Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @08:09AM from the picking-through-the-bones dept.

First time accepted submitter yankexpat writes "The patent battles in the mobile communications space have taken another turn, as Apple has asked a court for permission to sue the bankrupt Kodak for patent infringement. From the article: 'Apple Inc. asked a bankruptcy judge for permission to sue Eastman Kodak Co. over allegations it’s infringing patents that Apple says cover technologies used in printers, digital cameras and digital picture frames. Apple said in a filing yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York that it intends to file a complaint against Kodak at the International Trade Commission and a corresponding suit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan based on patent-infringement claims. The suit will seek an order blocking Kodak’s infringement, according to the filing.'"

145 of 193 comments (clear)

Intersting long term move by Dupple · 2012-02-15 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's happening is that while Kodak has filed for bankruptcy, they are still working on selling its portfolio of something around 1,100 patents.
So, whoever ends up with those patents will get the legal agreements that come with them, which is why Apple is continuing to try and get court decisions in their favour.
Most likey I'd imagine that Apple Microsoft and may be RIM will join forces again (as in the Nortel acquisition) and try and scoop the lot. (RIM are also being sued by Kodak at the moment)

--
Watch those corners
1. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Looks more like Apple wants to be a creditor when Kodak finally folds up, and be paid in patents.
2. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
3. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yes, an Apple/Microsoft/RIM consortium will buy up the kodak patents for $2 billion. Google will complain (after opting not to join the consortium) and buy up a third-rate camera company for $20 billion. Dan Lyons will proclaim that was google's end game all along and Apple/Microsoft/RIM just wasted their money.
4. Re:Intersting long term move by mr100percent · 2012-02-15 08:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well, it's more than that. Kodak sued Apple just before filing for bankruptcy. It looks like they were hoping Apple would settle, and Kodak would use the money to stay afloat. That didn't happen, so now Apple is sueing back.
5. Re:Intersting long term move by afidel · 2012-02-15 08:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Because some organizations will pay significantly more for exclusive rights to the patent and the easiest way to acquire those rights is to buy the patent. The patent is the inventors property so why shouldn't they have the right to sell it? I have infinitely more problems with software and business method patents as a class than I do with the rights of the holder to transfer their property.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
6. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 08:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Patents are no more property than an idea is property. They are government-granted privileges, like a drivers license.
7. Re:Intersting long term move by thoughtspace · 2012-02-15 08:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is where the real bastardry starts. The sad fact is suing Kodak now that it has filed for bankruptcy means the ex-employees who have not been paid out yet will get much-much less. Apple are effectively ensuring the unpaid employees will get virtually nothing.
  I think this is one of the great un-addressed problems with companies. Employees forego future growth for immediate payment (salary). As a result, employees should really be paid first as they did not partake in risk - not last. Even worse, the amount owed to the real people employees is often small by comparison the whole company - but a lot to them!
8. Re:Intersting long term move by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because the patent suit Kodak made against Apple first was okay but Apple is now evil for countersuing? Maybe Kodak shouldn't have picked the fight in the first place?
9. Re:Intersting long term move by idontgno · 2012-02-15 08:52 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Patents are no more property than an idea is property. They are government-granted privileges, like property.
  FTFY.
  What, you think you "own" property? Try to prove it without a deed. One granted by some jurisdiction of government power. Otherwise, you're just a squatter.
  So, yeah, people who have this intuitive dislike of "intellectual property" as some kind of governmental fiction clearly haven't thought it through. Lacking governmental sanction, the only thing you own is whatever you're personally strong enough to defend against all comers.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
10. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 08:59 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I've certainly thought it through, and agree with property being a government fiction. But land and objects are physical things, not ideas. If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
11. Re:Intersting long term move by thoughtspace · 2012-02-15 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  The employees did not 'pick the fight'.
  Or at the very least, the very very senior managers on massive salaries picked the fight - they can ride over any job loss.
12. Re:Intersting long term move by UnknownSoldier · 2012-02-15 09:11 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  > They are government-granted privileges, like a drivers license.
  Which is in contradistinction to your "Right To Travel." Government granted privileges come from the power of the people.
  e.g.
  "Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
  "The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
  What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
  "The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
  "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
13. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yes, but you can certainly destroy the value of the original creators idea if you start giving it away for free.
14. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked, Kodak wasn't exactly a first-rate camera company. Canon and Nikon perhaps, but not Kodak.
  
  That aside, Apple sure is trying their best to alienate themselves. Without partner companies, they will die.
15. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Diluted value has no bearing on whether or not intellectual property is a government fiction.
16. Re:Intersting long term move by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-15 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded...
  If licensing a patent is a reward, why isn't the option of selling it one, too?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
17. Re:Intersting long term move by JWSmythe · 2012-02-15 09:51 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Your land idea isn't totally correct. I've been watching foreclosures in my area lately. Up for court auction was a property worth about $150,000. The HOA claimed that they owned $3,000 in back HOA fees. The property was owned outright by someone in another state. It was gifted twice in the last 10 years between family members, so most likely it was an investment property.
  The HOA won the case, and the property was foreclosed on. It sold at auction for $6,000. So, the HOA got their $3k back (the judgement amount). The new owner could sell it easily at 50% value, and make a profit of about $69,000. The previous owner? Well, they have nothing but a foreclosure on their credit report.
  You don't own your property. You borrow your property from the government. If anyone claims that you owe them, your property will be taken away from you. If the government decides they want it, it will be taken away from you. If it is used in any number of crimes, it will be taken from you.
  In several states, anything used in relation to a drug crime will be seized by the state and auctioned off. So your kid gets a joint from a friend, and leaves it in the car. He (or you) are later stopped and caught with the joint. The car can be seized. The house can be seized. And you'll have a drug conviction on your criminal history. It's not hard to arrange for such things to happen either. I've known people who have been charged, because they had "drug paraphernalia". In those cases, it was an empty plastic baggie.
  Yes, you, and everything you think you own, is owned by the government. They grant permission for you to have it, and they can take it away.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
18. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Also I destroy the value of your house by building more houses for people to choose from. Next stupid argument.
19. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-15 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
  Patents aren't about the idea, they are about exclusive rights to that idea in the market. If you take that idea and take it to market then yes i still have the idea but you've taken (or rather eliminated) the exclusive rights.
  
