Evil Apple steals from Kodak

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Mar 27, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:22:53 -0500, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article
    ><>,
    >RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >
    >apparently you can't read.
    >
    > The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    > January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.


    Read the rest.
     
    John A., Mar 27, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:03:19 -0400, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:22:53 -0500, nospam <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article
    >><>,
    >>RichA <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >>
    >>apparently you can't read.
    >>
    >> The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >> January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >
    >Read the rest.


    So far there is nothing to contradict the chief judge's opinion.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 27, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    nospam, Mar 27, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:16:52 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:03:19 -0400, John A. <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:22:53 -0500, nospam <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article
    >>><>,
    >>>RichA <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp
    >>>
    >>>apparently you can't read.
    >>>
    >>> The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >>> January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >>
    >>Read the rest.

    >
    >So far there is nothing to contradict the chief judge's opinion.


    Well, if you leave out the part about the full panel taking up the
    matter, and their having previously ruled in favor of Kodak in a suit
    involving the very same patent, then yeah there's nothing there at
    all.
     
    John A., Mar 27, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John A.
    <> wrote:

    > >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    > >
    > >apparently you can't read.
    > >
    > > The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    > > January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >
    > Read the rest.


    perhaps you should. kodak thinks they can win by trying again. big
    deal. kodak didn't fare well in the transition to digital and thinks it
    do better by playing the patent game.
     
    nospam, Mar 27, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mike Stand Guest

    Mike Stand, Mar 27, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:39:29 -0500, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, John A.
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp
    >> >
    >> >apparently you can't read.
    >> >
    >> > The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >> > January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >>
    >> Read the rest.

    >
    >perhaps you should. kodak thinks they can win by trying again. big
    >deal. kodak didn't fare well in the transition to digital and thinks it
    >do better by playing the patent game.


    I did read the rest. As I said in my other reply, the full panel is
    now taking it up, and they have previously ruled in favor of Kodak in
    a similar suit over infringement of the same patent.
     
    John A., Mar 27, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    OG Guest

    OG, Mar 27, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/27/2011 2:48 PM, OG wrote:
    > On 27/03/2011 02:35, RichA wrote:
    >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >
    > Kodak are claiming 'fair compensation for the use of our technology'.
    >
    > A patent is not 'technology'.


    If you are going to attempt a technical correction:

    1. Use the correct tense in your correction;

    2. your correction should be meaningful.

    Kodak is not a plural

    A patent is an indicator of the owner of the technology.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Mar 27, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:50:48 -0400, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:16:52 +1300, Eric Stevens
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:03:19 -0400, John A. <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 23:22:53 -0500, nospam <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article
    >>>><>,
    >>>>RichA <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp
    >>>>
    >>>>apparently you can't read.
    >>>>
    >>>> The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >>>> January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.
    >>>
    >>>Read the rest.

    >>
    >>So far there is nothing to contradict the chief judge's opinion.

    >
    >Well, if you leave out the part about the full panel taking up the
    >matter, and their having previously ruled in favor of Kodak in a suit
    >involving the very same patent, then yeah there's nothing there at
    >all.


    You are jumping the gun. The full panel ruled in favour of Kodak
    against different parties (Samsung, L G) and no doubt on the basis of
    a different set of facts.

    Now the chief judge has ruled against Kodak and the full panel has
    announced that it is going to review his decision. Its any one's guess
    what the final conclusion will be and right now nobody knows. The
    panel hasn't yet reversed the judge which is why I wrote "So far there
    is nothing to contradict the chief judge's opinion."

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 28, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:39:29 -0500, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, John A.
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp
    >> >
    >> >apparently you can't read.
    >> >
    >> > The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >> > January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >>
    >> Read the rest.

    >
    >perhaps you should. kodak thinks they can win by trying again. big
    >deal. kodak didn't fare well in the transition to digital and thinks it
    >do better by playing the patent game.


    They may well be justified in playing the patent game.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 28, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:48:01 +0100, OG <>
    wrote:

    >On 27/03/2011 02:35, RichA wrote:
    >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >
    >Kodak are claiming 'fair compensation for the use of our technology'.
    >
    >A patent is not 'technology'.


