Reading mode: Light Dark

Kodak: Smokin' buffalo chips or plain smokin'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ulysses
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
U

Ulysses

Guest
I'm sick of companies making broad generalized patents to cover much more than their actual technology, then suing everone in the world. Buffers have been storing data to increase speed for years, it's not a Kodak invention and it shouldn't be patented. Software has been stored on disks and other removable memory for years. Kodak did not invent compression either--I wonder if WinZip will sue Kodak for using compression. I could see Kodak having a complaint if other companies were making copy cat electronics, but I don't think they are. I wonder if the Hubble telescope is infringing on Kodak's patnts. I guess it's time to put Kodak in the same place as Rambus, in the do not touch department. Kodak is definately smoking something. Patents are way too easy to get now, and that makes it almost impossible for small companies to make it. Seriously, couldn't Microsoft sue Kodak for using different file formats?
Ulysses said:
So what is your opinion on the latest news about Kodak and their
federal lawsuit concerning their patents?

What?!? Haven't read about it yet? Check it out here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983811357.html

So do you think they really have a stroke of genious working in
their favor?

Or are they trying to get cash out of a game that they can't seem
to win at?

Tell me your thoughts!

--
Ulysses
http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/F505V/megalist.htm
F505V Gallery Mega-List
Click to expand...
 
What really annoys me is Kodak has taken free, existing technolgy, changed the product the existing technolgy is used on, and claims the technology as their own by getting patents. Kodak must be getting desparate.
dgrogers said:
Ulysses said:
So what is your opinion on the latest news about Kodak and their
federal lawsuit concerning their patents?

What?!? Haven't read about it yet? Check it out here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983811357.html

So do you think they really have a stroke of genious working in
their favor?

Or are they trying to get cash out of a game that they can't seem
to win at?

Tell me your thoughts!

--
Ulysses
http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/F505V/megalist.htm
F505V Gallery Mega-List
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
dgrogers said:
I'm sick of companies making broad generalized patents to cover
much more than their actual technology, then suing everone in the
world. Buffers have been storing data to increase speed for years,
it's not a Kodak invention and it shouldn't be patented. Software
has been stored on disks and other removable memory for years.
Kodak did not invent compression either--I wonder if WinZip will
sue Kodak for using compression. I could see Kodak having a
complaint if other companies were making copy cat electronics, but
I don't think they are. I wonder if the Hubble telescope is
infringing on Kodak's patnts. I guess it's time to put Kodak in
the same place as Rambus, in the do not touch department. Kodak is
definately smoking something. Patents are way too easy to get now,
Click to expand...
perhaps, at least for large companies. It's a very costly and time consuming process -- the Kodak patent took two years to be approved.
dgrogers said:
and that makes it almost impossible for small companies to make it.
Click to expand...
You don't need to have a patent to be successful -- seems to me there are a lot of very successful companies today that were small just a few years ago.
dgrogers said:
Seriously, couldn't Microsoft sue Kodak for using different file
formats?
Click to expand...
Before we all go condeming Kodak, keep in mind that this patent was filed 12 years ago. It's easy to talk about how obvious all this technology is when we're holding it in our hands, and using to take great pictures, but how many of us would have had the foresight to describe in detail how all those obvious pieces could be combined to build a useful camera way back when?

Another thing I wonder about is the target of the suit. Only Agfa, Sanyo and Epson are being sued -- at least for now. That could mean Kodak hasn't gotten around to filing against anyone else, or it could mean Sony, Nikon, Oly etc. have licensed the patent.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Time will tell.

Alan
dgrogers said:
Ulysses said:
So what is your opinion on the latest news about Kodak and their
federal lawsuit concerning their patents?

What?!? Haven't read about it yet? Check it out here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983811357.html

So do you think they really have a stroke of genious working in
their favor?

Or are they trying to get cash out of a game that they can't seem
to win at?

Tell me your thoughts!

--
Ulysses
http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/F505V/megalist.htm
F505V Gallery Mega-List
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Alan Hartmann said:
Another thing I wonder about is the target of the suit. Only Agfa,
Sanyo and Epson are being sued -- at least for now. That could
mean Kodak hasn't gotten around to filing against anyone else, or
it could mean Sony, Nikon, Oly etc. have licensed the patent.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Time will
tell.

Alan
Click to expand...
Or maybe...

They are working on cutting deals with the bigger manufacturers now, these small potatos are just to set an example.

And maybe...

That is why you have not seen as many new camera announcements as some might have expected at PMA. Everything might be on hold until this is worked out. (wild theory)

I'll bet that it is getting harder and harder to design a digital camera without plenty of licensing of patents on every aspect of the operation. I'll bet that the license fees are a significant fraction of the cost.

