Apparently Eastman Kodak's bankruptcy filing this week wasn't a surprise to anyone: just hours after Kodak filed in New York, Apple sought authority from the court "to enter into a $950 million postpetition financing facility secured by security interests in and liens upon substantially all of Kodak's assets." In essence, Apple is claiming to have ownership over key Kodak patent assets, including US Patent No. 6,292,218. According to Apple, this patent has been pivotal in driving Kodak's recent patent licensing strategy, providing over $3 billion in associated revenue. The '218 patent has been asserted by Kodak against Sony, JVC, Samsung, LG, RIM, Fujifilm, and even Apple — the patent claims priority back to 1994 and covers a color digital still camera having a display for viewing captured images.
Apple argues in its court filing that it worked with Kodak back in the early 1990s on the commercialization of digital camera technology, only to learn in 2010 that Kodak had "misappropriated Apple's technology and sought patents of its own claiming this technology." While it's impossible based on the limited information in this court filing to accurately examine the discrete contributions Apple and Kodak made to this technology area, it is interesting to note that both companies actively hit the market with consumer-level cameras having LCD viewers in the mid-1990s — Apple with its QuickTake line and Kodak with its DC series of cameras.
The ramifications of Apple's claims here could be real. If Apple is successful in establishing ownership over any of the patents Kodak has asserted against Apple and others, or licensed under agreements with other competitors, Kodak's last-ditch effort to gain value from its patent portfolio going into a bankruptcy restructuring plan could be severely hindered. Although a judge has already "approved initial availability of $650 million" in financing for Kodak, we imagine that there will be more to hear at the first court date for bankruptcy hearings on February 15th. We'll keep you updated as more details come in.

There are 151 Comments. Add yours.
Damn. If this is true, and the ruling goes in Apple’s favor, they could have just hit another motherload of lawsuits.
Get ready Samsung.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:51 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
You mean ‘get ready world’.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:52 AM EST reply Recommend (21) Flag actions
They only need the ruling, doesn’t matter if it’s true. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility considering how closely Apple and Kodak worked back in the early 90s.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:53 AM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Apple = 40% patent company, 40% marketing company, 20% innovation company.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:58 AM EST reply Recommend (29) Flag actions
Except that it is not. And since when is protecting your company’s assets a bad thing? Thanks to Google’s supposed “free OS”, all companies are now just to give away all rights to anything they had, otherwise the vocal minority goes on the warpath.
I’m thinking that the vocal minority has no real idea as to how large companies operate.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:01 PM EST reply Recommend (27) Flag actions
pfft what are you talking about? They’re on the interwebs, they know EVERYTHING.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:02 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
40% marketing company? and what are they marketing?.. PRODUCTS = innovation.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:02 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
How is convincing people to buy toys innovation?
Well, I mean it’s marketing/propaganda innovation, but not technological or conceptual innovation.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:18 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
So they could’ve applied their marketing to basically any old pieces of crap and still sold just as many? Surprised no one else seems to be adopting this strategy.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:35 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
It’s not that they could have, it’s that they do. And other companies have tried this, but most other companies don’t have the marketing skills of Apple. That’s by far Apple’s strongest asset.
And none of that makes it “innovation” anyway. Being a successful salesman doesn’t make you technologically or conceptually innovative.
I think it’s cute how Apple fans throw the word “innovation” around like it’s nothing when related to Apple but then scrutinize it when any other company does something genuinely inventive or revolutionary.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:40 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
And I like how Ant Apple people, such as yourself, call whatever they make “toys”, as if somehow the device you chose to use, because it has widgets and can be rooted, somehow makes it much superior.
News flash – it doesn’t. If the iphone is a toy, so is your Galaxy S II. Thing is, neither of them are toys. they are both fairly complex pieces of technology. But, if it makes you feel better to think of the “competitor” (read Apple) as a toy, then go ahead.
