Apple Seeks Court Permission To Sue Kodak For Patent Infringement

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.'"

Comments

Intersting long term move

[Dupple]

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)

Re:Intersting long term move

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks more like Apple wants to be a creditor when Kodak finally folds up, and be paid in patents.

Re:Intersting long term move

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Intersting long term move

[JeanCroix]

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

Re:Intersting long term move

[JWSmythe]

    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.

antoine dodson

[noh8rz2]

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!

Kick a dog when it's down?

[Nethemas the Great]

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

Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing

[mr100percent]

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).

Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Kodak Sued First, Apple is Countersuing

[rahvin112]

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:Microsoft should have let Apple go Bankrupt

[sessamoid]

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.