Kodak's Patent Spat Threatens Photo Web Sites 171
Alain Williams writes "According to the BBC: 'Kodak claimed it owns patents regarding the display of online images that is being infringed by Shutterfly. The photo-sharing site disputes these claims and has launched a counter suit. But the landmark case could have ramifications for other popular online photo sites such as Yahoo's Flickr and Google's Picasa.'"
Oh how the mighty have fallen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kodak used to be the single leader in innovative technology with their film, cameras, and the invention of the (nearly) instant-print Polaroid. Now, they’re essentially a gigantic patent troll. They haven’t been really innovative for a very long time, and their last resort is to sue.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Re:2011: Year of the Patent Spat (Score:5, Interesting)
Innovation will simply move to less patent-encumbered locations (i.e. China/India).
Re:Claims (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong.
I just have to show prior art for the portion of the claim they alleged as being infringed.
No, you're wrong. To invalidate a claim of a patent, you must show that each and every limitation in the claim is either anticipated by the prior art under 35 USC 102 or obvious under a combination of prior art references under 35 USC 103(a).
Similarly, to infinge a claim of a patent, you must infringe each and every limitation of the claim. If the claim says "A+B+C+D" and you only do "A+B+C", you have not infringed.
Your statements about "the portion of the claim are simply incorrect.
And yes, I am a registered patent agent.
Re:Claims (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe you, but I have to point out that this state of affairs is why so many people hate the patent system. If I can file a patent with an absurd number of absurdly broad claims, and then sue you for infringing on some specific part of one claim for which prior art exists,
Once more, from my prior post:
Similarly, to infinge a claim of a patent, you must infringe each and every limitation of the claim. If the claim says "A+B+C+D" and you only do "A+B+C", you have not infringed. Your statements about "the portion of the claim are simply incorrect.
It is impossible to sue for infringement of a "part" of a claim. Thinking logically about this should make it obvious... Say I invent a working teleportation machine and claim "1. A teleportation machine comprising: (a) a seat for the operator to sit in; and (b) [a whole bunch of stuff required for a teleportation machine to operate]." It should be immediately obvious that I can't sue chair makers everywhere.
In summary, the situation you think exists does not actually exist. There may be other legitimate arguments regarding the patent system - this is simply not one of them.
Re:Oh how the mighty have fallen... (Score:4, Interesting)
I once read about a really funny trick played on Kodak, back in the very early days. When they first came out with a consumer camera (was it the Brownie?), the consumer would mail the camera back to Kodak and they would process the film. One of their problems was the wastewater from the film processing. So a local guy offered to truck it away for some amount - I'll say $100 per truckload because I don't recall the actual price. After a while, Kodak complained about the price, and the guy agreed to do it for $50 per load. After a while, they complained again, and he agreed to do it for $25 per truckload, and finally for $5 per truckload. Then the folks at Kodak started to wonder how he could do it so cheap. They looked a bit closer to the waste they were getting rid of, and found that it had $$$ worth of silver in each truckload. The guy was extracting the silver and making a mint! :D
I originally read this in a magazine a few decades ago, and I'm too lazy to look it up online. So it must be true!