Just know that it makes you look like a major tool.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:16 PM EST reply Recommend (14) Flag actions
Cool dude, I was more referring the iPad, but okay. But my Galaxy S still whoops my many friends’ iPhone 4ses in functionality and convenience, so whatever.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Of course it does. Otherwise, your entire world crumbles.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:35 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
No, not really. I’m switching to WP7 because I’m fed up with Android and Google. Doesn’t change my previous statement though.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:37 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Neither does it make your statement true.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:06 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
What?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
To translate Ryan’s reply:
“You don’t like what I like, so you’re wrong. Nyah nyah nyah.” :)
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 1:53 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
You’re seriously going to say the iPad wasn’t revolutionary, and keep a straight face? I hope you never hope to be taken seriously on here if that’s really your stance…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 4:56 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Funny (ha, get it?) because I have a hard time taking someone who says that the iPad was undoubtedly revolutionary seriously. Just because the majority of people on this site are partial to Apple doesn’t mean I can’t express my views no matter how much they contradict your fairy-tale. Funny how the world is so subjective…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
So you don’t think that the sudden tidal wave of other players launching tablets subsequently or MSFT completely rethinking how they approach the tablet market in any way demonstrates that the iPad was revolutionary?
I strongly suggest you go back and read the early press on the iPad, it was almost universally negative – because reviewers expected something completely different from a tablet. Consumers however loved it, and now the iPad defines what people expect from a tablet. That’s pretty much the definition of a product revolution right there.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:08 PM EST reply Recommend (8) Flag actions
MSFT is doing exactly what they’ve always been doing with tablets since they introduced the first Windows tablets over ten years ago. The only difference the iPad made (if any) is that MS started focusing more on the touch UI but I think they were already heading there for a long time before that (especially since W8 is just integrating the Metro UI which has been happening with all of their products slowly but surely for quite some time now).
The iPad and Android tablets are a transitive phase in my opinion. Windows 8 is actually the most forward-looking, But I do think that ICS is almost as capable an OS as a full OS (unlike iOS) so maybe Android will be the third major OS once MS and Apple are on the same level of integration between PC’s and tablets in the future.
I remember the press that the iPad got when it came out and I feel exactly the same way now that I did then. And honestly so do most people I know (including people who own iPads): it’s an expensive, glorified toy. Yes, it has found some practical application through 3rd party apps, but Windows 8 marks a serious departure from this brief fad and I think it probably is more or less the future.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:19 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before MS got around to it. Given another 50-100 years they probably would have come up with something usable and with more than 2.5 hours battery life…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Wow, you’re insightful and intelligent
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 7:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
and you are too
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 9:47 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I thought batteries were manufactured by manufacturer and not M$…
Seems I was wrong…or was I !!
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 12:58 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You realize that enterprise purchases of iPads are orders of magnitude greater than enterprise purchases of windows 7 tablets right?
I guess those enterprises just wanted glorified toys eh?
It’s people exactly like you that have left MSFT so many years behind the curve.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 4:20 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What? Behind the curve of what? Marketshare? Sorry, unlike Apple MS actually does R&D to develop things in the long run without the sole purpose of profit for shareholders.
MS is years, if not decades, ahead of Apple in terms of inventiveness and innovation. Don’t piss your fanboy pants though just because I said the truth.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:34 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You sir, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Just stop and save yourself the embarrassment.
How anyone who has lived the last 15 years can say Apple doesn’t innovate is just beyond me. As if the iPod, saving the music industry, showing companies how laptops should be build, leading in AIO design, designing the modern smartphone and destroying the old market, creating the only successful tablet market, and now reinventing textbooks is not enough.
You must be new to reading on tech. I suggest you do a bit of reading. MS has only recently got their act together, they got good things going but they were stagnant from XP to 7.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 5:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The stupidity of this comment hurts my soul
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 6:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And that comment is a testament to yours. You don’t have anything to say. Thanks.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 6:53 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Let’s just say I’ve said more than enough in this thread and leave it that.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah, aside from that infinitesimally small matter… ;)
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It has nothing to do with being partial to Apple, it has to do with looking at the reality of the tablet market objectively and realizing that prior to the iPad, it didn’t really exist. Did the iPad introduce any new amazing never before seen technology? No. But innovation and revolutionary changes don’t always require something to be wholly new and never seen before. Both the iPad and original iPhone were absolutely revolutionary and innovative, and the competition has been chasing them ever since they were introduced.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 8:41 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Exactly. While others were trying to shoehorn a desktop OS and resistive touchscreens into a tablet with fans and every single port you can imagine, Apple chose to strip everything out and make a touch friendly OS. Now suddenly everyone is doing it and suddenly everyone forgot about the tablets before the iPad and say ‘it was a matter of time’.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 9:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except Windows 8 is doing exactly the opposite…
It’s only Android that’s more or less following the iPad, and Android is basically a full OS (just lighter), so not even sure that applies there.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:02 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android is as full an OS as iOS is. I’m not even sure what constitutes a ‘full’ OS. It’s not like iOS is half finished…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:46 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I guess I was referring to mobile vs. desktop OS. iOS, like WP7, is really a mobile OS. W8 is a desktop OS made for tablets. I would say Android is kind of in between, but as someone with an Android phone (not a fanboy of Android at all) I feel like it’s closer to a desktop OS than iOS or WP7.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 1:37 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Android is not even close to a Desktop OS. By design it’s still a task based OS; as opposed to a file based system like Windows or OSX. iOS and Android, at the core, approach things in a very similar way. The filesystem is very much hidden behind a task based UI. Which is, honestly, how it should be on a mobile device, in my opinion. WinMo 6 was a mobile OS that was borrowing desktop OS ideas, and in comparison to iOS and Android, it was terrible. I wouldn’t ever want a desktop or laptop computer that ran on either Android or iOS, but maybe I just have high expectations of what my computer should do (as opposed to my mobile devices). Android has it’s strenghts, but I don’t really think it’s any more a “full fledged” OS than iOS is, and I don’t see any indication that it’s moving in that direction..
