Kodak wins a billion dollar lawsuit

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Mike Henley, Oct 3, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Mike Henley, Oct 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: (Mike Henley)
    You didn't understand what was written ... they won a lawsuit and in the second
    phase are *asking* for a billion dollars. Not very likely they'll get it ...
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. An article written by an anti-business former paralegal. No need to go
    further.
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    I did... I just copied a news article title... http://tinyurl.com/4oxdj

    I find it aboslutely crazy the way the legal system is set up in these matters.
    They didn't have to convince a judge or even a technical jury, but a regular
    household jury in Rochester where their plant is the biggest employer. I'm sure
    they'll get rid of them - the plant and the people - in a minute if the money
    says so, given their audacity in seeking a billion dollar in damages from Sun
    Microsystems that distributes java for free. That's literally *half* their
    (Sun's) profit during the dotcom boom from selling excellent hardware and
    services. What audacity!

    Apparently the technical forums, such as slashdot, are fuming over this case.
    It seems the general opinion is that the patents were hilariously invalid.

    The Rochester democrat and chronicle, which first broke the story, said that
    "What's at stake" is that "Kodak will be asking a federal jury to award more
    than $1 billion in damages in connection with a patent lawsuit. Analysts say
    the money could help provide a financial cushion as Kodak shifts from chemical
    to computerized imaging."

    I'm just stunned by the audacity. I really doubt I will buy a Kodak product
    from now given their behavior in this matter.
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    An article written by an anti-business former paralegal. No need to go
    Frivolous lawsuits are a valid business?
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike Henley

    bmoag Guest

    Biotech companies have been able to patent naturally occurring genes, not
    the process by which they isolated the gene, but the gene itself. Patent law
    says they own your genes.

    That is an insane concept.

    The patent system is indeed out of control because it allows a concept or
    idea to patented whereas logic would say that only the particular, tangible
    application of the idea should be patentable.

    The lawyers win again because they profit most from litigating this lunacy.
    Is it any accident that all judges are lawyers who have a vested interest in
    seeing that the scope of litigation and liability constantly expands?

    You cannot sue your way to excellence--A. Morita

    The law is what the judges say it is--Oliver Wendell Holmes

    A judge is just a personal injury lawyer in a black robe--me
     
    bmoag, Oct 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike Henley

    ChrisPlatt Guest

    Oh goody! Now they can afford to keep making film, even at a loss...

    Excelsior, you fatheads!
    -Chris-
     
    ChrisPlatt, Oct 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest


    I'm sure that story accurately represents the facts and not a one sided opinion
    from a writer who needs to fill his pages. /cynicism=off/

    One of the statements is a great misleader:
    "Software has not always been covered by patent law" which may be true, however
    when somebody DOES reduce an algorithm to a description and files and receives
    patent recognition, then all that is left to the court is to decide if it has
    been infringed or not... apparently this court said Sun did. Now figure out the
    value of that infringement.

    The real "suspicious" thing here is that the court was in Rochester... I'm sure
    a less partisan jury could be found elsewhere...

    Anyway, follow the link in the story above to the article.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
    -Richard Avedon
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ah well, http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1664878,00.asp is some consolation.

    --
    "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
    -Richard Avedon
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    It's a scandal, as far as I'm concerned, for Kodak.

    Kodak will be asking the same Rochester jury that ruled in its favor for the
    damages, and this jury, I'm sure many of whom can't even set the time on a VCR,
    let alone decide on a very technical case like this one, will most likely award
    Kodak, the biggest employer in their area and a company that's been threatening
    to tranfer jobs offshore, as much damages as possible.

    In fact, it totally and absolutely stinks. What's more is that Kodak did not
    "innovate"; they merely purchased those questionable patents from a small
    company and now are seeking to milk them in an audacious moneygrab, asking for
    literally *half* the profits of Sun Microsystems on all its products and
    services (Sun provides java for free). It's as if Sun, one of the most
    respected companies in its industry for its engineering-led technical
    supremacy, is indebted to Kodak, a mediocre business-driven company, for
    everything!

    How outrageous!

    I sure would not want to profit the management that does such things.

    There's a letter that someone wrote and posted, I think i will write a similar
    one and send it to them to let them know how totally disgusted I am by this.

    (his letter) "I am a software developer and amateur photography enthusiast, and
    I have recently learned about Kodak’s patent infringement suit against Sun
    Microsystems. It is a shame that companies with failing business models
    consistently try to earn money through litigation rather than production and
    innovation. I realize that the proliferation of digital photography has caused
    hardship for the Eastman Kodak Company, but the use of this vague and overbroad
    patent against the software industry is unconscionable. As a direct result of
    this litigation, I will never again purchase another Kodak product, and I will
    encourage my family and colleagues to do the same. Malicious litigation is not
    an acceptable substitute for honest business.

