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.'"

40 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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
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 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!
4. 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.
5. 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.
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!
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*
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.