  The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
20. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that. I'm not advocating the elimination of patents or other intellectual property laws, just their overhaul. For instance, I don't think they should be transferable. Able to be licensed / rented / loaned, sure. But sold? Inherited? I think those are causing us more harm than good - well, except for the lawyers, that is.
21. Re:Intersting long term move by bws111 · 2012-02-15 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  OK, here is a license: For a one-time payment of $X, I grant you a perpetual royalty-free exclusive license to this patent. You may sub-license on your own terms.
  Is that better? Why shouldn't a patent be able to be sold? It is an asset. If someone else thinks it is valuable, why shouldn't you be allowed to sell it to them? Saying you shouldn't be able to sell a patent is like saying you shouldn't be able to sell any other asset that has increased in value while you possessed it. What did you do to make that stock go up? What did you do to make that rare painting go up?
  Some people and businesses (for example Kodak) may prefer/need to get whatever money they can from their patents NOW, rather than waiting years and years for licensing fees. And don't say 'then take a loan out against the patent', because in order to be useful for collateral it must be transferable.
22. Re:Intersting long term move by MightyYar · 2012-02-15 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's only true AFTER you've implemented patent law. Prior to patent law, the original creator's idea has no inherent value since there is no scarcity once he reveals it.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
23. Re:Intersting long term move by Calos · 2012-02-15 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  You've answered your own question.
  You assert that the patent originator deserves to be rewarded to allow them to come up with more original ideas. Seems to me that finding someone to give them a stack of cash is a reward. Perhaps the most appropriate and utilitarian of awards. Not everyone has the capability or desire to see something through to volume manufacture.
  If they couldn't sell the patents - then were would the innovation be? Not being able to benefit from the patent disincentivizes the research, and not being able to sell the patent or put it to use is simply a barrier to innovation and to products and improvements that would otherwise have a chance to reach the market.
  
  --
  I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
24. Re:Intersting long term move by Dogtanian · 2012-02-15 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  False dichotomy (possibly based on a flawed assumption that you assumed he was attacking the idea of government in general?)
  
  It's not necessarily a choice between a crappy, abusive government that abuses peoples' property and no government at all.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
25. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  My original point was that intellectual property is a government construct, whereas physical property does not necessarily rely on the existence of a government. The anarchy thing was to demonstrate the difference. I'm not supporting anarchy nor the elimination of intellectual property.
26. Re:Intersting long term move by Theaetetus · 2012-02-15 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
  Patents are not rewards. They're a limited monopoly right given in grudging exchange for public disclosure. Don't disclose, you don't get a patent.
27. Re:Intersting long term move by Theaetetus · 2012-02-15 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  I've certainly thought it through, and agree with property being a government fiction. But land and objects are physical things, not ideas. If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it. This is the root of what's broken with intellectual "property" models as currently defined by law.
  Ah, but if you trespass on my land, I still have it, even if I'm not strong enough to kick you off. What property rights are about - both real property and intellectual property - is the right to exclude others from your property. It's a right to tell people to get off your lawn... and in the same way, intellectual property involves a similar right to tell people to get off your idea-lawn.
28. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-15 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that. I'm not advocating the elimination of patents or other intellectual property laws, just their overhaul. For instance, I don't think they should be transferable. Able to be licensed / rented / loaned, sure. But sold? Inherited? I think those are causing us more harm than good - well, except for the lawyers, that is.
  I certainly agree with that, it would stop patent trolls.
29. Re:Intersting long term move by MightyYar · 2012-02-15 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
  It has to be treated as property so that there is a chain of succession. You don't want it to enter the public domain when the inventor dies, or there would be incentive for people to kill the inventor - and inventors of advanced age or ill health wouldn't be able to license their inventions for as much as younger inventors.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
30. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-15 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but if you trespass on my land, I still have it, even if I'm not strong enough to kick you off.
  Do you? By whose rules? In the situation I presented, I claim that my trespass gives me at least partial possession of your land. Until one of us is strong enough to get rid of the other, it's in a disputed state of "our" land. If you're not strong enough to get rid of me, your claim to the land being yours is effectively meaningless.
31. Re:Intersting long term move by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo! Patent Trolling: Level Mac.
32. Re:Intersting long term move by Kalriath · 2012-02-15 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  You mean your country doesn't consider employees as a first class secured creditor? Wow is that fucked up.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
33. Re:Intersting long term move by JWSmythe · 2012-02-15 13:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Dogtanian hit it. The choice isn't between government or no government.
  The government should (must) respect the rights of the people and their possessions.
  When I worked in a jail, it was pretty simple. Inmates owned nothing. It could be seized at will, but we only seized "contraband". If we needed to seize everything (clothes, bedding, personal hygiene supplies) and throw them naked into solitary confinement, we could. They had absolutely no rights to any sort of "private" property.
  The same mentality has been systematically applied to the general public. Many people aren't familiar with "eminent domain". The government can (and will) seize your property if they can show that it is in the best interest of the government. In many areas, what they must demonstrate is pretty slim, basically consisting of "because we say".
  A government that respects the concept of private property is what we should have. This was already spelled out in the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. As with most of the constitution, it's now looked at as a curiosity of days past.
  But even in an anarchist state, there would be a concept of private property and ownership. While total chaos does imply possession is 100% proof of ownership, it doesn't work in practice that way.
  If I know that my property is mine, and I know that your property is yours, if we (the people) don't have the common understanding that this is true, there are problems. If you decide to come to my home and say "this is mine", then I could hop in your car, and drive to your home and say the same thing.
  The same applies to intellectual property. We've allowed the government to go way too far with those ownerships. The original laws allowed for a short term, so an inventor could have a period to profit from their innovations, but after that period expired, it would be for the public good.
  I haven't looked at the patents in question here. I suspect they're BS that shouldn't have ever been granted. I've been loosely attached to such lawsuits (my employers were involved, and I was informed). One that people will be familiar with was the Acacia streaming lawsuit. Who the hell granted patents on the idea of putting audio and/or video over a network? We'd been doing it for years before their patent was granted. And ya, I was on the defense side, not the plaintiff side.
  Of course, the government reserves the right to take any patent they want, make it classified, and use it for their own purposes. Again, the government can supersede the interest of the people, which in itself is (again) unconstitutional.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
34. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-15 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
  That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
35. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-15 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  The patent system needs to be overhauled so it isn't abused but there still needs to be some kind of a system in place so that startups can exist, no-one is going to fund/buy a startup without knowing the ins and outs of how they work and if there is no protection of that then they aren't funding/buying anything that they don't already now have, if you understand my meaning.
  That's what NDAs and similar agreements are for. You don't need patents, just contracts with the prospective VCs/buyers.
  So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA. And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
  
  You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid. The current system is flawed but you can't just abolish it and use NDAs, they are totally different.
36. Re:Intersting long term move by rtb61 · 2012-02-15 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  That would be the governments fault, failure to regulate bankruptcy effectively. In many countries laws stipulate who gets paid first. Typically the receivers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receivership (otherwise why would they do the job), taxes, employee wages, secured creditors, unsecured creditors (Apple would be un-secured creditor and would not get a cent until everyone else got paid in full). If it doesn't work that way where you live then your government is corrupt.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
37. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-15 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  So how is that enforced then? NDAs are fine but a patent is what will stop a company from actually using the information they gain, not the NDA.
  As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
  
  You're basically advocating for an agreement that does what a patent does, stops a company from using the idea/process/concept unless moneys are paid.
  No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
  
  And if that information slips out, then what? You're boned, you'd have to prove how it got out, probably not something a startup with no funding is going to be able to do.
  Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
  * VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
38. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-15 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  As I said "... and similar agreements", by which I mean, other contracts, including ones that can actually prevent them from using the information.
  Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
  
