[quote]Kodak will have to sue M$ next, as the very same technology exists in .net.
Cas 
[/quote]
Ah, unfortunately…they don’t have to. Patents are valid whether or not you defend them :(. So they can just say “Ha ha got you Sun!” and walk away now.
Now, if it were a trademark, they’d HAVE to sue everyone who infringed…
(although IANAL)
From what I read, MS and IBM already HAVE paid earlier…
[quote]From what I read, MS and IBM already HAVE paid earlier…
[/quote]
Second that.
Well, all that patent stuff is utter bs. Why can you sell patents or buy em from others? It doesn’t make sense. Why can you sue others for using stuff, which you don’t use at all?
Well, normally you sue the ones who are least likely to fight - and that means IBM and MS are usually last in line. The former have too many patents (sometimes it seems like “all of them” ;)), more than most nations, and will probably find at least one to blast you into oblivion if you try it on, and the latter have an army of lawyers, more than most nations, and will gleefully find ways to legally screw you over if you try it on - or at least tie you up in massive legal fees.
So…you first go for the companies that are large enough to give you serious cash, but small enough not to try fighting back. Then you might try it on with the big boys if you’re feeling bold or vindictive.
Patents, especially as practised in the US, suck big time. It’s an entirely corrupt and broken system, sadly - especially sad given the good intentions and ways it used to run (not perfect, but certainly praiseworthy).
There are some lawyers (well at least one) that make a business out of sueing companies over often bogus patents, as part of the settlement they take cash and/or patents from the companies, thus increasing their arsenal and moving on to the next guy.
At my previous company we got hit by one of these characters. He sued us for a particular design, not one that we directly infringed on, but a device INSIDE a chip that we were using from Philips semiconductor or something. the thing is, there was prior art, and the patent was invalid anyway. He didn’t sue Philips that actually made the chip that infringed on his bogus patent, for a number of reasons: 1. Philips likely had enough money to successfully defend the case. 2. The philips chip cost only a few dollars per unit, if he wanted a cut he couldn’t get much, our hardware went for a couple thousand dollars per board - so he went for a cut of that. We were also smaller and less able to defend against the obviously bogus claim.
The guy had managed to extort money from many companies this way, it was his business, though of course on paper he claimed to be developing this technology in an attempt to keep the patent valid.
It is very sad the way patents are abused in North America.
Sadly, I think we had to pay the guy off eventually, because we were getting killed by legal fees - that of course was his plan all along, knowing that the patent really was worthless, and he being a lawyer didn’t have to suffer the same level of expense.
Well Bush lost all our normal jobs, now people have to be creative and sue anyone for anything to get money
Hey, I hear there are lots of job openings in Iraq…
Cas