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 12:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Also, this came out well before the iPad (as did other similar devices for a long time) and while it’s a piece of junk, it is the exact same idea. http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/75/30/f11ca69df215ad41adaef268fc60e16c.jpg
The only difference is the commercial success of the iPad
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Shit, wrong link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjuiBe9KqGE
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re seriously going to sit there and argue that using that archos tablet is as good an experience for a layman as ipad is? And yes, quality of experience for non techies is an important part of Apple’s innovation that others are having a hard time copying. Have you read what Matias says about people loving their iPhones? Have you read any independent report that gives a lower customer satisfaction rating to iOS than Android/WP7? Why am I feeding the troll?
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 9:45 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t know are you feeding yourself? You completely missed the point of my post (like all of the other idiots I’m wasting my time arguing with for god-knows-what-reason). I explicitly said it was a shitty tablet, but it doesn’t change the fact that the concept is EXACTLY the same as the iPad, thereby dismissing the notion of Apple taking some unknown, “revolutionary” route.
And yes, I have… http://www.customerthink.com/blog/2011_customers_view_of_smart_phones
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:42 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
uMAD?
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
revolutionary • involving or causing a complete or dramatic change: a revolutionary new drug.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Subjective, no?
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Obviously, that’s basically the point of my entire argument. Subjectivity is inherent, especially when dealing with something as qualitative as user experience. There’s no objectively “better” anything, especially in this moronic argument.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It can easily and objectively be said that the iPad revolutionized the tablet market.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 9:52 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
cool story, bro.
Posted on Jan 23, 2012 | 9:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What’s really cute is how “I don’t understand Apple’s success, and why other companies can’t seem to do anything until Apple does it first” equals “marketing”. Perhaps all the other companies are reduced to licking Apple’s crumbs off the floor because they are run by people as shortsighted as yourself.
Also, note that “open-sourcing something for the neckbeards to amuse themselves with” != “innovation”.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:23 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Hahahahahahahahaha, what?
I’m shortsighted because I don’t praise every Apple product as “innovative” when the same exact things had been done for years. Or better things that were subsequently dumbed-down by Apple.
For the record, other companies do far more inventive and capable things before Apple does them, while Apple is doing them, and after Apple has done them. The only thing Apple does differently (not always, but sometimes with its successes like the iPad) is sell them really well.
Let’s be clear, sales figures do not equal ingenuity or brilliance.
And who the fuck are neckbeards? if you’re referring to Android, I do like Android though it’s far from my favorite mobile OS, but allowing many different creative minds to collaborate on improving something does often lead to innovations, especially in UI or implementation. And a lot of these have been adopted by Google in official Android releases, and a lot of them have later been copied by other companies, including Apple.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:35 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah, because there’s no middle grown between praising every Apple product and bashing every Apple product. That would be too… Rational.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:01 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Did I say there wasn’t a middle ground? So just because I don’t praise Apple means I’m horribly biased against them?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Way to completely ignore the arguments people were making against your claims. That is not what they said at all.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:58 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
What arguments?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 7:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i’ll list them out for you.
1. Marketing is not Apple’s biggest asset.
2. iPad is not a toy.
Marketing may create customers but it can’t MAKE customers stay. Apple is constantly adding customers and RANKING 1 in customer satisfaction.
iPad may be a toy but it’s got a lot going for it. It’s got Xcode. A strong developer ecosystem. While it may not replace your laptop in this generation, it may in the future. Hey, when the Wii came out, i thought it would revolutionize gaming. But unlike Nintendo, Apple has a history of constantly iterating their products.
So I think you’re worn about Apple’s prospects. Motorcycles have their uses.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:34 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
I am well aware of Apple’s prospects, I don’t have to agree that they’re going to be successful.
Also, I can’t express who strongly I disagree with your first point. Marketing can completely distort the views people have of their own products that they own. I know so many people whose Macs literally just broke (HDD’s just stopped working and they lost everything), and they didn’t so much as blame or criticize Apple or the product, but just vowed to get a new MacBook. I know people who have had this happen with internal components, screens (breaking), keys falling out, plastic cracking, iPhones shattering over and over again, poor performing machines, etc. They have this mindset of love and devotion toward the product, which is great for them I suppose (…) but they act like any issue is their fault or just inevitable fate. I know many people with Android phones or Windows computers, and some of them are level-headed but some of them profess hate towards the machines when tiny things go wrong or because all of their friends “have iPhones.”
My point is that marketing, mass mindset, and really just mindshare in general can have huge impacts on people’s subjective experiences. This is something Apple has been incredibly successful at in recent years. Does it mean their products genuinely offer better experiences or are better products? No. It’s marketing (at least in a broad sense of the word).
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 12:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The hard drive failing would hardly be a reason to blame any computer manufacturer, since few of them actually make hard drives. Macs do have one of the easiest to use and implement backup features though :)
Again, customer satisfaction (and reviews) say otherwise. It seems that they do offer better experiences for the majority of people that own them.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:41 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
(I do realize it’s technically possible for the design of the computer to be at fault in causing hard drive failures (very poor cooling or unusually high exposure to shock, etc)- but generally speaking…
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Whoops, accidentally recommended your comment. Not intentional. That might be true, but choice of parts and overall design probably had some significant impacts. This happened to two people I know within a few days of each other and one of them is a CS major who works at Google (not an Android fanboy).
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If you had any interest or respect for technology and the people involved in the industry you wouldn’t be spewing out the crap you’ve been saying here. YOU are the definition of a fanboy.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What? When did I ever disrespect technology or anybody in the industry? What crap have I been spewing out? A completely legitimate opinion that many people hold? At the very worst, I could agree that I’ve been disrespecting one technology company and its philosophy, but that’s also a company that has a record of disrespecting countless others.
And, although you don’t know me and probably know little of me aside from my posts in this thread (or maybe some other threads if you really went out of your way), but if I’m a fanboy of anything, it’s MS (and that’s mostly because I enjoy their products and constantly feel like I need to defend them from morons who subscribe to Apple’s propaganda). But I also love Android and Linux, as well as countless hardware, software, and other companies/people involved in the industry.
I use Apple products at school and work very regularly, and I’m quite familiar with them. I first learned to video edit on Macs (I am a video editor and filmmaker by part-time profession—still in college). I don’t particularly like using them, but I can use them and will if I need to. You can call me a fanboy if you want, but if anything I’m a fanboy of all tech, industry and research.
I guess one way I define a fanboy, aside from irrational support for a specific company or product or person or whatever, is someone who solely uses and trusts the products of a single company for a wide variety of things, and never even bothers trying others (or at least giving them a fair shot). I think people who are strong supporters of Apple are often the best examples both because Apple now offers different devices or accessories for most things related to computers (peripherals included), and their cult-like culture. I know many people who have solely Apple products, with no knowledge of anything else but a fierce devotion to their own products. I don’t know, I guess people like that are what I consider to be fanboys. Blind deification of a corporation.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 12:28 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s a weird little world that you live in, to enable your definition of “fanboy”.
“I guess one way I define a fanboy, aside from irrational support for a specific company or product or person or whatever, is someone who solely uses and trusts the products of a single company for a wide variety of things, and never even bothers trying others (or at least giving them a fair shot).”
If someone uses “products” for a wide variety of things, is that not a success. Perhaps not yours, but theirs?
