Kodak wins a billion dollar lawsuit

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

  1. Scene that happens to me every once in a while: (perhaps once a month) I
    overheat my coffee in the microwave. It is boiling when it comes out. I
    carry it over to the table (10 feet) in a ceramic cup, by the handle, and
    set it on the table. I sit down, and start to eat my breakfast. After a few
    minutes, I take the coffee and bring it to my lips. I sense that it is still
    too hot, so I blow on it for a few seconds, and then I take a sip or two out
    of it. I do not put it between my legs. I do not gulp it down without
    testing it first. If I burn myself with it, I do not sue the coffee machine
    maker. I do not sue the microwave oven maker. I do not sue Juan Valdez, or
    the importer of the beans, or the bean grinder manufacturer. I chalk it up
    to experience, as any normal, intelligent, sensible person would do. I do
    not expect the rest of the world to alter their lifestyle to accommodate me,
    or my own stupidity.
     
    William Graham, Oct 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. And someday those, "legal precedents" will create a padded cell for you and
    yours to step into. I will be gone by then, which is too bad, because I
    would be honored to usher you and/or your children into your
    cells..........I am sure that you will live a very long life......Boring as
    hell, but nice and long......
     
    William Graham, Oct 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. I forgot to say that I do not sue Juan Valdez' burro either.......
     
    William Graham, Oct 10, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    I spent many years doing due diligence in order to file suit on behalf of a
    collection agency I was working for at the time. Now what about *your* due
    diligence in checking the temp of the liquid before you swill it down. Not
    to many messages ago you were all for 120 degree coffee now your telling me
    that it too will burn you. Tell me Brian, just what do you want, a coffee
    taste tester to check the temp of the coffee so you don't have to?
     
    Mike, Oct 10, 2004
  5. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Up until your last stanza there, I would agree. However, at the root of it all
    is the notion that since my labours and ingenuity (or plain luck) developed the
    idea to the point where it was useful, and I deserve the full available fruits
    of that labour. I can sit on it. I can make it and sell it. I can licence it.
    I can sell the rights. I can believe that nobody else is likely to come up
    with the recipe nor discover it through samples on the market and keep the
    secret and not patent it at all.

    Patents are not there to enrich the public. They are there to protect the
    rights of the patent holder. That the public enjoy innovations can take place,
    patent or no.

    Further, and what really counts here, is that if you violate a patent right,
    then not only did you fail to agree with the patent holder on a licence or other
    compensation to the holder but you have trespassed on his rights. You have
    effectively committed a theft. And in that case when they come after you, you
    will face an angry jury that will likely compensate you even more.

    To avoid a higher potential penalty, a drawn out trial, embarassment,
    shareholder uncertainty Sun has readilly agreed to 92M in compensation. You can
    take that as risk management (which is really what it comes down to), or a gross
    buyoff of Kodak to stop the suit.

    In the end the main purpose of the patent is to protect the holder. Whenever
    the companies I've worked for applied for patents it was the companies
    (shareholders [another public] interests) that are being protected.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 10, 2004
  6. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Pete McCutchen wrote:

    No big deal. I find it interesting that she's elected to do the time as an
    insurance policy of getting it behind her so she can get on with her life. The
    timing is strange, a more tactical approach would have been to wait until the
    appeal was 'running' (it's not even filed yet) and then she would have had a
    better chance of getting a prison closer to home, and days outside while in
    court and if the sentence is overturned, then the time reamining will be let go,
    of course... as it is, she is likely to spend the next 10 months under her sentence.

    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/MS-LIV.jpg

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 10, 2004
  7. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    er, "punish" you even more...!`
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 10, 2004
  8. Mike Henley

    RSD99 Guest

    HeHeHeHeHe ...

    [ ... S-CNR ...]


    boots. -

    *****
     
    RSD99, Oct 10, 2004
  9. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Well, if there was any actual IP involved then I might agree... Except that
    there isn't. Theres just lots of handwaving any highschooler can come up with
    on five miuntes notice.
     
    Sander Vesik, Oct 11, 2004
  10. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest


    Pity Sun didn't call you as a technical witness.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 11, 2004
  11. The patent "deal" is protection for disclosure. If properly executed,
    it enriches *both* the public and the inventors. Inventors win by
    being able to enjoy exclusively the fruits of their creativity -- for
    a period of time. Inventors *also* win by being able to build on the
    work of others -- after the patents expire (or, of course, by
    negotiating a license). And, out of all this, the public gets
    innovative products.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 11, 2004
  12. Mike Henley

    Leonard Guest

    It is not in Sun's interest to have these patents invalidated. To
    do so may set a precedent which would threaten much of Sun's own
    patent portfolio. Furthermore, the patents in question may well
    threaten Sun's rivals, in particular those based on open source.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Oct 11, 2004
  13. If you spent many years making sure you had your legal ducks in a row
    than you should certainly understand how minimizing the potential for
    injury by a product applies directly to this case.

    But you're blinded by idealism. Good for you.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Oct 13, 2004
  14. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    Let me put it this way Brian so that you will understand exactly what my
    position is.
    I never did say that MacDonald's was totally blameless, understand?
    My entire point, one you and many other cradle to gravers missed, is that
    the general public must take *some responsibility* for their own safety and
    well being.
    *Ok? Clear?*
    Now how about answering the question I have asked repeatedly. What is a
    *safe* temperature for coffee being sold to the general public; 90 degrees?
    or how about 110 or maybe 120, 150?
    Come on don't be afraid to stick your neck out Brian, take a little risk.
     
    Mike, Oct 13, 2004
    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.