Apple and Google Lead Separate Groups in Bidding for Kodak Patents

just shows how pathatic software patents are. nothing to do with protecting your invention

Why patent can be transferred? I think a patent should only protected its inventor, if the inventor (a person or company) broken or died, or doesn't use its patent to make profit or benefit human in a limit period, this patent should expired.
A lot of patents is very simple, funny simple, it is unfair for young people, and it will greatly prevent innovation.

Apple and Microsoft have the deepest pockets, so if they want them that bad, they'll get them. Apple also doesn't perceive WP7/8 as a major threat to its business either, so their teaming up makes sense.

Interesting. I cannot imagine Kodak having many patents that are relevant in this digital age. Maybe photo printing methods and stuff like that? Weird, but interesting.

Reading is your friend.

Apple and Kodak have filed a number of lawsuits and countersuits against each other in the ongoing tech patent wars.

Seems like Goog trying to buddy up with its Android OEMs could have antitrust implications. Google needs a cudgel to use against Apple, they will pay dearly for these. We all know, however, that no one's pockets are deeper than Apple's.

All Apple has to do is bid one dollar over Avogadro's Number. Done.

This is great news for Kodak, they will probably end up getting an obscene amount of money for the patents with the bidding war and at least pay off their creditors.

Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft

Let the battle begin.

Except that there are two sides, not three. Apple/Microsoft v. Google/Android.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Sorry, you lost my interest with that first line.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be on some goooood stuff.

Every time I see these threads about patent wars I think to myself how life could be different if patent wars existed years ago. For example, right now every can of cola/energy drinks is basically the same. The mechanism to open the can is identical. What if years ago there was a patent on a "aluminum can opening device"? We may have a half dozen different ways to open a can?

What about patenting a door as a "means to get out of a room that has 4 walls and no opening"?

How about patenting an automobile as having exactly 4 wheels? Or patenting a round steering wheel? How about the order in which the pedals are on the floor (clutch, brake, gas)? Could we be driving around in cars where the brake and gas are on different sides because having them in the same order would have infringed on a patent?

Yes, crazy stuff like this goes through my head, but at the end of the day I still believe the consumer is the one that potentially loses.

Here's an idea: why don't all eight of the firms team up, thereby getting use of the patents for 1/8th the price, blocking out patent trolls (who probably couldn't afford them anyway, to be fair) and save themselves millions down the line by not having to constantly sue each other.

None of the eight have developed the technologies on offer, so I think they're probably more concerned with ongoing use of the patents than protecting them and having exclusive use.

Spoken like a true socialist. This week folks from all over the world are going to compete in sports for discs of gold, silver and bronze, and the associated "win" and bragging rights. There will be losers. They will have enjoyed the sportsmanship, and comraderie, but not the discs or the media attention or the many commercial benefits.

The reason there is bidding is to maximize profits to the patent owner, Kodak. The reason why bidding is done by the buyers rather than collusion as you suggest has nothing to do with whether collusion is legal. One side wins and the other loses. Patents are weapons of war. Tech companies are at war.

That's why not every device has every capability. There are factions and feifdoms. Some more dominant in some market niches and some more dominant in others.

So calm down.

Rocketman

1/ I was talking about a one-off given the circumstances. I'm no socialist.
2/ I offer a gentle, tongue-in-cheek suggestion and you respond with a diatribe, mainly comprised of the kind of obviousness a three year old could type, and you close it off by telling ME to calm down!! Haha, classic!! If you can find your way down off your high horse why not think about opening your door and you know... getting out more..?