What is “giving them a fair shot”? Do you mean demoing them side-by-side at Best Buy? Or is it necessary for someone to buy technology that works for them and buy technology that doesn’t work for them (in any order) to enter this topic with you? Is a VW owner that buys another VW a fanboy when that purchase succeeds in taking them to a wide variety of places?
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:35 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
No. It is not. It’s brand loyalty for whatever reason (can include good experience but can also be a shit ton of other stuff). Brand loyalty is like the seeds of fanboyism.
I personally wouldn’t assume someone who owns only a VW car and buys another (though I hate the example of VW, why is it always that or BMW? Blech..) as a fanboy, but I obviously could be wrong. But if he loved his VW so much he started buying any product (let’s just say vacuum cleaners for fun) they sold purely based on his love for his car. And then started attacking other vacuum cleaners made by other vacuum, many of whom knew far more about making vacuum cleaners than VW. You might not agree with me but do you get my analogy? I hope so.
“Giving them a fair shot” means not having made up your mind to get the one product from that one company just because it’s theirs. There’s so much more to it than that but I really hope I don’t need to explain it to you.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:55 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re not a fanboy, you are a hater. You disparage the most successful products of our times, the most loved devices, just because they come from a company you disapprove of.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 9:57 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The most successful products of our times are Windows 7 and Microsoft Kinect, at least in tech. The most loved devices… well that’s a little more complicated. Calling me names because I disagree with your narrow-minded views doesn’t elevate you.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s not. Windows 7 is hardly revolutionary, it’s best feature is Aero Snap, hands down. It sells a lot I’ll give you that. Kinect is pretty cool, and it’ll be more prevalent in applications. But it’s only getting there.
The most successful products of our time? That is: iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad. There is no question or debate on that.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
oh, now you’re just being a parody. Right? You have to be.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 9:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait, that’s actually adorable
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 10:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
yet were it not for those “neckbeards” your precious apple would cease to exist even today. what do you think the OS is based off? if you said the BSD kernel you’d be correct which is of course open source…
But hey if you want to think the polish is worth the price then continue to pay for it or you could enjoy something slightly different for free…
What flavor Kool-Aid are they serving now?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 2:33 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
The key word in your comment was “kernel”. There’s so much more to an OS than just the kernel. It’s the user experience that customers pay for.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Come on, he has a HUGE point (whether you like it or not).
WebKit? An open source-project that started out as KHTML (the platform for a browser on Linux called Konqueror). Apple borrowed it. So did everyone else. If you didn’t have “neckbeards” developing that tech, Safari and Mobile Safari would never have happened (or would have been much less useful).
OS X? Most of the technology underpinning OS X is open source and developed by hard-core geeks. Without that tech, it’s quite possible that the Mac today would be similar to the Mac OS 9 days — crash prone and slow.
Apple certainly delivers a good user experience for a subset of the market… but the technology they use to deliver it — more often than not — is developed by (or sourced from) key partners including Intel and the open source community.
All the geek-bashing is starting to annoy me (and I’m not even a developer). If not for those “nerds” you insist on bashing, all the shiny Apple stuff you wave about everyday would be much slower, much more expensive, or simply wouldn’t exist at all. A little humility, please.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:07 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
What are you talking about? OS 9 is not Mac OS X. It’s not even close. It has some compatibility but it is a reboot of the OS.
OS X is based on NeXT OS and the technologies that were in it were created at NeXT.
Apple contributes to WebKit. The same argument could be applied to any company using WebKit. That’s the definition of open source.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
BSD wasn’t open source in 1991, NeXTStep was created in 1989. So no, Darwin isn’t built off open source in the way that you seem to think. Apple’s compiler and browser both are however.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:35 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Darwin isn’t built off open source in the way that you seem to think
Darwin is POSIX compliant (and thus heavily influenced by open source). Further, the enhancements made by the open-source community to Darwin and its various components are incorporated by Apple back into the shipping OS X codebase.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What? When did being POSIX compliant have anything whatsoever to do with open source? POSIX was created to ensure interoperability between proprietary OSes. When POSIX was first created there was no open source OS, there was no Linux, no Free BSD, and Gnu HURD was not even begun.
Apple open sourced Darwin in 2000, but it’s not a heavily used or modified OS in the open source world, so the flow of code is very much from Apple out, rather than from the community in.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 4:26 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Gotta point out a couple of things. OS X uses Mach as the kernel. Mach is not a BSD kernel. OS X uses the FreeBSD userland with some bits from openbsd and netbsd and a bunch of local modifications to form the Darwin layer which is unix and the underpinnings of OS X.
