Kodak Sues Apple & RIM Over Preview In Cameras 285
Dave Knott writes "Kodak is suing Apple and Research In Motion over technology related to digital cameras in their iPhone and BlackBerry smart phones. The complaint specifically relates to photo preview functionality which Kodak claims infringes on their patents. The company is asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the disputed practices. Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents, and almost all of today's digital cameras rely on that technology. Kodak has licensed digital-imaging technology to about 30 companies, including mobile-device makers such as LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Inc., Nokia Corp. and Sony Ericsson, all of which pay royalties to Kodak."
Re:Who cares about the stock price? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is this modded troll? It's completely true - TFA provides no information at all about the patents in question, what "technology" they claim to cover, and inexplicably included some portfolio information which apparently has nothing to do with the patent claim. It is a terrible, pointless article.
Deserves them right (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets see, multi touch was used before that on touchpads.
Capactitive touchscreens existed prior to the patent.
But for some reason Apple get a patent to use multi touch on a touchscreen, thereby forcing other vendors to filter and ignore data delivered by the touch screen.
Not enforcable in Europe, beeing a pure software patent and i cant see how such a patent can be granted since its it actually places restrictions on the interpretation of data provided by a hardware device.
Re:Here is an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here is an idea (Score:2, Interesting)
These are real patents designed to incentivise R&D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.
We don't need more coachwhip makers. If Kodak is incapable of delivering products that people want to buy in an environment where their cash cow has been destroyed, they don't need to exist.
tl;dr Kodak: don't innovate, legislate.
Re:Apple = Lame. (Score:2, Interesting)
I love how you got modded flamebait for sarcasm.
Please Understand WHY we have patents... (Score:4, Interesting)
I need to make a point more clearly than I did in my, er...., rant (I admit it) ... above.
The coward asserted: "What the patent system is meant to do is allow companies/individuals to recoup research and development cost."
To which I pointed to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The point I wish to make clear is that the U.S. Government has no constitutional motivation in seeking to insure that any company "recoups" anything.
Let's make that clear. EVEN if striking patents led to the damage of numerous companies, this is no justification for patents.
If an inventor or company fails to make money off their inventions, they will join a pantheon of historical figures and companies suffered that the same fate in the past.
No, what is important is the efficiency and the productivity of our companies, and the advancement of knowledge and progress. Most of us believe that it is only competition that drives progress. This is supposed to be why communism failed (no competition) and capitalism (competition) succeeded.
So why do we need to limit competition again? Because we need patents to compete with other such government defined and constricted systems like communism? Nobody would be willing to build a company unless the government set up a little space for it to thrive without anyone else competing with it?
I am just trying to understand the logic here....
"Redefined" != "Market Share" (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has "redefined" less than 3% of current market (and with the uptake of mobile phones in developing countries, areas in which Apple is not interested in, that percentage might as well go down)
Absolutely. If Apple had "redefined" the market you'd expect the iPhone to have had an obvious influence on the design of every other smartphone released since the iPhone was announced.
Probably, large hardware manufacturers such as HTC would have written custom front ends to Windows Mobile to give it a more iPhone-like GUI. I expect some big concern like Google would have taken a leaf out of Apple's book and got into the smartphone market (maybe with a Linux-based platform). And everybody and their dog would have announced an "App Store" for their phone platform. Even cheap'n'cheerful phones and medial players would be styling their products along the lines of the iPhone.
But, as we know, none of that happened. The iPhone didn't have any significant effect on the mobile industry.
Re:Boo yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Odd, this...
Apple is a computer maker that has had the ability to display digital images on an attached display for over 25 years.
I wonder when this patent was issued - after all, how long has Kodak been displaying digital images on an attached display?