  No. An agreements is voluntary. You are obligated to follow it because you voluntarily signed it. A patent is forced. You are obligated to follow it without ever having agreed to it. There's an huge difference.
  So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
  
  Then that startup fails. But if that happens more than once to a VC, their reputation will be crushed - nobody will take the risk of talking to them, and they can't really afford that since the probability of that single invention being extremely profitable is low*. So both parties have an high incentive to respect those contracts.
  * VCs are essentially casino players, they make money off of a single startup that pays for the other 100 duds.
  It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
39. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-15 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so you're going to pitch an idea, set a price and if they don't agree they are locked out of the market until when? This sounds absolutely no better than patents, something that can lock out potential competitors.
  Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
  
  So anyone who doesn't agree to it isn't even impacted by it, it means everyone involved has to be under an NDA because the reality is there is nothing of value except for a jump on the market, one slip from anyone involved at all and it's game over.
  How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
  
  It's not necessarily VCs but anyone who buys startups, which includes primarily big businesses, but we all know you can trust big businesses to honor their agreements, it wouldn't be at all naive not to believe that. And of course you can trust asian manufacturers not to screw you over, sure they don't need you once you've handed over the information but they wouldn't dream of violating NDAs, there's never any leaks in that industry.
  Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
  I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
40. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-15 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they be locked out of the market? They simply couldn't use the invention demonstrated, just like a patent.
  The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
  
  How would a patent protect in that case? It doesn't prevent anyone from entering the same market, just from selling the same invention. If "there is nothing of value" then there's nothing to patent either.
  As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
  
  Yes, because right now startups can totally sue big corps and expect to win; it's not like they have huge legal teams who can keep lawsuits going until you run out of money while they countersue you with their patent warchests.
  Huh? What are they going to counter-sue you for? What damage have you done to them? I'm not sure you understand this concept. Suing someone over patents is a hell of a lot easier than trying to sue someone over breaching an NDA, particularly when you probably don't even know who breached the NDA and you're much more likely to get something out of it.
  
  I'm not saying my solution is perfect, but it's damn well better than patents ("mugging", as Carmack puts it).
  Your 'solution' is FAR worse, it just makes it phenomenally easier for the inventor to get screwed.
41. Re:Intersting long term move by jonwil · 2012-02-15 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem in this case is the continued existence of that useless waste of space called the HOA.
42. Re:Intersting long term move by jrumney · 2012-02-15 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe things are different in the US, but in UK bankruptcy law, employee salaries come third in line behind Inland Revenue and secured creditors (ie, bank loans), but ahead of other creditors such as suppliers, customers and patent abusers.
43. Re:Intersting long term move by Patch86 · 2012-02-15 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  And if I discover a huge diamond mine, I might destroy the value of your diamonds. That doesn't mean I've stolen your diamond property.
44. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-16 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The inability to use it is precisely what locks them out of the market. The difference is that with a patent they can license it even if the inventor is funded by someone else. In your 'solution' they are either locked out totally or free to do whatever they please without compensation to the actual inventor.
  Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
  
  As in the patent has value, it is license-able. If the information leaks the inventor is protected by the patent, in your 'solution' there is no recourse, the inventor is screwed.
  Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
  Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
45. Re:Intersting long term move by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-16 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, so we'll stop calling it a "sale" and instead, we'll enter an irrevocable "license" agreement for the patent to a separate entity, with exclusive rights to use and relicense said patent to other entities; for a one-time monetary payment and the contractual obligation to defend the patent legally.
  Happy? It's no longer being sold, though every single use of patent ownership is being transferred.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
46. Re:Intersting long term move by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-16 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  If that was their plan, then their lawyers suck at vetting.
  Apple has a long storied history of drawing out legal action for as long as possible before settling. See: trying to take the "look and feel" lawsuit to the US Supreme Court.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
47. Re:Intersting long term move by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-16 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  And it's still somehow Apple's fault that Kodak's management team is shit? I don't see where you're going with this.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
48. Re:Intersting long term move by mr100percent · 2012-02-16 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  20 years ago? Apple was pretty different back then, Jobs wasn't in Apple during that suit.
49. Re:Intersting long term move by Theaetetus · 2012-02-16 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but if you trespass on my land, I still have it, even if I'm not strong enough to kick you off.
  Do you? By whose rules?
  Reality. I'm in my house, living up a storm, while you're doing a jig on my lawn against my wishes. I still have my house and land.
  
  In the situation I presented, I claim that my trespass gives me at least partial possession of your land. Until one of us is strong enough to get rid of the other, it's in a disputed state of "our" land. If you're not strong enough to get rid of me, your claim to the land being yours is effectively meaningless.
  And how is that different than intellectual property? As you said originally:
  
  If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it.
  But here, as you note, we both have possession of a portion of the land. In fact, if I don't look out my window, I may not even be aware that you've begun to adversely possess a portion. Same as with the idea.
50. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-16 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I find myself in agreement with everything in your post, for what it's worth.
51. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-16 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but if you trespass on my land, I still have it, even if I'm not strong enough to kick you off.
  Do you? By whose rules?
  Reality. I'm in my house, living up a storm, while you're doing a jig on my lawn against my wishes. I still have my house and land.
  The only way to determine who "owns" land in that situation is who has the strength to occupy it, and to eject others from it. If I'm on your lawn, we're both occupying the land, and neither has thrown the other off. Reality says it's ours, not yours. And since you're not strong enough to defend against me, now I'm in your house living up a storm too. Our house. Not yours. (Thankfully this is just a thought experiment, because I'm starting to creep myself out.)
  
  In the situation I presented, I claim that my trespass gives me at least partial possession of your land. Until one of us is strong enough to get rid of the other, it's in a disputed state of "our" land. If you're not strong enough to get rid of me, your claim to the land being yours is effectively meaningless.
  And how is that different than intellectual property? As you said originally:
  
  If I take land from you - say you weren't strong enough to defend it - then you don't have it any more. If I take your idea, you still have it, and might not even be aware that I took it.
  But here, as you note, we both have possession of a portion of the land. In fact, if I don't look out my window, I may not even be aware that you've begun to adversely possess a portion. Same as with the idea.
  Yes, a portion of. You might not know I'm there. What if I have a hundred friends with me, all squatting on your acre plot? Or now five hundred? Sooner or later, we'll diminish your perceived "ownership." But if we all stole your idea, you'd be none the worse for it without patent laws and a government to enforce them.
  There are "degrees" of ownership. Some of them are government-granted fictions, such as intellectual property. Some of them are reality-based, like holding an object in your hand. And some, like land, are a bit of both. The anarchy experiment makes it a little clearer which is which. Because without a government and laws to back it up, a patent is useless. Which was my original point at the start of all this.
52. Re:Intersting long term move by Theaetetus · 2012-02-16 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, a portion of. You might not know I'm there. What if I have a hundred friends with me, all squatting on your acre plot? Or now five hundred? Sooner or later, we'll diminish your perceived "ownership." But if we all stole your idea, you'd be none the worse for it without patent laws and a government to enforce them.
  