    Feel free to use/adapt my letter (in the parent post). Here's where to send
    your letter:

    Eastman Kodak Company
    Attn: Corporate Information
    343 State Street
    Rochester, New York 14650
    "
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 3, 2004
    #10
  11. She is certainly not anti-business. She is basically on IBMs side
    in the main lawsuit covered on this site. And I don't see how
    that could be constructed to be "anti-business".

    /ralph
     
    Ralph Aichinger, Oct 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Just shows that Kodak is turning from a manufacturing business
    into a litigation company. I hope Sun wins this one in the
    long run.

    /ralph
     
    Ralph Aichinger, Oct 3, 2004
    #12
  13. Well, the government owns your life, or at least, it is against the law for
    you to commit suicide, which is the same thing........
     
    William Graham, Oct 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    Yes. What is that "business"?

    Both SCO and Kodak recently purchased questionable "intellectual property"
    claims to things they did not make and tried to extract exhorbitant amounts of
    money out of IBM and Sun Microsystems.

    What is that business? Frivolous litigation?

    I'm supposed to believe that Kodak is entitled to half the profits of Sun
    Microsystems? or that SCO, a nobody from Utah with practically no technical
    staff, can charge $700 for every processor that runs linux as if they made
    linux?

    When is some punk going to move into my place, kick me out, expect me pay him
    half my income and then sue my neighbours for God-knows-what in such a
    non-"anti-business" system?
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest


    C'mon, tell us how you feel...



    --
    "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
    -Richard Avedon
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Regardless of who invented something, it is who "owns" the rights that matters.
    And ownership of rights may be transfered as much as a bottle of milk.
    One fo the earliest things that happens is determination of the frivolity of a
    case as well as ascertaining that the claimant has the liquidity to compensate
    against a suit that is later deemed without basis.
    As Kodak appear to believe that their contribution (as it were) is worth "x"
    that is what they are seeking ... the courts/juries can of course adjust it
    all... even upward (unlikely). SCO: no comment, that dog really appears to be
    hunting in the wrong field.
    tsk-tsk. This is about IP rights... rights which Kodak apparently (per the
    court) acquired in some manner ... when are you going give up your rights to
    property you acquired? If somebody sets up a camper on property you bought 10
    years ago but haven't yet developed, are you gonna let them stay there? Are you
    going to ask the court for rent along with an order to boot them off the site? Yep.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
    -Richard Avedon
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 4, 2004
    #16
  17. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    Well something is definitely wrong with IP rights and the court system if it
    gives legitimacy to this nonsense by Kodak and SCO.

    "Sun claims in court papers that Java does not infringe on Kodak's patents. It
    also argues that the patents themselves are invalid.

    Copyright 2004 Associated Press."
     
    Sabineellen, Oct 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Mike Henley

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    This is just a law so they can punish the failures who cause people to
    have to support them medically. :) I don't recall any prosecutions of
    successful suicides.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Oct 4, 2004
    #18
  19. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Don't bind your Kodak and SCO arguments together. They are totally different
    lawsuits brought for totally different reasons and the SCO case keeps crashing
    itself ... the Kodak case, as can be seen, had moved on to compensation.

    Having worked for companies that do patent their inventions, including those in
    software, at great expense and applying novelty approaches, I can tell you that
    the intent is to protect that IP. In one case we used (with their encouragement
    and permission) the IP of another company in a first generation product. That
    firmware product ended up being sold at large including to the other companies
    competitors. No problem. However, when they also cooperated with us in a
    second generation of the product line, they then insisted on royalties for that
    part of the software whenever it was sold to a third party. No problem. As
    long as it is in writing and the terms agreed ... no problem.
    What defendant won't claim that ... they plan to appeal even as the case goes to
    the compensation phase. (Michael Jackson claims he's innocent, as does Martha
    Stewart [who goes into the slammer tomorrow even as the appeal process is going on])
    Good thing you put that, you wouldn't want to be targetted!

    Cheers,
    Alan




    --
    "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph.
    All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth."
    -Richard Avedon
    -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
    -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 4, 2004
    #19
  20. All true, but the point is still well taken. The state feels that it owns
    it's citizens, and has the right to dictate their individual welfare. The
    government can, at its discretion, prohibit you from doing things that may
    potentially harm yourself. For example, a friend of mine walked the cable of
    the Golden Gate bridge one night. Someone spotted him, and when he came
    down, the police were waiting for him, and they arrested him for, "self
    endangerment"......
     
    William Graham, Oct 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.