Bryan
 
Hey there, Alan -
Member said:
Another thing I wonder about is the target of the suit. Only Agfa,
Sanyo and Epson are being sued -- at least for now. That could
mean Kodak hasn't gotten around to filing against anyone else, or
it could mean Sony, Nikon, Oly etc. have licensed the patent.
Click to expand...
A very neutral answer. Good for you. :)

Word is that Sony (and some of the other "smart/major" players in the industry have been working out a licensing deal with Kodak.

Yep, Kodak innovation as compared to Sony, Nikon, and Olympus.

I won't condemn Kodak (maybe a small reprimand), but I can't seem to get the vision out of my head of their bean counters realizing what dire straights they're in when it comes to all the silver they've been stockpiling, while at the same time losing in the digital camera market, and all of these paralegals and assistants running back and forth to the patent office trying to see how they can squeeze a turnip for all the blood they can get.
 
And I'll bet that you're right on all accounts.
Member said:
They are working on cutting deals with the bigger manufacturers
now, these small potatos are just to set an example.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was notable. Their targets, for now, are the guys that really aren't doing anything significant in the digicam industry. Notable.
Member said:
That is why you have not seen as many new camera announcements as
some might have expected at PMA. Everything might be on hold until
this is worked out. (wild theory)
Click to expand...
Not so wild at all. :)
 
Ulysses,

Just as an aside, do recall the details of Alexander Graham Bell's patent application? Seems (as I recall) that he bribed someone at the Patent office to see one of his competitors patents, then hand wrote notes on his application, and somehow beat his competitor by some small amount of time.

Turns out that his competitor had a better system so Alex cut him a deal to manufacture the other design (western electric).

I hope this is in the ballpark. I'm too lazy to track the facts down. But it kind of puts current events in perspective. (Then there's Rambus, but that's another story!)

Anybody know off the top of their head what the facts are on the telephone patent?

Tom
Ulysses said:
So what is your opinion on the latest news about Kodak and their
federal lawsuit concerning their patents?

What?!? Haven't read about it yet? Check it out here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983811357.html

So do you think they really have a stroke of genious working in
their favor?

Or are they trying to get cash out of a game that they can't seem
to win at?

Tell me your thoughts!

--
Ulysses
http://www.pioneeris.net/ashton/F505V/megalist.htm
F505V Gallery Mega-List
Click to expand...
 
Ulysses said:
Member said:
Another thing I wonder about is the target of the suit. Only Agfa,
Sanyo and Epson are being sued -- at least for now. That could
mean Kodak hasn't gotten around to filing against anyone else, or
it could mean Sony, Nikon, Oly etc. have licensed the patent.
Click to expand...
A very neutral answer. Good for you. :)

Word is that Sony (and some of the other "smart/major" players in
the industry have been working out a licensing deal with Kodak.
Click to expand...
Just curious -- where did you hear this?
Member said:
Yep, Kodak innovation as compared to Sony, Nikon, and Olympus.
Click to expand...
Gosh, this kind of sounds like "what have you done for me lately?". Didn't they invent consumer photography?
Member said:
I won't condemn Kodak (maybe a small reprimand), but I can't seem
to get the vision out of my head of their bean counters realizing
what dire straights they're in when it comes to all the silver
they've been stockpiling,
Click to expand...
Seems as if they've been stockpiling some valuable intellectual property too, if their patent holds up to the inevitable scrutiny. But hey, they're keeping good company: IBM, Lucent, Intel, etc., etc.,
Member said:
while at the same time losing in the
digital camera market, and all of these paralegals and assistants
running back and forth to the patent office trying to see how they
can squeeze a turnip for all the blood they can get.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure those turnips knew they were going to get squeezed. They have their bean counters (and lawyers) too :-) It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but I wouldn't expect a fast resolution one way or the other -- these things have a tendency to move at a very slow pace.

Alan
 
Alan Hartmann said:
Ulysses said:
Member said:
Another thing I wonder about is the target of the suit. Only Agfa,
Sanyo and Epson are being sued -- at least for now. That could
mean Kodak hasn't gotten around to filing against anyone else, or
it could mean Sony, Nikon, Oly etc. have licensed the patent.
Click to expand...
A very neutral answer. Good for you. :)

Word is that Sony (and some of the other "smart/major" players in
the industry have been working out a licensing deal with Kodak.
Click to expand...
Just curious -- where did you hear this?
Click to expand...
Here is where I heard about what Ulysses is saying:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983810098.html

Brief snip:

"Sanyo, Seiko Epson and Agfa were singled out in the lawsuit most likely because they were holdouts and are not currently in negotiations with Kodak. Olympus had something to trade, their lens technology that Kodak needed. Kodak does not own patents on lens technology specifically related to digital cameras that require a unique construction. We believe Sony, Nikon, Canon and other top-tier vendors were not mentioned in the federal lawsuit because they are currently in negotiations with Kodak."

