kodak's Future... by Frosty+Piss · · 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 · · 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 fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

    3. Re:Kodak's Future... by alen · · 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

    4. Re:Kodak's Future... by russotto · · 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)

    5. Re:Kodak's Future... by Asmodae · · 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.

    6. Re:Kodak's Future... by Smurf · · 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

  2. No worries, Apple has an ace in the hole by elrous0 · · 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.
  3. Re:When you can't innovate, by demachina · · 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
  4. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · · 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:When you can't innovate, by Nursie · · Score: 4, Funny

    The landlord says the rent is late, you may have to litigate

    Don't worry, Beeeeeeeee Happy....

  6. Re:Death Rattle by gstoddart · · 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.