Many parts of it are open source, Darwin is a barely useable OS without the higher level portions that Apple has not open sourced. OS X is amid of open and closed source working in tandem.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 10:48 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple doesn’t have marketing skills, they hire good marketing companies. These companies don’t work solely for Apple.
Anyway it’s clear you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
if that were true then why did jobs offer to make ads for obamas campaign.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:23 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Let’s look at Apple’ “20% innovation” in the last 10 years:
-The iPod
-The iTunes music store/ The iTunes music store model
-The iPhone
-The App Store/ The App Store model
-The iPad
Each and every one of above products has been met with scrutiny [not immediate praise] from tech community and even Apple “fanboys” yet they have been explosively popular with the consumers. All the above products collectively had changed our world in a way unparalleled to what any other technology company has done collectively over the past 10 years. The only comparable ones in the technology space are Amazon, Google. and Intel
Don’t get me wrong, there have been plenty of smaller companies that have innovated but in terms of the overall impact on our lives that can be attributed to one single company, Apple is at the top.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
where are the mods for this kid? ridiculous
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 11:22 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
thats exactly what they did…. apply marketing to old pieces of crap splashed with an apple badge
other companies have adopted the strategy but they failed… haven’t you been watching?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:56 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
One only has to look at “smart” phones before Jan. 2007 and “smart” phones after 2007 to put the lie to your statement.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:12 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
What lie? The iPhone was very influential in integrating capacitive-screen touch UI into smart phones, but it wasn’t even a smart phone to begin with, and most of the usability for it came way after other platforms pushed boundaries much farther.
The iPhone is still playing catch-up with many “smart phones” from way before 2007.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:59 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Elaborate.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 2:53 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
you mean phones like the ipaq? pocketpcs etc ?? or the creator of smartphones like nokia? which were running dual core cpus before the iphone came out…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:53 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Yeah because no other companies advertise or market their products.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m guessing Notoriousyid’s actually believes that too, and was not going for sarcasm? Amazing. If Apple’s portfolio was built on suckering gullible people, Notorious’ would own 3 of every product!
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Probably the most ironic comment I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for the laugh!
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 7:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
you mean marketing innovation? how does products=innovation….. :fulloff%ck:
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 11:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That makes them still 20% more innovative than most companies then.
The thing that always gets me about that the companies that often get given a hard time: Sony, Apple, IBM, Microsoft – when you look back at their history, they have made sizeable and significant contributions to technology.
It seems often the wrong companies get admired, just make they make things a little bit cheaper, or offer more ‘customisation’, because they are too afraid to make a design decision.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:11 PM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
So other corporations are just 16.6% innovative?
(16.6 * 1.2 = 20)
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:49 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Ha! You got me. Should have paid more attention in Math(s) classes.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:55 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Trolling is for engadget.. Now go back or ill report you.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:00 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple = 0% Innovation, 100% litigation…
They are at it again…try try till you succeed, Samsung FTW Overtaking Apple Underway !!
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 1:04 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t understand why Apple would partner with Kodak if it was Apple who had the crucial technology. If they wanted a camera to work with their computers it makes sense that they would seek Kodak tech but what would they gain if they were the ones with the tech.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:01 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
It was a different time. Apple was not the company they are today.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:03 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
Indeed, Apple were in a nose-dive during this time-frame.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:07 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Apple and Kodak worked together and Kyocera built the things. Kodak was struggling to know what to do with just about anything that didn’t directly involve film. They were more concerned with creating film processing kiosks that kept people tied to film than developing film-free photography.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bah, that’s one of those new fangled Quicktake 200’s

Mine:
640 × 480 res, 8 shots FTW!!
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:06 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I want to know who owns the QuickTake 200? I’m guessing @zpower.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s mine.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Clearly every camera since this has been a carbon copy. Sue sue!
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Without wanting to take anything away from your Quicktake, it is pretty incredible to be honest how far things have come 14 years later.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:18 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Yes, Sony’s acquisition of Minolta helped them a lot.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:00 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
“These are the moments the Kodak moments.”
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So the worst vultures are starting to descend on the carcass of Kodak.
Megalomaniac Apple is not satisfied until it owns the rights of multiple things used by everyone on the planet. And still some fanbois can’t let go of Apple’s old PR presenting them as some sort of artistic entity fighting the fight of the different against the evil corporations. Oh jesus…
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:17 PM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
That’s satire, right? :)
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nah, just plain old bullshit
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:34 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Aww, the fanboyism is alive and well. Did you remember to bring fresh flowers on your Jobs shrine today?
If it’s not clear to you already Apple is trying to expand itself to everywhere that has anything to do with technology. It’s not exactly a secret that Apple plays dirty when the question is about patents: many of their lawsuits have been tossed out by the court because they had no merit. I actually find it really hard to understand how the fanbois can even stand one of the greediest company of the world let alone defend it. Apple doesn’t give a rat’s ass about you, it only wants your money.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Because Samsung attempting to get an injunction off of FRAND patents is fighting cleanly?
Or Motorola doing the same?
Or MSFT refusing to even publicly declare what patents it considers infringed is fighting cleanly?
Once things get to the lawyers it’s not about fighting ‘fair’ or ‘clean’ it’s just about fighting with every legal means.
As for Apple trying to expand into everything to do with technology, I think you must mean Google or perhaps Microsoft. Last I checked there were broad swathes of tech that Apple had no interest in.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t want to intervene into your argument here but Moto’s case is not about FRAND. Although MOTO’s patents fall under FRAND, Apple wanted a special deal that allowed them to challenge those patents in court. Apple’s requirement thus no longer matched FRAND as it was discriminatory towards existing FRAND deals. And so far a German court agreed to that.
Oh and MS is not obligated to publicly declare what patents it considers infringed as it is not your business(or mine for that matter). Patents are disclosed only in court after negotiations fail. We all found out about Apple’s patents in question only during their trials with Sammy and not a single thing about them when SJ tried negotiating with Sammy a few years earlier. No one knew even about negotiations taking place.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The German court in question is well known for taking a hard line on FRAND defences.
But anyway my point is simply that there is no ‘moral’ in a legal fight between two multinationals. There is just legal and illegal. If Apple were to hide information during a discovery process that would be illegal – but for it to fight with every legal tool in its arsenal is entirely proper. Just as Samsung and Moto do. Just as MS does.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:11 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t think that disagreeing with your assessment is taking a hard line. A court always takes the correct line.
I never dismissed your point; I said that Apple never told us that they were negotiating with Samsung on patent licensing when Apple discovered its patents being abused. We only found out about the patents in question in court. If SJ had succeeded then we would’ve found out that Apple made a deal with Samsung on key patents and again no info on the patents in question. Apple also made a deal with Elan on “crucial” touch patents. Again, no actual info on the patents were disclosed.
It seems to me that NDAs are the norm during patent licensing negotiations, for Apple and for MS. MS never got to the court part with all of them(except Moto). And from Moto’s case we know about some of those patents; as we do from Samsung’s case with Apple.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Crap crap crap.
If this is true, this could spell big trouble for all digital camera makers…not just Kodak.
Crap.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 12:29 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
How? They already pay Kodak is they are using this patent. What difference does it really make for you if you are paying Kodak or paying Apple if you are a camera manufacturer?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:03 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Just wondering, can one stop other companies using your innovation? Like, say if Apple wins this, and then decides that they decide that they don’t want other camera manufacturers to produce digital cameras? Possible?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:18 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Depends. A company can be forced to license a patent if it’s deemed too fundamental.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
So, we should fear a reinvention of the digital camera :) cool.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Shouldn’t damn no edit
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If that were true, no drug company would be able to hold onto their patents. You’re thinking of FRAND patents, which are their own category entirely. The reason those have to be licensed out is because competing companies have agreed to use this one method of doing something, and in exchange, they pay the patent holder a fair and reasonable sum.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:04 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Probably. I don’t even play a lawyer on television. Apologies if I’ve spread misinformation.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:23 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This patent only has a few years left to run and the litigation to determine ownership will probably last for most of that. This is really about Apple forcing Kodak to back off from its suit against them.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Maybe, I could also see them thinking this is a good opportunity for a patent land grab.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Apple QuickTake 100 & 150 manufactured by Kodak, rebranded by Apple, Apple QuickTake 200 (a.k.a FujiFilm DS7) manufactured by Fuji and rebranded by Apple, please Apple don’t rewrite the history.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:12 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think the placement of the 200 model in the picture/article was The Verge’s doing and not part of Apple’s claim.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:37 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Also, I don’t think “rebranded” applies when Apple was the original branding. Arguably, Kodak’s DC-40 would be the ‘rebranding’ as it came after the Quicktake 100 but was essentially the same camera.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Apple Quicktake 100 and 150 manufactured by Kodak for Apple just as Foxconn and Pegatron make for them now.
