From: axman@acadia.Kodak.COM (Mike Axman)
Subject: Re: Bottom Line on Photo CD
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 13:45:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.192504.6274@ncmicro.lonestar.org>, chris@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Chris Arps) writes:
>All this patent bull**** is really starting to piss me off!
>

I'm sure it would bother you even more if you knew something about it :-)

>1) If you can patent a lousy file format, then SONY could have
>patented the CD and its format and got a piece of every CD made.
>Why aren't you paying SONY, Kodak?
>

Sony and Philips jointly own many of the patents for utilizing the 
CD technology, and YES they DO collect royalties for these.  This has
little to do with the format of the data you write onto them, however.
CD-DA, CD-I, CD-TV, CD+G, CD+M, and Photo CD all utilize the same 
media.


>2) If Kodak supposedly spent so much technical time and effort,
>why didn't they develop their OWN optical media and readers
>so that the data format would be secure.
>

We did have our "own media", called "phase change" media which is 
superior in many respects to the CD-writeable materials being used
by CD writers.  However, the prospects of bucking the current reflectivity standards for CD-Audio players, etc... was determined to be a bad approach.
Kodak relies on Philips and others for CD player and CD-ROM drive support, 
and compatability with existing media and hardware standards was preferred. 


>3) Some countries (Hong Kong, Brazil, Italy) do not 
>offer any patent protection and will make products anyway.
>

Write your congressman.

>
>4) If this type of logic applies to standard products, then
>an automobile parts manufacturer that is making Ford
>replacement/enchancement parts could be sued for patent
>infringement.
>

If Ford has a patent on the process used to make that part, they 
certainly could.

>COME ON! You should be able to patent a whole product, not
>the underlying algorithms that support it.  You are supposed
>to survive by keeping trade secrets SECRET and by competeing
>with the rest of the world.  This forces you to improve your
>product in order to compete.
>

Trade secrets, such as those for making a particular film emulsion, are
not as easy to "keep secret" (especially from Hadmut) in the case of 
software systems.  If software and algorithms can't be protected in 
some way for some period of time, then the software industry has little
protection, since trade secrets are somewhat of a misnomer in this area.


>If this patent nonsense (hah!) is allowed to continue,
>the small software shop or independent programmer might
>as well find another job (or move to Brazil).  You will
>also see software development in this country grind to a
>halt as competition is legislated against.  Of course
>this means that prices will aslo go up!.
>

Or maybe just the opposite.  If the small programmer relies on trade 
secrets to protect his investment, he's going to find that the BIG software
companies with resources to do so, will reverse engineer his "trade secrets" 
a few weeks after product introduction. 

This is definitely not a black/white issue, and your arguments are just as
"gray" as mine.  If you don't like the patent system, work to change it.  

mike




- 
>Chris Arps  ***BUY MARTIAN************ *New Music*SONIC YOUTH*SUICIDAL TEND*
>NC/Scientific Software, Music,         *GARY NEUMAN*K. SCHULZE*PETER HAMILL*
>Animation, 4 Dogs,2 Birds,1 cat        *Old Music*SPIRIT*MMANN*VDGG*HENDRIX*
>NC Microproducts, 2323 N Central Ste 380, Richardson TX 75080 214-234-6655*

-- 
Mike Axman  
CD-Imaging Advanced Development
Eastman Kodak Company
axman@kodak.com


DISCLAIMER:
Kodak gives me this Net access for free, but they aren't 
responsible for my postings.