Print 18 comment(s) - last by lexluthermiest.. on Jul 8 at 1:24 AM

Bankruptcy court ignores Apple's claims

Back in February, Apple petitioned the bankruptcy court overseeing Kodak's proceedings to allow it to file a patent infringement suit against Kodak. Apple wanted to block Kodak's intention to auction off some of its massive patent archive. Apple's argument was that it owned as many as 10 of the patents Kodak was trying to sell.
Apple claims that in the 90s, it and Kodak had worked together on a digital camera and Kodak filed for related patents alone. Apple had intended to file infringement claim with the ITC originally, but the ITC rejected the claims. Apple has now been denied by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in its attempt to file a patent suit in US courts against Kodak.
The court approved Kodak's request to kick off an auction for 1,100 patents despite the objections made by Apple. The courts are allowing buyers to submit bids on a confidential basis for the auction expected to be held early next month according to Kodak. Kodak has maintained that Apple's claims are baseless as are similar claims made by a company called FlashPoint.
"Today's ruling provides a court-approved process allowing buyers to acquire the patents free and clear of all ownership allegations, regardless of the status of the dispute with Apple and FlashPoint at the time of closing," said Timothy Lynch, Kodak Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer. 
The company wants to auction off two patent bundles with one of the bundles containing 700 patents that cover image capture, processing, and transmission technologies used in digital cameras and other devices such as smartphones. The other patent portfolio has about 400 patents that cover tools for image analysis, manipulation, tagging, and network based services.

Kodak filed for bankruptcy in January of this year after being unable to compete against newer companies in the digital marketplace today. Kodak sprung to life in 1892 and was huge in the film and photography business before the advent of digital cameras.

Source: Google

Comments     Threshold

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

Sad day
By FITCamaro on 7/3/2012 10:20:09 AM , Rating: 5
Such an iconic company that was THE name in cameras and film for over 100 years. Sad that they couldn't adapt with the times. But that's life. GM and Chrysler should have gone the same way as Kodak is.

As far as Apple, typical of such a soulless company to be trying to sue another company that is already going broke.

RE: Sad day
By Brandon Hill on 7/3/2012 10:56:23 AM , Rating: 5
Who knew Apple was into necrophilia?

RE: Sad day
By EasyC on 7/3/2012 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 5
I bet Steve knows ;)

RE: Sad day
By stirfry213 on 7/3/2012 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Thank you for that laugh, I needed it!

RE: Sad day
By anactoraaron on 7/3/2012 1:54:52 PM , Rating: 5
Quote Steve Jobs:

"My sex life is still pretty good."

RE: Sad day
By lexluthermiester on 7/8/2012 1:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
Brandon, that was freaken hilarious! Disturbing and wildly funny at the same time. And, ironically, so true... What the heck is this world coming too?

RE: Sad day
By daveinternets on 7/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sad day
By Tupoun on 7/3/2012 1:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
China? Communists ... there? Early 19th century capitalism, my friend.

RE: Sad day
By lexluthermiester on 7/8/2012 1:08:41 AM , Rating: 1
Your statement makes you look like a teenager-ish Apple fan spouting mindless drivel.

Apple has already been proven to be belligerent scoff-laws. There is a difference between "free enterprise" and Apple's business model...

Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around, eh Microsoft?

RE: Sad day
By xti on 7/3/2012 1:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
All is fair in love and war.

RE: Sad day
By lexluthermiester on 7/7/2012 11:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Just one problem with that thought; this is neither love nor war. It's business. And instead of being unethical retards, Apple could have simply filed a claim with that court to assert a priority on the sale of the patents in question. They could have made the argument that because they help developed said patents, they should have first right of refusal for those patents. Not only would that have gone over better with the courts, but it would be ethical and fair, if they could prove their claim.

But then, we all know that Apple has poor ethics and lacks the ability to be reasonable with anyone. But I digress....

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki