Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong?  
Author Message
Ldy





PostPosted: 2004-10-21 19:44:00 Top

java-programmer, Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong? If in 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc. changed the name of OAK to Java and
modified the code for the Internet, how did Sun infringe the patents
Kodak acquired from 'Wang' in 1997? What damning evidence did Kodak have
that in 1995, Sun incorporated the 'Khoyi' method, thereby infringed the
patents?

The "Khoyi patents", named after Dana Khoyi - an ex-Wang engineer,
"covered a method by which a program can get help from another computer
application to complete a task", which they claim is the way Java
operates and that Sun has therefore infringed the Khoyi patents..

Whose intellectual property is Java? Surely Java was patented in 1995,
just after the change? Were the Wang 'Khoyi' patents and Sun 'Java'
patents identical? I take it Wang patented their software years before
Sun did? Does anyone know what year?
If the two were identical or similar, isn't it possible that in a world
of 6,395,379,218 people, it is more than likely that two or more people
might have the same ideas? I find it difficult to believe that Sun
infringed Kodak's patents, but rather that Kodak got a little too
desperate given it's not doing so well in this 'digital' age and had to
lay off some 15,000 jobs worldwide a month ago "because of declining
demand for consumer film and colour photographic paper"..

How on earth can an eight member jury of lay people understand "patent
law" to deliberate and find in favour of Kodak? I don't understand how a
jury could possibly fathom the complexities of patent law, without any
background or education in the legal arena, and find in Kodak's favour?

There are a lot of questions that I have to things that don't add up,
like; Java is freely downloadable, so how can any jury find in favour of
Kodak who wanted damages of $1.06 billion in past royalties??
How did Kodak prove that Sun had access to its patents?
If Kodak is so sure that Sun infringed patents, why did it bother to
agree to the $92 million settlement? Surely they believed they would be
awarded $1.06 billion or even more..? accepting such a small amount (for
them) is silly, it sounds to me like they thought they wouldn't win..

This case is a perfect example why juries should NOT be involved in
patent suits.

Sun should not have settled the case, it should have seen the case
through and appealed the prospective travesty of justice..

Does anyone agree with me here? I'd be interested in other people's
opinions on this issue. A public debate, anyone?

 
Tim Tyler





PostPosted: 2004-10-22 15:40:00 Top

java-programmer >> Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong? Ldy <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:

> If in 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc. changed the name of OAK to Java and
> modified the code for the Internet, how did Sun infringe the patents
> Kodak acquired from 'Wang' in 1997? What damning evidence did Kodak have
> that in 1995, Sun incorporated the 'Khoyi' method, thereby infringed the
> patents?

The 'Khoyi' method appears to be very general. Practically every OO
language appears to infringe it.

Presumably a defense involving invoking Smalltalk failed, however.

> The "Khoyi patents", named after Dana Khoyi - an ex-Wang engineer,
> "covered a method by which a program can get help from another computer
> application to complete a task", which they claim is the way Java
> operates and that Sun has therefore infringed the Khoyi patents..
>
> Whose intellectual property is Java? Surely Java was patented in 1995,
> just after the change?

Simple to check that - just visit:

http://www.sun.com/legal/patents/

> Were the Wang 'Khoyi' patents and Sun 'Java' patents identical? I take
> it Wang patented their software years before Sun did? Does anyone know
> what year?

US Patent 5,206,951 filed: 1991-04-03
US Patent 5,206,951 granted: 1993-04-27

> If the two were identical or similar, isn't it possible that in a world
> of 6,395,379,218 people, it is more than likely that two or more people
> might have the same ideas?

Sure. If you have the idea after the original idea was patented,
you are supposed to perform a patent search - and then pay license
fees if you want to do any development based on the idea.

> How did Kodak prove that Sun had access to its patents?

Patents are public. Under law, it is the re-inventer's responsibilty to
research them, when pursuing an idea.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ email***@***.com Remove lock to reply.
 
Ldy





PostPosted: 2004-10-22 16:07:00 Top

java-programmer >> Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong? Thanks for your response.:)

Tim Tyler wrote:
> Ldy <email***@***.com> wrote or quoted:
>
>
>>If in 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc. changed the name of OAK to Java and
>>modified the code for the Internet, how did Sun infringe the patents
>>Kodak acquired from 'Wang' in 1997? What damning evidence did Kodak have
>>that in 1995, Sun incorporated the 'Khoyi' method, thereby infringed the
>>patents?
>
>
> The 'Khoyi' method appears to be very general. Practically every OO
> language appears to infringe it.
>
> Presumably a defense involving invoking Smalltalk failed, however.
>
>
>>The "Khoyi patents", named after Dana Khoyi - an ex-Wang engineer,
>>"covered a method by which a program can get help from another computer
>>application to complete a task", which they claim is the way Java
>>operates and that Sun has therefore infringed the Khoyi patents..
>>
>>Whose intellectual property is Java? Surely Java was patented in 1995,
>>just after the change?
>
>
> Simple to check that - just visit:
>
> http://www.sun.com/legal/patents/
>
>
>>Were the Wang 'Khoyi' patents and Sun 'Java' patents identical? I take
>>it Wang patented their software years before Sun did? Does anyone know
>>what year?
>
>
> US Patent 5,206,951 filed: 1991-04-03
> US Patent 5,206,951 granted: 1993-04-27
>
>
>>If the two were identical or similar, isn't it possible that in a world
>>of 6,395,379,218 people, it is more than likely that two or more people
>>might have the same ideas?
>
>
> Sure. If you have the idea after the original idea was patented,
> you are supposed to perform a patent search - and then pay license
> fees if you want to do any development based on the idea.
>
>
>>How did Kodak prove that Sun had access to its patents?
>
>
> Patents are public. Under law, it is the re-inventer's responsibilty to
> research them, when pursuing an idea.