  Squatting, sure, but not if you're trespassing. Say you use my lawn as an easy throughway from a parking lot to your work. You can claim I'm "none the worse" for it since you leave after a while, but that's irrelevant if I don't want you there. Same thing with my idea - if you copy my idea, it's irrelevant that I still have my idea. My right to exclude others, in either case, is infringed. And without a government protecting that right, in either case, I'm much worse for it.
  
  There are "degrees" of ownership. Some of them are government-granted fictions, such as intellectual property. Some of them are reality-based, like holding an object in your hand. And some, like land, are a bit of both. The anarchy experiment makes it a little clearer which is which. Because without a government and laws to back it up, a patent is useless. Which was my original point at the start of all this.
  Not really - that's still the same with IP and real property. If we're talking holding property through anarchistic use of force, I can shoot you for trespassing, or I can shoot you for patent infringement. Unlike personal property that can be physically possessed, such force is the only way to protect either IP or real property... or the government can protect the rights of the owner.
53. Re:Intersting long term move by JeanCroix · 2012-02-16 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not really - that's still the same with IP and real property. If we're talking holding property through anarchistic use of force, I can shoot you for trespassing, or I can shoot you for patent infringement. Unlike personal property that can be physically possessed, such force is the only way to protect either IP or real property... or the government can protect the rights of the owner.
  Shooting me for trespassing is easy, since we're both right there at your property. How do you propose anarchistic use of force if I'm stealing your idea (not patent infringement - there is no such thing as a patent in an anarchic state) half a continent away? If you get a bunch of your buddies to roam the countryside shooting people for "stealing" your idea, you've created a de facto government, and are using it to enforce your own definition of a patent. And my guess is that you'd very soon have people shooting back at you and them for being psychotic patent trolls.
54. Re:Intersting long term move by tqk · 2012-02-16 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's more than that. Kodak sued Apple just before filing for bankruptcy. It looks like they were hoping Apple would settle, and Kodak would use the money to stay afloat. That didn't happen, so now Apple is sueing back.
  "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Gahd, I love old cliches. :-) "Holy poetic justice, Batman!"
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
55. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-16 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Then you add in the contract "you can't produce this invention without a license". There, if they get a license, they can now produce it. It's a contract, you can put mostly whatever you want.
  Then it's just a patent, the licensing of an invention.
  
  Again, no party has an incentive to make that happen. Even if the VC/Big corp leaks it, they can't produce it, therefore they have an high incentive to protect it.
  Is it perfect? No. But the problems with patents far outweigh them. The whole notion of a patent - that you can infringe despite having invented it yourself independently, because patents are forced on everyone - is completely abject.
  Well no, you have to find out where that leak came from, it could be from anywhere, then you have to prove it, and even then the best you've got is a breach of contract suit. The inventor is not protected, it's big business that gets all the advantage.
56. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-16 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then it's just a patent, the licensing of an invention.
  No, it's not. A contract applies to whoever signed it. A patent applies to everyone.
  
  Well no, you have to find out where that leak came from, it could be from anywhere, then you have to prove it, and even then the best you've got is a breach of contract suit. The inventor is not protected, it's big business that gets all the advantage.
  Even if you don't find the leak, the company is still bound by contract and therefore can't produce the invention. So why would they leak again?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
57. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-16 11:18 · Score: 2
  
  No, it's not. A contract applies to whoever signed it. A patent applies to everyone.
  So you're going to approach a company with an idea, if they like the idea they have to pay you the amount you want, otherwise they are barred from using it. However if the gain knowledge of the idea without signing the contract then they are free to do whatever they want because the inventor has no protection. Yeah great idea.
  
  Even if you don't find the leak, the company is still bound by contract and therefore can't produce the invention. So why would they leak again?
  Yeah im sure companies are really going to go for this, they get bound by the contract and have to pay the inventor, but because the info got leaked their competitors get it for free...you'd have to be a monumental idiot in the business world to go for an agreement like that.
58. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-16 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Yeah, great idea" and "you'd have to be a monumental idiot" are not arguments.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
59. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-16 14:21 · Score: 2
  
  They are responses to the obviousness of the lack of protection for inventors (you rely solely on everyone involved keeping a secret with virtually no recourse if they don't), the obviousness of why businesses would not want to engage in such agreements and the obviousness that such an approach is marginally worse for inventors than the current patent system.
60. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-16 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Worse for some inventors. Better for all the other getting sued by patent trolls, obvious patents, independent inventions, etc.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
61. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-16 16:17 · Score: 2
  
  Worse for some inventors. Better for all the other getting sued by patent trolls, obvious patents, independent inventions, etc.
  Hence my original point that the current patent system needs to be overhauled, not eliminated.
62. Re:Intersting long term move by icebraining · 2012-02-16 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  The last item can't be solved. It's impossible to prove the engineer didn't look at the patent when he was developing a similar solution.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
63. Re:Intersting long term move by hobarrera · 2012-02-18 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  The government does not GRANT people property, it recognizes it to be theirs, much like rights.
64. Re:Intersting long term move by exomondo · 2012-02-19 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  The last item can't be solved. It's impossible to prove the engineer didn't look at the patent when he was developing a similar solution.
  That doesn't justify the elimination of patents, changing the rules on expiration, who can hold a patent, patent trading and the obviousness of patents is what is needed.
Is it just me? by dimko · 2012-02-15 08:13 · Score: 1

Or is it predator felt the blood?
Press release from Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Due to the tragic loss of our beloved chairman, Steve Jobs, Apple realizes that we are no longer capable of creating compelling products in the marketplace. As our device sales will start to drop from this point forward, we have decided that we will follow in the footsteps of SCO. Our new business model will be called SUE ALL THE COMPANIES.
1. Re:Press release from Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Isn't it more like Steve Jobs dying wish was for them to sue all companies? He said he didn't care about the money, he was just upset that he felt people were copying Apple products.
2. Re:Press release from Apple by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ignoring the fact that Kodak had lately been nothing but a patent troll filing suits against everyone it can in order to boost revenues? They are just getting their comeuppance and they rightfully deserve it.
3. Re:Press release from Apple by s-whs · 2012-02-15 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  They are just getting their comeuppance and they rightfully deserve it.
  
  'They' (Kodak) are not getting their comeuppance.
  
  What's important is whether the Kodak lawsuit was justified or not, and this one as well, although it seems Apple just acts more like its name was Wankle (pronounced by someone from China).
  
  When a company goes bankrupt the money goes to creditors and this lawsuit will eat into that money, effectively fooking everyone over, who may depend on that (I don't know the situation precisely).
  
