Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

Posted by samzenpus on 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.'"

17 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. Intersting long term move by Dupple · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 JeanCroix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Patents are no more property than an idea is property. They are government-granted privileges, like a drivers license.

    6. Re:Intersting long term move by thoughtspace · · 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!

    7. Re:Intersting long term move by JWSmythe · · 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.
    8. Re:Intersting long term move by JWSmythe · · 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.
  2. Press release from Apple by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. antoine dodson by noh8rz2 · · 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!

  4. Kick a dog when it's down? by Nethemas+the+Great · · 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.
  5. Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing by mr100percent · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  6. Re:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt by sessamoid · · 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."
  7. Some inventors prefer sale over licensing by perpenso · · 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.