Tony
 
Don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge their right to hang on to "valid" intellectual property. But what exactly is "valid"? That's probably a question that will either be settled in court or in dollars. Their patents seem to be rather broad in meaning, scope, and application.

I'm rather a pessimist whenever the judicial system is brought into things in this manner. It usually just slows down technological progress and increases cost for the consumer.
Member said:
Just curious -- where did you hear this?
Click to expand...
Rumor on 'the street' only.
Member said:
Gosh, this kind of sounds like "what have you done for me lately?".
Didn't they invent consumer photography?
Click to expand...
Well... them and quite a few other players of the same era. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

Kodak's suit seems have less to do with their role in consumer photography in general and more to do with another way to cash in on digital photography, where Kodak has done quite poorly in terms of competition. It's seems to me a bad way to reinvent oneself.

IBM has gone through a renaissance of sorts. So I don't place them in the same spot as Kodak. Intel has very few real competitors other than AMD, but the erosion (if there is any at all) is not of the same significance as Kodak has seen. Lucent doesn't have the nominal "legacy" that Kodak does. So, I'm not absolutely sure about where Kodak thinks they are headed with this one.
Member said:
I'm pretty sure those turnips knew they were going to get squeezed.
They have their bean counters (and lawyers) too :-)
Click to expand...
They probably did.

On one hand, the digital industry is too new for this sort of thing IF it causes prices to inflate and for consumer confidence to erode. OTOH, if they can resolve this transparently and it leads to others building upon their patents and innovation in the near future, maybe it will cause a positive shakeout with a few losers but ultimately consumers winning.
 
Two examples of recent court battles over patent infingement. The first is Nvidia VS 3DFX, while 3DFX was a big player, the cost of court battles put them out of business. Take a look at Aureal VS Creative (Soundblaster), Aureal was not that big of a company, but Creative managed to put Aureal out of business with lawsuits. In both cases, as soon as the company folded, the surviving company purchased what was left of the bankrupt company. This happened just last summer (though the court battles lasted years). I see the beggining of a trend, where you sue your competitors out of business. The Government took care of frivolous civil lawsuits, now it's time to do the same for corporate lawsuits.

Look at it like this, for arguments sake, let's say I was the first person to invent a form of file compression and I patented it. I made my patent so broad it included all file compression, not just my algorithm. Now you invent a different kind of file compression using a completely different compression format that you in no way ripped off, but I can still sue you because my patent covers all file compression, no matter how it's done. That hurts business, and it hurts consumers.
Member said:
perhaps, at least for large companies. It's a very costly and
time consuming process -- the Kodak patent took two years to be
approved.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people they bribed over those two years to get a patent like that. Again, they still took existing technolgy and just changed the application it's used for.
 
This makes a report that I read about Kodak way back in September 2000 all the more relevant to this particular discussion. I had a feeling back then that something else was just waiting in the wings.

I won't repost the long report again, but I will give the link:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=481554

I cannot find it archived at Steve's Digicams any longer, but I believe it is yet another Imerge Consulting analysis.
dgrogers said:
Look at it like this, for arguments sake, let's say I was the first
person to invent a form of file compression and I patented it. I
made my patent so broad it included all file compression, not just
my algorithm. Now you invent a different kind of file compression
using a completely different compression format that you in no way
ripped off, but I can still sue you because my patent covers all
file compression, no matter how it's done. That hurts business,
and it hurts consumers.
Click to expand...
 
Friday March 2, 5:47 am Eastern Time

Agfa rejects Kodak patent infringement complaint

BRUSSELS, March 2 (Reuters) - Belgian image technology group Agfa-Gevaert on Friday rejected accusations by Eastman Kodak Co (NYSE:EK - news) that it had infringed digital camera technology patents.

An Agfa spokeswoman said the company was not responsible for the technology used by "several' manufacturers that made its cameras under contract.

Spokeswoman Rene Willems declined to identify the manufacturers.

Kodak on Thursday said it had sued three of its rivals, including Agfa-Gevaert, for patent infringement in a suit filed in U.S. federal court in Rochester, N.Y.

Willems said Agfa was surprised by the lawsuit because it had been in talks with Kodak throughout last year about using the technology.

''We are astounded,' said Willems. ''Throughout all of 2000 there have been talks between Kodak's lawyers and ours.'

Agfa was considering its options as it waited for official notice of the lawsuit, she said.

Willems also was not immediately able to identify the digital camera models in question.

By around 1040 GMT, Agfa's stock was off 0.4 percent at 23.45 euros on Euronext Brussels.

Kodak also named Sanyo Electric and Seiko Epson of Japan in the lawsuit.

It alleges that Agfa, Sanyo and Seiko infringed on patents in areas such as image compression and digital storage, as well as the reduction of the ''red-eye' effect, which occurs when a person's eyes appear discoloured in a photograph taken with a flash.