  If you are talking about comeuppance, then you should talk about the people going for frivolous lawsuits and the direction companies take. This is always the board of directors etc. Perhaps the people in the legal department too. Have you ever seen such people getting thrown in jail and taken all their stuff away to (partly) pay for damage they did by wasting money (their company, the other and more) or even destroying the economy (esp. banks). No? I haven't either.
4. Re:Press release from Apple by jesseck · 2012-02-15 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  As our device sales will start to drop from this point forward, we have decided that we will follow in the footsteps of SCO.p>
  
  SCO: Sue Companies Onward!
5. Re:Press release from Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:08 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  How dare you try to interpret the words of his most holy Jobs for yourself! Only the pope of Jobsism (current CEO of Apple) may make such interpretations! To do otherwise could lead to irreparable schisms in the church!
6. Re:Press release from Apple by larry+bagina · 2012-02-15 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Are you a retard? Most of Apple's lawsuits were started while Steve Jobs was still alive. They were started because he wanted them started. You might also note that Apple-initiated lawsuits are the "stop copying us" variety, not the "pay us lots of money" variety (SCO, Motorola, patent trolls).
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
7. Re:Press release from Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Actually it's more a case of "Stop copying our ideas that we mostly got from other companys that were using them 10 years ago". Apple are blatant abusers of the Patent system. Not much better than patent trolls themselves, except they also make overpriced crap.
8. Re:Press release from Apple by Patch86 · 2012-02-15 20:35 · Score: 2
  
  Whereas Apple never sues anyone?
  Lets face it- all major technology companies have turned into patent trolls in the last decade or two. Apple has categorically attempted to sue every one of its major rivals out of the markets. Microsoft's still tries to extort money out of companies selling products they don't even compete with. Samsung, Motorola, Google- they're all at it too.
  Frankly, a crumbling company like Kodak would have been foolish for not copying the business tactics of their more successful rivals. It might have worked too, if only Kodak were even slightly relevant anymore.
9. Re:Press release from Apple by MachineShedFred · 2012-02-16 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  When a company goes bankrupt the money goes to creditors and this lawsuit will eat into that money, effectively fooking everyone over, who may depend on that (I don't know the situation precisely).
  Which is no different from if Apple sued them 6 months ago, wins a huge settlement, and Kodak then declares bankruptcy. The creditors, including Apple, are still just as hooped.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
10. Re:Press release from Apple by painandgreed · 2012-02-16 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Lets face it- all major technology companies have turned into patent trolls in the last decade or two. Apple has categorically attempted to sue every one of its major rivals out of the markets. Microsoft's still tries to extort money out of companies selling products they don't even compete with. Samsung, Motorola, Google- they're all at it too.
  Well, you can probably blame Apple Records for all that. Their early legal battles against Apple Computers over name and moving computers into the realm of doing digital sound and music pretty much got Apple used to dealing with lawsuits and settling. Now, twenty years later, Apple is a company that is comfortable engaging in lawsuits until they get a settlement they can live with.
antoine dodson by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-15 08:17 · Score: 5, Funny

They's climbin in yo boardroom
snatchin' you IP up!
So you gotta
Hide you docs
Hide you tech
Hide yo docs
Hide you tech
and hide you patents
Cuz they's suin evebody out here!
1. Re:antoine dodson by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-15 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  sigh... let's time machine back to 2010 and revisit:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw
2. Re:antoine dodson by tqk · 2012-02-16 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  They's climbin in yo boardroom snatchin' you IP up! So you gotta Hide you docs Hide you tech Hide yo docs Hide you tech and hide you patents Cuz they's suin evebody out here!
  I tried that a few different ways in Google Translate. I can't figure out what the hell your saying.
  Try it with the Southern "Missippee"[sic] Trash filter:
  "Zipadee dooda, zipadee ay. Ma oh ma, what a wonnerful day, ..."
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
3. Re:antoine dodson by tqk · 2012-02-16 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Srsly?
  I think you some vowels.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:You gotta be fucking kidding me! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 2

Google suing Kodak?!?
If you have info on that one, submit it as another story! :)

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Get em now! by future+assassin · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait they're kicking someone when they are broke and homeless?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:Get em now! by jamstar7 · 2012-02-15 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Best time to kick them. They can't afford a lawyer to defend themselves.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
2. Re:Get em now! by helios17 · 2012-02-16 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Those who cannot afford lawyers do have the cheaper option of investing in a gun....
  
  --
  Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
Kick a dog when it's down? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-02-15 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple demonstrating once again the levels to which it will stoop to gain market advantage. Try innovating, you'll go farther...

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
1. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by Missing.Matter · 2012-02-15 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Patent trolls are usually companies whose sole source of revenue is patent lawsuit settlements, and who don't actually produce any products using the IP they hold. It's hard to call Kodak, RIM, HTC, and even Apple a troll given that. No, what we see here is a breakdown of the patent system, where the player has been issued very general patents, and therefore all these companies can point to pretty much any other company out there and find a patent they infringe on.
2. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by capsteve · 2012-02-15 09:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  kodak has been riding on it's own coattails for years, in both consumer and industrial products.
  remember the disc camera?
  remember the kodak instant camera?
  both were crappy products and were only reactions to others who innovated in those respective markets.
  i was sad to see scitex and creo(venerable names in retouching and printing) eventually absorbed into kodak to be used as a mean of driving their consumable business: film, chemistry, plates, and inks. kodak never improved or innovated industrial graphic arts production, unless it was thru acquisition.
  kodak didn't innovate in the industrial or consumer markets, and as a result are left in the dust by their competition.
  most printing presses are direct to plate, with no intermediate film or plate making process.
  most contract proofs(color and content fidelity proof prior to press) these days are inkjet or pdf files displayed on color accurate(gracol or fogra certified) displays.
  kodak never had offerings in database/dynamic page publishing.
  i'm sure kodak had innovated quite a bit in it's day, and those patents are proof of it. but to use a patent against a partner feels a little dirty.
  the original apple quicktake camera was a kodak manufactured/apple branded device.
  
  --
  three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
3. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't between following Kodak.much recently, eh? Most of their revenue HAS been from patent lawsuits. The reason Kodak went into bankruptcy was because they failed to get their payday after suing HTC, RIM and Apple.
4. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by gubers33 · 2012-02-15 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Mice? Mice, a desktop GUI, using both hands to type and using the mouse when needed? All stolen from Xerox bro. The smart phone existed before the iPhone with these things called IBM Simon came out in 1992, Palm, BlackBerry, and Windows all had smart phones out in the late 90s into the 2000s. Tablets all existed before the iPad sport. Dynabook concept in 1968 and Microsoft had a tablet PC available in 2001 with HP, Lenovo, and Acer all manufacturing models. And Microsoft coin the term tablet. I would give you that Apple is the one who innovated the mp3 player. but that is about it.
  
