/article-new/2011/06/kodak_wordmark-150x43.jpg?lossy){kind=small}
In line with a report from earlier this month, Eastman Kodak today announced that it has reached a deal to sell its portfolio of digital imaging patents to a consortium of 12 companies organized by patent holding firms Intellectual Ventures and RPX Corporation for $525 million.
Under the agreements, Kodak will receive approximately $525 million, a portion of which will be paid by 12 intellectual property licensees organized by Intellectual Ventures and RPX Corporation, with each licensee receiving rights with respect to the digital imaging patent portfolio and certain other Kodak patents. Another portion will be paid by Intellectual Ventures, which is acquiring the digital imaging patent portfolio subject to these new licenses, as well as previously existing licenses.
TechCrunch cites a court filing naming the 12 members of the consortium, which includes both Apple and Google as had been previously reported.
Apple, Inc.
Research In Motion Limited
Google Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Adobe Systems Incorporated
HTC Corporation
Facebook, Inc.
Fujifilm Corporation
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.
Shutterfly, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
The consortium approach among rivals allows the companies to prevent a bidding war and helps ensure that each of them holds licenses to the patents at defined cost, eliminating the risk of later licensing negotiations or protracted court battles.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)Could someone explain how this is legal and yet price fixing is not?
Nobody stopped you from going to your bank, asking for a big loan, and offering $1million more. Or to start another consortium that bid higher. Price fixing is something that a seller or several sellers do. Apple, Google, Samsung and whoever else is in this are the customers. They are the buyers. Anti-price fixing laws are there to protect the buyers, not the sellers. If you go to an Apple Store and offer $500 for a MBP, maybe they will laugh at you, but you won't get arrested. And if you bring a dozen friends and you all offer $500 for a MBP, they may laugh even louder, but you still won't get arrested.And what makes you think these patents were worth more than was paid for them? Patents are worth money insofar as you can use them to create better products. They may be worth money if you want to use them to blackmail others, but that practice is generally frowned upon (everybody frowns upon it if someone other than their favourite company does it, and many dislike it even if their favourite company does it). Apple is in the "selling expensive hardware" business. Why would they pay out money to get into the "patent troll" business? So here are twelve companies who apparently want to use these patents to build products, and they offered what the patents were worth. If they were worth more, then surely someone would have offered more.
And while the big companies are at it with the patent consortium ... why does not every company throw their own patents in their and everyone in there can use the other patents so that the legal bs finally stops and they can concentrate on innovation again (and free MacRumors from Patent war headlines)
I'm guessing whats left of Kodak would have preferred a bidding war?
i agree. While I'm happy with this development ... If only because I don't have to hear about these patents anymore. But the capitalist in me feels like there could be some anticompetitive behavior here. So these 12 big corporations can rake the little guys over these patents?Could someone explain how this is legal and yet price fixing is not?
Price fixing per se is not illegal. Every company "fixes" prices for their own products, and many of them also control the prices retailers can advertise. Collusion to fix prices is the potentially illegal act. This involves competitors getting together to control market prices for products. The result is a cartel, the best example being OPEC.
Have these companies formed a cartel? Probably not, but time will tell by what they do with this patent trove, and not by the fact that they control it.
Nobody stopped you from going to your bank, asking for a big loan, and offering $1million more. Or to start another consortium that bid higher. Price fixing is something that a seller or several sellers do. Apple, Google, Samsung and whoever else is in this are the customers. They are the buyers. Anti-price fixing laws are there to protect the buyers, not the sellers. If you go to an Apple Store and offer $500 for a MBP, maybe they will laugh at you, but you won't get arrested. And if you bring a dozen friends and you all offer $500 for a MBP, they may laugh even louder, but you still won't get arrested.
And what makes you think these patents were worth more than was paid for them? Patents are worth money insofar as you can use them to create better products. They may be worth money if you want to use them to blackmail others, but that practice is generally frowned upon (everybody frowns upon it if someone other than their favourite company does it, and many dislike it even if their favourite company does it). Apple is in the "selling expensive hardware" business. Why would they pay out money to get into the "patent troll" business? So here are twelve companies who apparently want to use these patents to build products, and they offered what the patents were worth. If they were worth more, then surely someone would have offered more.
Okay thanks, good explanation. +1
I'm guessing whats left of Kodak would have preferred a bidding war?
Actually a smart way to keep costs down and not so good for a patent holder.
And, if the patent holder doesn't agree, they can outwait the company until the are running out of cash.
Shame that Kodak wasn't able to look into the future and adjust it's business accordingly.
Their museum is worth a visit.