Kodak sells $525M patent portfolio to consortiums led by Apple & Google

[Steve Smith]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean


Steve.

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean


Steve.

i agree with the article steve,
and i no reason to trust facebook at all.
i have never used instagram so i really can't comment on it ...
when it was revealed that FB flaunt(ed) the fact
that they publish and distributed personal information
of their user-base, without their users saying it was OK
that was enough for me ..

 

[marenmcgowan]

Perhaps this needs to be posted again:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean


Steve.

Thanks for the link, Steve. I've been hearing a lot about this, but not really what sure what was happening. Isn't this the same as what FB does? And I thought FB owned Instagram?? I find it only marginally comforting that they cannot directly sell the images...they can still paste them all over the internet. This is the problem with the internet that has always existed. Put your images out there and they are for public consumption. The only protected place is your own website where you can control how it is displayed, etc. And, if it ends up somewhere else, it has clearly been stolen.

 

[StoneNYC]

I read the whole article, I see your point but I also would say that there isn't much difference between putting a logo ON my photo and putting it NEXT TO my photo, it's still doing the same thing and in still not getting paid...

Lets not even mention the fact if I sell an image to stock and then sell it as an exclusive rights, but FB/IG sells it too, then uses it later am I libel for them using and breaking the exclusivity of it because I posted it on IG to advertise myself? See, it's all shady and no one should like it... This new world sucks..


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Diapositivo]

And at the NYT--

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/b...pw=&adxnnlx=1355941561-4FBaTv2WHtGPj5p2fVaxLw

The article says an important thing:

"Kodak will retain a license to use the digital imaging portfolio patents in its future businesses, and for those businesses that it is selling."

So Kodak is actually not selling the patents, but licensing them.

The article also says:

"In the time since, it has withdrawn from the market for consumer inkjet printers, which were once part of Mr. Perez’s turnaround strategy, and sold its film business, which had made Kodak a household name."

As far as we know this should be incorrect. Kodak is merely looking for buyers.

 

[AgX]

You can sell a patent but the same time arrange to get a licence for your own production. So to a limited degee you can keep on using that patent.

 

[Steve Smith]

And, if it ends up somewhere else, it has clearly been stolen.

Not stolen, infringed.


Steve.

 

[PKM-25]

Sale approved, now lets move on, buy Kodak, Ilford or Fuji brand film, what ever floats your boat:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130111/BUSINESS/301110043/Kodak-patent-sale-approved