  --
  Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
5. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by jo_ham · 2012-02-15 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  By "stolen from Xerox" do you mean "licenced from Xerox in exchange for Apple stock, that Xerox later sold unwisely and then realised too late so tried to sue instead"? Jobs even told them when they demoed the mouse to him that they were sitting on a gold mine, and when asking what they were going to do with their innovation, he was told that they didn't really see a use for it beyond a curiosity. He then offered to buy it from them.
  Your revisionist history textbook needs some edits.
  I'd mention the Newton, but I'm not sure it's even *in* that textbook of yours. Where did you get it anyway? The Texas board of education?
6. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by Targon · 2012-02-16 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  So, it still shows that Apple did not invent these things. Apple does not seem to be able to really come up with new ideas, they just look at what others do, and then figures out a better package for it. The result is that Apple should not be in the position to patent much of anything, since their products are all based on what others have invented.
  I am all for inventors being able to protect what THEY have invented, so what has Apple really come up with that is original, iTunes?
7. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by jo_ham · 2012-02-16 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Where did I say that the Newton was a smartphone? It was a precursor to the PDA/tablet, not a phone.
8. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by jo_ham · 2012-02-16 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Apple didn't "invent" iTunes either - they bought the software from another company and renamed it iTunes.
  I didn't make any claims that Apple invented those things - it's all very well documented in the history of the company.
  This goes back to what it is that Apple does with innovations and inventions. The mouse is one of the most obvious things - no one at Xerox knew what do do with it really, and they saw no commercial application for it. Steve Jobs saw the potential immediately, and the rest is history. Apple has a very long line of doing things like that - looking at what other people have done and seeing forward trends, or just doing it themselves in house.
  They don't need to "invent" everything - and they really don't - but people focus on that fact alone and ignore the supposedly "easy" thing Apple does, which is product design and development. It's all very well having the best invention in the world if you have no idea what to do with it. Apple is extremely good at turning inventions (their own and other's) into successful products.
  In the process of doing that they often licence the technology, or simply buy potentially useful things, or use Open Source. Their biggest successes are the mouse (licenced), iTunes (bought from someone else and refined), OS X (based on Open Source core), the iPhone (developed in house) and the original coloured iMac (again, developed in house from a non-original idea, just refined). Things like the iPod, for example, which was not a new invention (mp3 players had been around before, as had the concept of a portable music player) but it's a big leap from the situation pre-iPod to the one afterwards, despite Apple not actually "inventing" anything new, but doing something just as important - designing the product.
  Invention is just one part of the step to a successful product, and as a product designer you don't necessarily have to be the one doing the inventing. Do you think Ford invented the internal combustion engine? Or the wheel?
  Now, this doesn't mean things like "slide to unlock" should be patentable, but Apple can be expected to protect what it has made, or licenced to use if it was exclusive.
9. Re:Kick a dog when it's down? by tqk · 2012-02-16 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Patent trolls are usually companies whose sole source of revenue is patent lawsuit settlements, and who don't actually produce any products using the IP they hold. It's hard to call Kodak, RIM, HTC, and even Apple a troll given that.
  No it's not. The two aren't exclusive behaviours, thanks to:
  
  No, what we see here is a breakdown of the patent system ...
  Yup. I would have called it "corruption of the patent system", but that's just me. It always was a rigged game, begging to be misused.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:RIP Kodak by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:26 · Score: 2, Funny

I suspect that you have used the babelfish translator to formulate that post, after first cycling it through Chinese, French, and Portuguese before finally allowing it to approach the English language. While this does produce some interesting results, it makes your actual meaning very difficult to determine - perhaps you should reduce the number of intermediate languages before reaching English?
Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing by mr100percent · 2012-02-15 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The headline is misleading: Kodak first sued Apple just days before filing for bankruptcy. They tried to get an ITC ruling, which would have frozen Apple's sales. It looks like they were hoping Apple would quickly settle, and Kodak would use the money to stay afloat.
That didn't happen, so now Apple is suing back in retaliation, but before doing that they're asking the court for permission (which isn't necessary).
1. Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 08:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It IS necessary in order to sue a chapter 11 company. It's basicly "cuttin in line" 'cause they think they (and their claims) are more important thant everybody else wo has to wait in line.
2. Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing by rahvin112 · 2012-02-15 08:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You cannot sue a company in Bankruptcy without the permission of the Judge handling the Bankruptcy case. That's the purpose of Bankruptcy, to stop lawsuits.
Re:In other news by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

As opposed to Kodak that has filed patent suits against RIM, Apple, HTC, Samsung and many more companies in the last few years. Oh poor babies are getting a taste is their own medicine. It's funny to see Slashtards defend a patent troll just because they got countersued by Apple.
Beating a dead horse by Arancaytar · 2012-02-15 08:32 · Score: 1

And hoping it coughs up some money.
1. Re:Beating a dead horse by Arancaytar · 2012-02-16 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  dead house
  Your coherence indicates you are an Apple user.
Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by Skinkie · 2012-02-15 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

What is the reason of this kind of behavior? Do they want to make a claim on the patentportfolio of Kodak? I wonder what Apple executives would have thought when someone would have started to sue Apple at this point in their past.

--
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
1. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by sessamoid · 2012-02-15 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes. Apple is making a claim on the patents that Kodak tried to use to sue Apple for. The stem from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera and an agreement between the two companies on who owns the IP stemmed from that venture. Apple is claiming that the agreement between the two of them gives Apple the technology they used in that venture, as well as any improvements based upon them. Kodak opened Pandora's box when they sued Apple.
  
  --
  "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
2. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by Skinkie · 2012-02-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it common law practice to file a counter claim, instead of starting a new courtcase?
  
  --
  Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
3. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by PTBarnum · 2012-02-15 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  The [lawsuit] stems from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera
  Wait, what? I wasn't aware that Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera. What product are you talking about?
4. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The [lawsuit] stems from a joint venture back when Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera
  Wait, what? I wasn't aware that Apple introduced the first consumer digital camera. What product are you talking about?
  The Quicktake
5. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-15 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  The Quicktake came out a whopping 4 years after the 1990 Dycam Model 1 (Logitech Fotoman). And, BTW, Kodak manufactured the Apple-branded Quicktake.
6. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yea it is. Companies do it all the time in patent cases. How is it not grounds to countersue?
7. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by bussdriver · 2012-02-15 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Apple QuickTake 100 was the first digital camera; consumer obviously, it is all that matters today - we don't know or care about the inventor anymore just the corp who releases it to the masses first.
  I knew somebody with an Apple QuickTake 100 and I used it. Expensive junk; but it was all one could get and the others shortly afterwards were no better. A yellow pixel noise was in every photo for years... I don't remember when the digital cameras finally fixed that problem.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
8. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by goombah99 · 2012-02-15 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Kodak manufactured the Apple-branded Quicktake.
  And apple designed it.
  Presumably there was IP involved that exceeded that in the Dyncam. After all digital imaging itself has been around before the Dyncam, but there's a lot of tricks involved in doing it well.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Re:How many billions? by Dahamma · 2012-02-15 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

That was my first reaction, as well, until (as some others have pointed out) Kodak sued Apple first last month in a fit of patent-trolling desperation before declaring bankruptcy. This is really just Apple's counter-suit. No sympathy for Kodak there...
Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by perpenso · 2012-02-15 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is selling patents even legal? The original creator of a patent deserves to be rewarded so that the can come up with more original ideas, but why should someone who has potentially created nothing be rewarded? The creator can license the patent to anyone, so shouldn't need to sell it.
Licensing can work, however it is the original inventor's choice and some prefer to just sell.
(1) Licensing requires an ongoing relationship and probably periodic payments.
(2) It also requires that the original inventor assume some risk in that the invention remains desirable and the inventor retains licensees.
(3) The original inventor is also still on the hook for any legal issues and costs.

