Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
NOOOO
my grandpa has allot of sun microwave (i cant get it thru his head that it is MICROSYSTEMS) stock
hahaha - that's awesome!
This is absurd though. I wonder what the actual infringement was...
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
NOOOO
my grandpa has allot of sun microwave (i cant get it thru his head that it is MICROSYSTEMS) stock
Originally posted by: notfred
Software patents are bullsh!t, I'm so sick of this crap.
Originally posted by: stonecold3169
Originally posted by: notfred
Software patents are bullsh!t, I'm so sick of this crap.
Agreed... I seriously wonder how qualified the people deciding these rulings are in such a matter. I mean, really, that is such a vague wording as to what is actually going on... how long before somebody sues saying that accessing a memory location is patented because the idea of "accessing information from multiple sources" was patented?
Don't get me wrong, some stuff SHOULD be patented. For complex operations, I have no issues with an algorithm being patent, for a specifica and clear application... but all of these software patent rulings have been so vague and ambigious that it almost seems like they can be extended to anything
Originally posted by: kamper
That article didn't explain at all what the violation was (in any reasonable detail). Anyone got better links?
Originally posted by: kamper
That article didn't explain at all what the violation was (in any reasonable detail). Anyone got better links?
Originally posted by: kamper
That article didn't explain at all what the violation was (in any reasonable detail). Anyone got better links?
The Silicon Valley giant on Friday said it would "put on a vigorous defense" in the next phase of the trial, in which the jury will hear testimony to help it determine how much Kodak should be paid. That phase begins sometime next week.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
Kodak really needs money now that they can't sell film anymore, don't they.
huh? Why can't they sell film?
arnt they the biggest film maker?
I think his point was that everything is going digital.
Originally posted by: abellamy
Heard they were dropping making films and have already stopped making film cameras - so guess they need to get their money from somewhere.
But that patent seems very general!!
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Originally posted by: abellamy
Heard they were dropping making films and have already stopped making film cameras - so guess they need to get their money from somewhere.
But that patent seems very general!!
They can still sell photo paper.
Ah, so that's why all the nature photography pros love E100VS (or whatever it's called) and eschew Velvia because it sucks so badly. I'm not up on the portrait photography field, so I don't know who's negative films are more popular, but the last I heard, Fuji was ahead in the transparency aka slide film department.Originally posted by: tooltime
i think kodak invented the silver emulsion for film...they gotta know what their doing...