 
 
Bruce Lewis





PostPosted: 2004-10-22 23:23:00 Top

java-programmer >> Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong? Ldy <email***@***.com> writes:

> Sun should not have settled the case, it should have seen the case
> through and appealed the prospective travesty of justice..

That might have brought more exposure to the fact that every patent that
covers an algorithm for a general-purpose digital computer is invalid.
Sun's shareholders don't want that. Investors prefer monopolies over
the free market because the free market brings uncertainty.

--
Make that pile of digital photos presentable: http://ourdoings.com/
It's quicker and easier than you think.
 
 
Chris Williams





PostPosted: 2004-10-28 1:18:00 Top

java-programmer >> Kodak v Sun; patent law gone all wrong? I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly, not only with your
sentiments, but with your assertion that Sun should not have settled.

In fact, I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments and would love to
live in a world where Sun, and companies like it, made standing up for
principles and fighting the cynical corporate opportunism regularly
supported (encouraged) by an over-enthusiastic and seemingly unstoppable law
machine that has no consideration of the interactivity of people in the
world in which it operates, a noble cause.

There's a part of me that says "Sun's big enough to stand up to these
people" but, shit, these things can be made to drag on and on and on,
sapping money and resources needed in other places.

I guess Sun shrugged its shoulders and said "pay the ba$tards and damn their
eyes" rather than settle in for a long haul.

It's a shame though because it leaves the rest of us on no way uncertain
about the chance we'd be given to put our side of the story should we ever
find ourselves having unwittingly breached some fuzzy patent, enforced by
dunduses and backed with a billion dollar law firm.

I was thinking, has anybody patented the process of respiration through the
process of taking in oxygenated air through a facial cavity, performing a
quick exchange of gases through one -- no, make that two -- organs located
in the chest, and exhaling carbon dioxide? I call it breathing, and I reckon
it could really catch on!

People should be *angry* about this but I fear it's just a little more
pressure, which will only make itself felt when -- along with the myriad
injustices and immoral government and corporate acts that we see every day
and are poo-pooed by those supposed to represent us -- enough really is
enough and we make the system change.

For what it's worth (and it's worth nothing to anybody but me), Kodak is one
of those companies that I just won't buy from now. With luck though, digital
photography is knocking it off its perch anyway but, since expertise and
customer/employee care now count for nothing, calling in tenuous patents may
be the final death throes of some ungainly lumbering giants.


"Ldy" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:4177a102$0$2216$email***@***.com...
> If in 1995 Sun Microsystems, Inc. changed the name of OAK to Java and
> modified the code for the Internet, how did Sun infringe the patents
> Kodak acquired from 'Wang' in 1997? What damning evidence did Kodak have
> that in 1995, Sun incorporated the 'Khoyi' method, thereby infringed the
> patents?
>
> The "Khoyi patents", named after Dana Khoyi - an ex-Wang engineer,
> "covered a method by which a program can get help from another computer
> application to complete a task", which they claim is the way Java
> operates and that Sun has therefore infringed the Khoyi patents..
>
> Whose intellectual property is Java? Surely Java was patented in 1995,
> just after the change? Were the Wang 'Khoyi' patents and Sun 'Java'
> patents identical? I take it Wang patented their software years before
> Sun did? Does anyone know what year?
> If the two were identical or similar, isn't it possible that in a world
> of 6,395,379,218 people, it is more than likely that two or more people
> might have the same ideas? I find it difficult to believe that Sun
> infringed Kodak's patents, but rather that Kodak got a little too
> desperate given it's not doing so well in this 'digital' age and had to
> lay off some 15,000 jobs worldwide a month ago "because of declining
> demand for consumer film and colour photographic paper"..
>
> How on earth can an eight member jury of lay people understand "patent
> law" to deliberate and find in favour of Kodak? I don't understand how a
> jury could possibly fathom the complexities of patent law, without any
> background or education in the legal arena, and find in Kodak's favour?
>
> There are a lot of questions that I have to things that don't add up,
> like; Java is freely downloadable, so how can any jury find in favour of
> Kodak who wanted damages of $1.06 billion in past royalties??
> How did Kodak prove that Sun had access to its patents?
> If Kodak is so sure that Sun infringed patents, why did it bother to
> agree to the $92 million settlement? Surely they believed they would be
> awarded $1.06 billion or even more..? accepting such a small amount (for
> them) is silly, it sounds to me like they thought they wouldn't win..
>
> This case is a perfect example why juries should NOT be involved in
> patent suits.
>
> Sun should not have settled the case, it should have seen the case
> through and appealed the prospective travesty of justice..
>
> Does anyone agree with me here? I'd be interested in other people's
> opinions on this issue. A public debate, anyone?
>