Investigation Could See iPhone, Blackberry Banned

[weegee64]

No, climber, it will only hit people who choose to buy overpriced Apple products (just look at the iPad profit margins article). Apple can easily afford some licensing fees in there.

 

[hakesterman]

This Lawsuit isn't going anywhere. If they had a beef with Apple or the makers of blackberry phone, they
should of made their claim before the phones were released or within 30 days after. The Iphone is now
three years old, this lawsuit is filed so late that there is no judge on this planet that is going to allow this
to go forward.

 

[extremepcs]

I wish they would just ban all cellphones. Maybe then I could actually enjoy a movie without some &%^&ing 16 year old kid texting in front of me... or the dbag wearing his bluetooth with flashing lights, or the lady talking on her phone while trying to park her car... Sorry, I just hate cell phones. All of them equally.

 

[cekasone]

like i said a couple of days ago, can we not go at least 1 week without another patent infringement lawsuit.

 

[TeraMedia]

If Apple and RIM each independently reached the design of whatever was patented, then my condolences go to them and their customers, because they now have to pay for something (a design) that they already paid for independently (in R&D costs). This is what's wrong with the patent system: it's too easy to patent something that is too obvious. Besides, IBM already patented the idea of being a patent troll.

If Apple and RIM used technology that had been developed by Kodak (e.g. an ingenius, real-time algorithm for processing a series of jpeg images using a low number of CPU cycles to provide video from a camera), and they refuse to pay for it, then that is clearly theft. Whether or not they acquired the technology from a 3rd party doesn't matter. It's still stolen goods. Samsung, LG, Sony Ericcson, Motorola and Nokia all pay for these goods and still manage to market a product profitably (well, most of them do, anyway...). Apple and RIM don't get to have a free R&D ride at Kodak's expense. Imagine for a moment if you were a research engineer at Kodak who lost his job because they couldn't afford to pay you anymore because too many companies just stole the technologies you invented, such as this one, rather than pay license fees. That would suck, and would also mean less innovation in the world.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]chomlee[/nom]I am sure they new about it from the begining but I could just see Jobs and the others in the board room discussing this when they came up with the name "What are they going to do... Sue us? Go ahead... Were Fu##in Apple"[/citation]
Exactly, all the HUGE companies do this i bet.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps there's a patent on displaying images on an LCD screen too!
If so, then all companies, including Kodak infringes on this!

 

[Montezuma]

Why don't the phone manufacturers just start an inter-corporate group to figure out a way to have their phones preview a photo on screen taken by the phone's camera? Launch a real "fuck you" to Kodak for trying to patent troll their way to more money. I do not understand why this has not already been worked on.

If Kodak simply patented the idea of previewing a picture taken by a digital camera, then I cannot see how such a patent could be legal. Usually, it is the process, not the result, that can be patented.

 

[dman3k]

Wait a minute here, are these fanbois supporting Apple when they copy-and-paste other companies technologies???

Woah! Apple's greatest innovation is their ability to copy from other companies and continue to get away with it.

 

[kingnoobe]

LMAO@Hake good to see you don't know what you're talking about. Go look up some patent suits *that won* and see how long they waited before filing before you make such a stupid statement.

Kodak warned them. They didn't listen, and now their being sued. Seems fair to me. Just big companies playing games with each other just another day in the business world.

 

[Sicundercover]

[citation][nom]astrodudepsu[/nom]Did MS ever actually have to quit selling office? If not, then the iphone and BB's are safe.[/citation]

One big difference, the company that owned the patent that MS used didnt have the massive war chest that Kodak does. Kodak is not a company you want to mess with.

 

[Guest]

Wow, lots of ignorant fools in here. I love the one about the iPad operating costs! That device isn't even out yet! All cost analysis is pure speculation. And the stuff about Apple stealing everyones great ideas! Priceless! If the companies that Apple allegedly stole from actually did something with said great ideas, then Apple would be paying them for it. Shit or get off the pot. And complaints that Tom's has too many Apple stories, maybe you missed the fact that this is Tom's HARDWARE. News about HARDWARE. Apple makes HARDWARE. Their stuff generates newsworthy stories. Tom's reports. Get over it.

 

[loomis86]

[citation][nom]brendano257[/nom]The old way of making a patent "Write your idea that works down so no body can use it without your permission."The new way "Write the most ambiguous idea you can think of and cover the broadest spectrum, wait, and sue away."It's just too bad.[/citation]

Kodak uses this patent on their cameras. So your assertion is false.

 

[thirdshop]

Well it seems the only company that isn't using Kodak technology is HTC, I guess that would explain why HTC cameras suck on their phones...lol

 

[Cache]

I would really like to see how much of a products' overall cost is applied to outside patents. Just out of curiosity.

 

[cmdprompt]

IBM Revenue (2009) ~ 100B
IBM R&D Budget ~6B
Intel Revenue (2009) ~ 34.7B
Intel R&D Budget ~5B

I agree that IBM spends a lot on R&D but if you are trying to make the point that IBM spends more than Intel then what can I say without being insulting? In dollars yes, as a percentage of revenue...uhmmmm no.

 

[cmdprompt]

"Forgetting the technological barriers for a moment, spending such a high percentage of your revenue on R&D may be seen as financially imprudent and IBM has been playing the long game for nearly 100 years, almost double Intel. Some would say that the amount IBM spend on R&D isn't actually based on a percentage of revenue but are simply greenlighted if they can convince the board that it will make its money back in the next quarter century. Intel however need to see results on their R&D spend within 12 months or the competition will catch up because CPUs, SSDs and chipsets advance so quickly.

Or in other words, IBM spend deeply because they can, Intel spend almost as deeply because they have to."

I'm not sure what you are arguing or even if you are. As someone who knows many people that work for Intel, I can tell you they do a ton of R&D based upon the long-haul (5+ years out) and not just looking for a return on investment in the short term. I would propose that the reason IBM's R&D investment is so small compared to their revenue is because much of their revenue is derived from their services division. (58.9 billion in 2008) There is little to no R&D associated with professional services. Intel doesn't do services. Their entire revenue figure is based upon technology sales (hardware). Both companies spend roughly 14% of non-services revenue -- funny how that works out.