An original inventor may prefer one lump sum payment and be done with it and move on to the next big idea without any distractions, risks or liabilities. Also some buyers prefer to own rather than license. If licensing is the only option the number of buyers is reduced, this may lower the value of the invention.
1. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by xeromist · 2012-02-15 09:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  None of that sounds like a problem. So what if they would prefer to sell it? Tough luck IMO. Pay someone to manage your licenses if it becomes an undo burden. Remember that the purpose of patents is to provide protection so that people will be able to bring their ideas to realization without someone stealing it. Making patents non-transferable doesn't undo that but it could sure fix a lot of what's wrong with the patent system as it stands.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
2. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by hacksoncode · 2012-02-15 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose that an exclusive license with the right to sublicense would be right out then, too? Because the difference that makes no difference is no difference.
  The purpose of patents is not to allow people to productize their own ideas, it's to incentivize people to a) invent, and b) not try to hide their invention so that it becomes available to all, eventually.
  One way to incentivize inventors is to allow them to sell their patents.
3. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by xeromist · 2012-02-15 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. A license, even exclusive, doesn't grant you everything that ownership does. For one, it doesn't grant you carte blanche use of that patent as a weapon.
  I didn't say that people had to produce their own ideas personally. In many cases that's just not practical. But I would argue that the ability to profit from the license of your idea is incentive enough. I don't see why the patent system needs to go any further than that to work as intended.
  And yes I understand that the ability to sell and not just license would be an additional incentive but at what cost to the system as a whole? We have huge corporations buying up all sorts of patents so they can stifle competitors on unrelated products. We have trolls who have never had an original idea in their life buying patents so they can extort money out of legitimate businesses. This doesn't magically go away if patent sales were eliminated but it at least puts a few road blocks in the way.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
4. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by perpenso · 2012-02-15 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  None of that sounds like a problem.
  Remaining on the hook for any legal problems and the associated legal bills does not sound like a problem to you?
  
  Carrying a risk that a competitive or disruptive product will appear and make that invention unappealing and losing those licensees does not sound like a problem to you?
5. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by xeromist · 2012-02-15 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you have an idea and someone else licenses it and implements it then there's no reason you should have any legal problems since you weren't involved. If you do then that is a problem with the legal system, not the patent system. Now, if you are the one that implements it then yes you should assume all relevant liabilities just like any other person or corporation marketing something.
  I'm sorry, someone came up with a better idea without infringing on yours? That's life. You're not entitled to profit from a now worthless idea. And I don't think the prospect of a better idea eclipsing yours is going to make you keep it a secret to the grave (the only concern of the patent system) as you will have lost before you even began, so to speak.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
6. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by Theaetetus · 2012-02-15 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessarily. A license, even exclusive, doesn't grant you everything that ownership does. For one, it doesn't grant you carte blanche use of that patent as a weapon.
  Actually, an exclusive license, with the right to sublicense and the right to bring suit in the name of the owner is effectively the same thing as an assignment, legally.
7. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by MightyYar · 2012-02-15 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  There's incentive to kill the inventor by a non-licensee, if the patent suddenly goes public domain upon his death.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
8. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by perpenso · 2012-02-15 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  If you have an idea and someone else licenses it and implements it then there's no reason you should have any legal problems since you weren't involved.
  Wow, that is a quite gratuitous assumption. :-) I am sure a host of trial lawyers have a quite different opinion.
  
  If you do then that is a problem with the legal system, not the patent system.
  So you are no longer claiming that no problem exists, rather you are claiming that there is a problem but it is in the legal system. Perhaps you now can see why an inventor legitimately wants to sell and move on, to avoid the problematic legal system, to let the experts in the corp buying his patent navigate those waters.
  
  I'm sorry, someone came up with a better idea without infringing on yours? That's life.
  No, that is why you want to sell not license. Does the original inventor need to be an economist and expert in marketing & product development in order to predict the viable life of his invention? Does the original inventor need to be a patent attorney so he can decide if others are infringing or not? No, he wants to leave all that to experts like those in the corp buying his patent. The inventor may just want to move on to the next idea.
  
  Under your proposal inventors must now be, or pay for, experts in law, economics, marketing & product development, patents, etc. It increases the barrier to getting rewarded as an inventor. Original inventors often sell because they don't understand, and don't want to learn, all this other stuff. Deprive them of the ability to sell and be done with it, to force them into an ongoing relationship that will draw on their time and attention -- your proposed system will have the unintended consequence of deterring some guy who is an expert in some technical specialty from giving inventing a try.
9. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by xeromist · 2012-02-15 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  So you are no longer claiming that no problem exists, rather you are claiming that there is a problem but it is in the legal system. Perhaps you now can see why an inventor legitimately wants to sell and move on, to avoid the problematic legal system, to let the experts in the corp buying his patent navigate those waters.
  I've no idea what the legalities of licensing an idea are. What I am saying is that there is no legitimate reason I can think of why someone should be able to sue you solely for having an idea. The solution is to make sure you can't be sued for an idea, not force you to sell off your idea out of fear. If removing the option to sell a patent introduces significant risk due to a problematic legal system then obviously that can't be ignored and there should be corresponding efforts to mitigate or eliminate that risk. I'm not saying this should be done in a vacuum. And so if appropriate action is taken to ensure that the patent system still works and has no significant disincentive with a purely licensed based model then I have no problem with that.
  
  Under your proposal inventors must now be, or pay for, experts in law, economics, marketing & product development, patents, etc. It increases the barrier to getting rewarded as an inventor. Original inventors often sell because they don't understand, and don't want to learn, all this other stuff. Deprive them of the ability to sell and be done with it, to force them into an ongoing relationship that will draw on their time and attention -- your proposed system will have the unintended consequence of deterring some guy who is an expert in some technical specialty from giving inventing a try.
  If you're going to sell or you're going to license you should still have representation either way. The difference is whether this is a perpetual state or a one time event. As a perpetual state I'm sure some smart person could start a business based on the idea that inventors need not be constantly involved and do it at a reasonable price when they distribute the cost of all those experts you mentioned over a large number of clients. A corporation is going to do essentially the same thing with a patent except some of those experts may be in-house since they operate on a larger scale.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
10. Re:Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by Waccoon · 2012-02-15 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  (1) Licensing requires an ongoing relationship and probably periodic payments.
  How much are these periodic payments? Given how much money could be up for grabs, I would think this could quickly get too expensive for individual inventors. Periodic payments and a broken industry are rarely an encouraging combination.
  I could feel the effects of such periodic payments when my old bank told me they were charging me a monthly image fee for sending me badly scanned and scaled pictures of each check I wrote. So, they started charging me for digital prints, when previously they mailed me the used checks with my monthly statement for free.
Re:How many billions? by chipperdog · 2012-02-15 08:46 · Score: 1

