backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by Motoman.. on Feb 17 at 9:47 AM


  (Source: computernewsme.com)
Apple asked a bankruptcy judge if it could file a patent infringement lawsuit against Kodak yesterday

As if repeatedly attacking Samsung, HTC and Motorola Mobility with patent infringement lawsuits wasn't enough, Apple is now looking to kick Kodak while it's down with digital camera, printer and digital picture frame-related infringement suits as well.

Apple's Valentine's Day present to Kodak was a filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York yesterday, where Apple said it is filing patent infringement claims against Kodak with the International Trade Commission (ITC) as well as the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Apple asked a bankruptcy judge for permission to sue Kodak first, despite the fact that filing for bankruptcy doesn't protect Kodak from infringement suits.

Apple had claimed before that it created a digital camera in the 1990's along with Kodak, but Kodak supposedly moved ahead with patenting the camera on its own. Apple had filed the case with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, where the ITC rejected Apple's claims. Yesterday, Apple said in the filing that it wanted to move the case to Manhattan.

On January 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak announced that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The 131-year-old film giant filed in the federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York after mentioning in November 2011 that it would be unable to pay its bills at some point in 2012 unless it stumbled upon some quick cash.

Just last week, Kodak announced that it was also bailing on the digital camera market as well as photo frames and pocket video recorders.

Kodak sent a patent infringement lawsuit back Apple's way last month, which also targeted Motorola Mobility. However, Apple argued that the ITC shouldn't even bother with the claims because of Kodak's bankruptcy filing and the sale of its patents. Kodak responded, saying that bankruptcy isn't stopping Kodak from expanding its digital imaging technology.

"Apple should not be using the bankruptcy to seek to disrupt Kodak's enforcement of its patents given that infringers like Apple, who continue to violate Kodak's intellectual property rights and refuse to properly compensate it, have contributed to Kodak's current circumstances," said Kodak.

Apple has been on a lawsuit crusade over the past year, mainly targeting Samsung. In April 2011, Apple began attacking Samsung with several patent infringement lawsuits in regards to the South Korean electronics maker's Galaxy S 4G, Epic 4G, Nexus smartphones and the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple claimed that these products imitate the iPhone and iPad.

Apple even successfully banned the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia and Germany, but Samsung finally lifted the ban in Australia in December 2011. Samsung is still having troubles in Germany, however.

Sources: ZDNet, Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not the whole story
By TakinYourPoints on 2/17/2012 2:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only useless people spend their time worrying about benchmark scores.


I play games, I need performance. Price:performance is better with Intel, has been since the Core 2 dropped. AMD had it locked up from 1998-2005, but that time seems to be over.

Anyway, I still have to laugh at the guy selling his customers second rate products because of his moral high horse.

Almost anyone here values performance, it is just the fanboys who disregard it irrationally, ie - Intel's speed doesn't matter, who cares that the A5 is the fastest mobile SoC around, etc etc etc. You epitomize the rabid fanboy. I'm not used to seeing your type outside of kiddy console forums.

"Performance doesn't matter except in benchmarks", man, talk about reality distortion...


RE: Not the whole story
By Motoman on 2/17/2012 9:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Performance doesn't matter except in benchmarks", man, talk about reality distortion...


It doesn't.

If I'm getting 80 FPS in a game with CPU #1, and I can get 100FPS with CPU #2...the subjective difference to the user is...nothing.

And BTW, I'm not sure how you think retail works in this universe...maybe it works differently in your universe where vendors just jump out of the bushes, force you to buy something you didn't want, and then take your money by force.

Here's basically how it works in the actual world:

Customer: Hey, I want a new PC.
Me: OK, let me give you a couple quotes for a couple different options. Here you go (2 options with AMD CPUs in each).
Customer: I'll take option #2. Thanks!

Number of times anyone's ever said "no, I want an Intel CPU instead of AMD" over the past ~10 years: 0.

Number of times anyone's opted to buy a PC from someone else because they didn't want an AMD CPU: 0.

Number of times they've gone and bought something else because of price: A handful. "No, I'm not going to 'price match' the $300 Dell special at Wal-Mart."

Virtually everyone who is my customer becomes a repeat buyer. Including the gamers...who are over the moon with the gaming experience they get from their AMD-based gaming rigs.

The only person who's intent on sucking Intel's cock right now is you. Real people in the real world really don't care.


RE: Not the whole story
By Motoman on 2/17/2012 9:47:41 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and as for your continued insistence that I must be buying AMD instead of Intel so that I can feel "morally superior" - which is a phrase and sentiment you manufactured yourself, and keep repeating...

As noted Intel is a convicted criminal organization. Period. Matter of public record.

You also keep insisting that AMD is "inferior" to Intel. The truth is that at any given price point, it's about the same. And it categorically makes no subjective difference to the user...there is nothing inherently "inferior" about a PC with an AMD CPU vs. an Intel CPU.

I choose not to support them because of that. You assert that no one should ever choose not to do business with someone because they are a convicted criminal.

Let's say that you have 2 options to buy a new car. Dealership #1 sells cars you'd like to own, but that company was recently found to be selling crack to elementary school kids as extra income. Dealership #2 also has some cars that would appeal to you...and they happen to have no criminal record at all.

You insist that the selling crack to kids bit is irrelevant...that it should never be considered in your purchase decision. If that's your position, and it seems that it is, then you are an inferior human being and your opinion is invalid. Well...but that is something we already knew.

Note that back in the day, when Via/Cyrix was still around, I wasn't generally offering anyone a machine built with a C3 processor...since it was a noticeably slower part at any price point. That isn't true with AMD. Hasn't been since before the K6-2.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki