[NewsPoster]

Manhattan District Court Judge George Daniels has rejected Apple's bid to have its patent dispute with Kodak moved out of bankruptcy court and into district court. The move would have complicated Kodak's plan to sell its potentially lucrative patent portfolio in a sealed-bid process later this year. Kodak is attempting to auction off some 700 digital-capture patents, which have generated more than $3 billion in revenues since the turn of the century.

Apple lawyer Gergory Arovas told the judge that the dispute with Kodak is deeply entrenched in patent -- rather than bankruptcy -- law and would we better sorted by a federal district judge. Judge Daniels agreed with Kodak that the case should remain in bankruptcy court for now, until the judge rules on some of the key issues at stake. Kodak has rebutted the claim by saying that Apple's claims are too old to be considered at this juncture, and are going to interfere with an expected auction of the patents in August. At the same hearing, Kodak claimed that Apple and its spinoff FlashPoint Technology didn't own 10 patents as the pair claimed, despite cooperative efforts in the '90s on Apple's QuickTake cameras and associated technologies. The patent sales are required under the terms of a $950 million loan that Kodak obtained to maintain operations while in bankruptcy. Kodak recently claimed that Apple is the biggest infringer of patents in its portfolio, but a recent hearing has absolved Apple of these claims. The New York-based company says that "Apple and FlashPoint are seeking to benefit from Kodak's difficult financial position, which will be exacerbated if the debtors cannot obtain fair value for the patents."

[blahblahbber]

Apple Lawyers tried to do the unreasonable, again <------ That should be the News Title.... nothing new.

[airmanchairman]

Originally Posted by blahblahbber 

Apple Lawyers tried to do the unreasonable, again <------ That should be the News Title.... nothing new.

You're kidding, right?

You do realize, though, that:

§ Apple and Kodak collaborated on a lot of photographic technology involving digital capture patents that Kodak is unilaterally trying to sell off;

§ Like Sun Microsystems did with selling Java (among all its other assets) off to Oracle, these patents could become deadly litigation weapons in the hands of Apple's fiercest competitors;

§ In the light of the foregoing, would you consider Apple's legal moves unreasonable, or a case of making hay while the sun still shines?

[testudo]

Originally Posted by airmanchairman 

You're kidding, right?
You do realize, though, that:
§ Apple and Kodak collaborated on a lot of photographic technology involving digital capture patents that Kodak is unilaterally trying to sell off;

Immaterial to the question at hand (moving the case), but OK, they collaborated. But what was the terms of the collaboration? Are you sure Apple didn't sign off rights when they started the work?

§ Like Sun Microsystems did with selling Java (among all its other assets) off to Oracle, these patents could become deadly litigation weapons in the hands of Apple's fiercest competitors;

Or useless blobs of nothing-ness. Or deadly weapons by Apple against their competitors. So that's reason to move the trial?

§ In the light of the foregoing, would you consider Apple's legal moves unreasonable, or a case of making hay while the sun still shines?

In the light that the above is all immaterial to the request at hand, which is to try to move this proceeding along out of this court before the judge has determined the merits of other issues.

[testudo]

Interesting how Apple never tried to fight for their rights to these patents over the last 10-15 years. You'd think with Kodak selling the rights left and right, they would have wanted part of that action (especially in the early 2000s, when they were still trying to make some money).

[blahblahbber]

Testudo, u said it... others just don't get it....