Kodak, which is struggling to redefine itself in a digital age with major investments in digital and online photography, is seeking an unspecified amount of money in compensatory damages.
 
dgrogers said:
Two examples of recent court battles over patent infingement. The
first is Nvidia VS 3DFX, while 3DFX was a big player, the cost of
court battles put them out of business. Take a look at Aureal VS
Creative (Soundblaster), Aureal was not that big of a company, but
Creative managed to put Aureal out of business with lawsuits. In
both cases, as soon as the company folded, the surviving company
purchased what was left of the bankrupt company. This happened
just last summer (though the court battles lasted years). I see
the beggining of a trend, where you sue your competitors out of
business. The Government took care of frivolous civil lawsuits,
now it's time to do the same for corporate lawsuits.

Look at it like this, for arguments sake, let's say I was the first
person to invent a form of file compression and I patented it. I
made my patent so broad it included all file compression, not just
my algorithm. Now you invent a different kind of file compression
using a completely different compression format that you in no way
ripped off, but I can still sue you because my patent covers all
file compression, no matter how it's done. That hurts business,
and it hurts consumers.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if companies that invest in R&D can have their inventions copied, that ultimately hurts consumers too, since there will be reduced incentive to innovate if you can't profit from your inventions. I don't doubt that abuses occur, but based on what little I've seen about the Kodak situation, I'm not convinced they are being abusive, especially if it turns out that other companies have already agreed to license the patent. Sony surely has the resources to fight a patent they felt wasn't valid, does anyone know if they challenging the patent or licensing it?
dgrogers said:
dgrogers said:
perhaps, at least for large companies. It's a very costly and
time consuming process -- the Kodak patent took two years to be
approved.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people they bribed over those two years to get a
patent like that.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they bribed anybody?
dgrogers said:
Again, they still took existing technolgy and
just changed the application it's used for.
Click to expand...
in a way that apparently no one else had done before. Why shouldn't they benefit?
 
Kodak may indeed have some rights that belong to them as they have been in the photography business for years and have certainly been among the earliest to perform R&D in the digital photography arena.

However, are their claims as specific as might at first seem? Are some of these patents under scrutiny definitely presenting unique an non-obvious ideas?

Check out some interesting counter-points to their patent infringement lawsuit"
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983997719.html
 
Saw that "news" yesterday, and was immediately struck by the absence of any credentials for the quoted sources -- wouldn't that be like Phil quoting our remarks in this forum on his news page? Not exactly good journalism, IMO. Maybe they're patent attorneys with decades of experience, or maybe they're photo enthusiasts that hate Kodak.

BTW and just to set the record straight in case I've given an incorrect impression, I don't own Kodak stock, nor do I have any vested interest in seeing them succeed. If I have any bias at all, its due to the fact I've been in the intellectual property (software) business for a long time -- had my own IP copied and stolen. So I'd like to see the wheels of justice have their chance to turn.

Alan
Ulysses said:
Kodak may indeed have some rights that belong to them as they have
been in the photography business for years and have certainly been
among the earliest to perform R&D in the digital photography arena.

However, are their claims as specific as might at first seem? Are
some of these patents under scrutiny definitely presenting unique
an non-obvious ideas?
Click to expand...
I think you really meant to use past tense here: "... were they presenting non-obvious ideas at the time of their filing?", right?
Member said:
Check out some interesting counter-points to their patent
infringement lawsuit"
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/983997719.html
Click to expand...
 
Alan -

That post wasn't directed at you at all. I just meant it in the spirit of talk for the forum. I certainly want to see YOU compensated for your justified rights and hard work. After all, if you weren't, and you had to work too hard for your $$$, we'd see a lot less of you here! :))))

I do have a feeling that these patent laws are going to come under the scrutiny described there. When the patents are so incredibly broad, as they seem with Kodak's assertions, it makes me wonder a lot about their timing and desire to cash in. It would seem that a couple of the patents might have more legitimacy than the entire caboodle cited in the lawsuit. They should definitely be compensated for what is rightfully theirs. But they may have a very difficult time getting support for all of them.
Alan Hartmann said:
Saw that "news" yesterday, and was immediately struck by the
absence of any credentials for the quoted sources -- wouldn't that
be like Phil quoting our remarks in this forum on his news page?
Not exactly good journalism, IMO. Maybe they're patent attorneys
with decades of experience, or maybe they're photo enthusiasts that
hate Kodak.

BTW and just to set the record straight in case I've given an
incorrect impression, I don't own Kodak stock, nor do I have any
vested interest in seeing them succeed. If I have any bias at all,
its due to the fact I've been in the intellectual property
(software) business for a long time -- had my own IP copied and
stolen. So I'd like to see the wheels of justice have their chance
to turn.

Alan
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top