If I were Apple, I would back off on some of the patent lawsuits to keep off the anti-trust radar...
Re:How many billions? by hemo_jr · 2012-02-15 08:49 · Score: 1

Monopoly by litigation.
Re:How many billions? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 08:53 · Score: 1, Troll

How can they be violating angry-trust laws when they don't even hold a majority of the market? Aren't we reminded daily by the fandroids about how Android has more market share? Secondly, Kodak sued them first and Apple is just doing the typical countersuit that happens in pretty much all patent cases. Kodak is nothing but a patent troll these days.
Re:In other news by andydread · 2012-02-15 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I hope you apply the same standards to those who Apple has sued with trivial and obvious software-patents.
Another simple needed patent reform by Minter92 · 2012-02-15 09:22 · Score: 1

Patents should have to be the property of a person not a corporation llc etc. And they should not be sellable. If the holder dies or becomes incompetent the patent becomes invalid. So easy and simple to fix the patent system. Too bad the big corps will never let it happen.
Re:In other news by Dynamoo · 2012-02-15 09:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

But who do you think is more likely to have valid patents in the digital imaging arena? Kodak (who have been in the business since 1889) or Apple (who have been in the business since 2007)? Yes, Kodak's move was one of desperation. Apple's move is just pure spite.

--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
Squash by SuperTechnoNerd · 2012-02-15 09:58 · Score: 1

What better way to squash a competitor or possible competitor? - kick them when they are down -- i.e. bankrupt.. Makes sense to me. A lion will always go after the weaker prey.

Those who can do..
Those who can't sue..
1. Re:Squash by jo_ham · 2012-02-15 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, especially if that weaker prey sues the lion in an attempt to force a quick settlement to stave off bankruptcy. Now Kodak has rocked the boat and dragged up the QuickTake again, Apple is countersuing.
Re:In other news by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-02-15 10:01 · Score: 1

Thanks for proving my point. Waaaah Apple is suing a patent troll!
You misunderstand the patent system's problem by perpenso · 2012-02-15 10:32 · Score: 1

Making patents non-transferable ... could sure fix a lot of what's wrong with the patent system as it stands.
No. You don't seem to understand the true nature of the problem with the US patent system. It is *not* that patents are transferable. It is that patents are being issued for things that are too obvious, that should not be patentable. If the standards for issuing patents were cleaned up and only non-obvious things were awarded patents then patent trolls would not have the "mine field" that they currently have. Basically you seem to be focusing on the symptom not the disease, that is more likely to yield negative unintended consequences than actually fix anything.
1. Re:You misunderstand the patent system's problem by xeromist · 2012-02-15 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that obviousness is a big problem and I agree that it needs to be fixed but that is only one of many problems. If you believe that cleaning up standards will magically fix everything, I say that is a bit naive. The ability to aggregate (even non-obvious) patents and use them to leverage unrelated business areas because you don't like to play fair will still be a problem.
  I'm coming from the perspective that the patent system should do just enough to encourage people to release their ideas and nothing more. I've yet to see how the ability to sell them is required for this to happen. Anything beyond the bare minimum that is required is what will cause negative consequences.
  
  --
  This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
2. Re:You misunderstand the patent system's problem by Theaetetus · 2012-02-15 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that obviousness is a big problem and I agree that it needs to be fixed but that is only one of many problems. If you believe that cleaning up standards will magically fix everything, I say that is a bit naive. The ability to aggregate (even non-obvious) patents and use them to leverage unrelated business areas because you don't like to play fair will still be a problem.
  No, it won't. Attempting to use a patent to leverage an unrelated or unpatented product - e.g. selling you a license to my printer patent, provided you agree to only purchase paper from me - is patent misuse, and makes the patent legally unenforceable.
Way to be a heartless vulture Apple, by __aasehi2499 · 2012-02-15 10:32 · Score: 1

Oh wait, you patented that too....
What's new... by Petbe · 2012-02-15 10:38 · Score: 1

I think from now on, we should just give the titles to these sort of news as: Apple is at it again. I am honestly not surprised when ever I see Apple going after someone else. I am just waiting on the day when Apple sues a candy shop because they some how patented the shape of a lollipop.
1. Re:What's new... by jo_ham · 2012-02-15 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in this case it's a countersuit against Kodak. They were not the aggressor here. Kodak wanted a quick settlement to raise some cash to avoid going bust.
  There's also the matter of the Quicktake camera - designed by Apple, built by Kodak, then mysteriously coincidentally Kodak files patents on the technology in it. How curious! The suit is over ownership of those patents.
Re:In other news by TheUser0x58 · 2012-02-15 12:35 · Score: 1

The same Kodak who filed for bankruptcy primarily because they failed to wrap their liver-spotted heads around the digital imaging revolution?

--
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
Re:In other news by gnasher719 · 2012-02-15 13:19 · Score: 2

But who do you think is more likely to have valid patents in the digital imaging arena? Kodak (who have been in the business since 1889) or Apple (who have been in the business since 2007)? Yes, Kodak's move was one of desperation. Apple's move is just pure spite.
This is about the Quicktake 100 camera, developed by Apple and produced by Kodak, shipping in 1994. Oh, does that mean Apple developed and shipped a product 13 years before they were in business? No, Apple has been in business since 1976. And Apple is saying "Kodak is suing us about patents for stuff that we, Apple, actually developed". Not really spiteful.
Kicking someone when they're down by kawabago · 2012-02-15 15:45 · Score: 1

I guess that's what Steve Jobs would have done, he was a total asshole.
Re:In other news by Targon · 2012-02-16 01:02 · Score: 1

The vast majority of things that Apple developed have taken elements of things that were present in products made by other companies. Yes, Apple may have done things better, or made them more attractive, but the vast majority of what you see out there from Apple WERE done before. This is why Apple comes across as a patent troll, because they have not really come up with many ideas themselves.
I've figured it out... by slydder · 2012-02-16 01:11 · Score: 1

Apple has seen the light. They know that sales will drop now that SJ is gone and people are starting to see that Apple is actually just a the best marketing company ever and so are starting to by products from real innovators. They have also noticed that the people that are able to pay the premium price for Apple marketing (or should that be products?) have also reached it's peak.
Now they have finally found a way to get money from those that 1. Don't want their marketing/product and/or 2. Can't afford it. They now have a way to get money from the unemployed without even having to give them anything in return. Best business model ever. ;)

--
IT Admins Group: Where you decide the content
Apple lives up to its reputation by Chrisq · 2012-02-16 01:16 · Score: 1

It wants to stick it to them up the arese when they are lying face down.
Re:RIP Kodak by tqk · 2012-02-16 06:48 · Score: 1

I suspect that you have used the babelfish translator to formulate that post, after first cycling it through Chinese, French, and Portuguese before finally allowing it to approach the English language.
Assuming you're correct, you can't seriously expect him to understand your reply, can you?
I think you're looking quite a bit more foolish than him.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.