You are the one rewriting history
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 2:35 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
Yeah Apple claims a lot of things……………..
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:22 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Looks like Google may have to ask its good friend IBM for some more patents.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 1:58 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I used the Quicktake 100 – way back when. Short batter life. Limited capcity. But, for the time, it was remarkable.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 2:14 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
its stuff like this that makes me wish tech patents were only valid for 5-10 years. All this does is stifle competition by raising the barrier of entry thus protecting old companies that would rather “play the game” rather than innovate which in turn hurts only the consumer.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 2:47 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
I don’t see much innovation being stifled, we’re in an incredible time with insane innovations every day.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The latter statement should not be as evidence in support of the former. An example of the stifling effects on innovation:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/study-patent-trolls-have-cost-innovators-half-a-trillion-bucks.ars
Of course Apple isn’t an NPE, but a roadblock half a trillion dollars high may be a little relevant to the general discussion about stifled innovation.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 9:20 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m not sure I understood this correctly, but it sounds like if Kodak loses this patent, it could make it that much harder for the company to survive this restructuring?
I know theres a reason that Kodak went under and all, but it still seems a little ruthless for Apple to try and take one of the few things the Kodak still has and throw them under the bus. Especially since Kodak has a pretty significant history lasting over a decade..
It’s interesting that it’s a patent too, since Apple is gaining a reputation as being a bit of a patent troll.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:13 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Well Kodak did sue Apple first – they really should have expected this.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Rally, they should have expected Apple to claim ownership of something, when Apple isn’t listed on the patent as one of the inventors?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Errr yeah … if Kodak hired good lawyer.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Unless they have corporate amnesia regarding Apple’s involvement in their early digital camera business, yes they should have expected it. Their problem was that they probably didn’t anticipate heading into bankruptcy so soon. They’ve had their heads in the ground for a long time now.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:38 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Did you even read the article?
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 6:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is just part of the broken patent system allowing a broad patent to last this long. Looking at the patent, there was some very detailed thought put into the application; though, I don’t think it warrants 17 years of protection.
Kodak’s more recent patents look more like trolling patents. They’re suing Apple over patent 7,453,605 ("Capturing Digital Images to be Transferred to an E-Mail Address"), applied for in 2005 and issued in November 2008. It should have been obvious in 2005 for anyone in tech that an Internet-connected digital camera device should be able to send a photo by email, but the USPTO granted Kodak a patent on it with very broad claims that unless invalidated, will force any digital imaging device with the ability to email a photo to obtain licensing.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 4:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
But you see, you’re supposed to side with Kodak, because Apple are teh ebil, and also not open source.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 5:26 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Hmmmm, I wonder if Apple are thinking about making camera’s again.? They’ve done a lot of R&D into photo software, sensors, and interface designs. What’s the DSLR market like? Worth getting into?
Point n Shoots will be swallowed up by the camera phone. They (along with others) are already disrupting that market.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 8:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
APPLE IS INNOVATIONNNNN! they should go after polaroid, canon, nikon.. in fact every photo / camera company out there!
canon eos? iphones have lenses! SUE! SUE! SUE!
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
fun
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:05 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Suing, please behold !!
Samsung, Moto and the rest in the list will be sued…Aiming at Google, too bad they cant win everytime…
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 1:07 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
meanwhile on krypton
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 10:26 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You won’t find a bigger fan of Apple than me, but these endless patent fights are just pathetic. I preferred it when Apple was trying to make better products and dominate the marketplace that way. Rather than using patents to try and claw back control of the marketplace and in this instance put another nail into the coffin of a “competitor”.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 4:29 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I keep hearing this – is there any real information to make people think that Apple’s engineers and designers are also part of their legal team and thus can’t do two things at once? :)
The article implies Apple’s claims are in response to Kodak’s initial suit.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 8:48 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This just in apple sues god.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 12:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wow! So much blind hatred that some of these people can’t even read to comprehend what the article is reporting. Amazing.
Posted on Jan 22, 2012 | 9:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
… and prepare for the legal SHITSTORM.
Posted on Jan 23, 2012 | 9:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.