    A patent describes technology.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 28, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 27, 11:39 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, John A.
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > >>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >
    > > >apparently you can't read.

    >
    > > >  The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    > > >  January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >
    > > Read the rest.

    >
    > perhaps you should. kodak thinks they can win by trying again. big
    > deal. kodak didn't fare well in the transition to digital and thinks it
    > do better by playing the patent game.


    They aren't buying patents like patent trolls, they are INVENTING
    things and protecting what they've invented.
     
    RichA, Mar 28, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:34:32 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Mar 27, 11:39 am, nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, John A.
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> > >>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382644,00.asp

    >>
    >> > >apparently you can't read.

    >>
    >> > >  The chief judge for the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in
    >> > >  January that neither Apple nor RIM infringed Kodak's 2001 patent.

    >>
    >> > Read the rest.

    >>
    >> perhaps you should. kodak thinks they can win by trying again. big
    >> deal. kodak didn't fare well in the transition to digital and thinks it
    >> do better by playing the patent game.

    >
    >They aren't buying patents like patent trolls, they are INVENTING
    >things and protecting what they've invented.


    That's 'cos they've got the money to defend their patents. Small
    inventors don't have sufficient money. They have the choice to either
    lie back and be robbed or sell out to someone to pick up the cudgels
    for them.

    What would you do if it was your personal invention and it was stolen
    by (say) Apple?

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 28, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > They aren't buying patents like patent trolls, they are INVENTING
    > things and protecting what they've invented.


    inventing what? that lawsuit is about previewing images (i.e., live
    view), and from a brief read of it, it's fairly obvious technique and
    nothing particular innovative. it also doesn't say anything about
    phones, so why go after apple and rim? why not go after nikon, canon,
    olympus, etc.? or even nokia? it's nothing more than a money grab,
    because kodak's digital cameras aren't all that successful.

    <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2358088,00.asp>

    Specifically, the suit alleges that both companies violate patent
    6,292,218, covering image previewing. Kodak has asked an International
    Trade Commission judge to bar the importation of infringing devices,
    including "certain mobile telephones and wireless communication
    devices featuring digital cameras" - including the iPhone and RIM's
    BlackBerry smartphone line.
     
    nospam, Mar 28, 2011
    #16
  17. PeterN <> wrote:

    > A patent is an indicator of the owner of the technology.


    A patent is a monopoly on a thought.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 28, 2011
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:48:01 +0100, OG <>


    >>A patent is not 'technology'.


    > A patent describes technology.


    Especially those patents that patent business practices or
    algorithms.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 28, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:06:13 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:48:01 +0100, OG <>

    >
    >>>A patent is not 'technology'.

    >
    >> A patent describes technology.

    >
    >Especially those patents that patent business practices or
    >algorithms.
    >

    Including "business practices or algorithms". Definitions of
    technology on the Web:

    the practical application of science to commerce or industry
    engineering: the discipline dealing with the art or science of
    applying scientific knowledge to practical problems;
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    Technology is the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, and
    crafts, or is systems or methods of organization, or is a material
    product (such as clothing) of these things. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology

    the study of or a collection of techniques; a particular
    technological concept; the body of tools and other implements
    produced by a given society
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technology

    technological - based in scientific and industrial progress; "a
    technological civilization"
    technological - technical: of or relating to a practical subject
    that is organized according to scientific principles; "technical
    college"; "technological development"
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

    .... etc

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 28, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:

    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    > > A patent is an indicator of the owner of the technology.

    >
    > A patent is a monopoly on a thought.
    >
    > -Wolfgang


    Which, in the U.S., is guaranteed by the Constitution, Article I,
    Section 8, Clause 8.
     
    shiva das, Mar 29, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rusty Wright

    apple music versus apple computer

    Rusty Wright, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    310
    Enough
    Sep 13, 2003
  2. Vintage Monk
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    175
    Vintage Monk
    Sep 26, 2007
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    355
    John Turco
    Apr 28, 2011
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    520
    Views:
    5,019
    Savageduck
    Sep 16, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    650
    Whisky-dave
    Aug 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page