|
Post by forkodak on May 29, 2013 9:10:47 GMT -5
12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Adversary proceeding: 13-01310-alg Shutterfly, Inc. v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. et al Pre-trial Conference Adversary proceeding: 12-02070-alg GLOBAL OLED TECHNOLOGY LLC v. Eastman Kodak Company Pre-trial Conference 12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Application for compensation by Nixon Peabody LLP as special counsel to the Debtors. Application for compensation by Global IP Law Group, LLC as intellectual property consultants to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Applicaiton for compensation by Jefferies & Company, Inc. as investment banker for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as financial advisor to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Richard Stern, as fee examiner, and Pro, Stern & Eisler LLP as counsel to the fee examiner. Application for compensation by Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Togut, Segal & Segal LLP as co-counsel to Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Motion of Global Digital Forensics, Inc. allowing and compelling immediate payment of an administrative expense claim. Application for compensation by Arent Fox LLP as counsel to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al. Application for compensation by Zolfo Cooper, LLC as bankruptcy consultants and financial advisors to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al Application for compensation by The Segal Company as actuarial consultants to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al. Application for compensation by Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC as co-counsel to the official committee of retired employees Application for compensation by Lazard Freres & Co. LLC as investment banker for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP as special litigation and transactional counsel to the Debtors Application for compensation by Brinks Hofer Gilsion & Lione as special litigation counsel for the Debtors. Application for compensation by PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent auditors, accounting advisors and tax advisors for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Jones Day as special litigation counsel to the Debtors. Notice of Proposed Order for Debtors Twenty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims (related document(s)3622) Notice of Proposed Order for Debtors Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Claims (related document(s)3620) Application for compensation by Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP as counsel for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Ernst & Young LLP Application for compensation by Deloitte Consulting LLP as actuarial consulting services provider to the Debtors. Application for compensation by Linklaters LLP as special foreign counsel for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Harter Secrest & Emery, LLP as special counsel for the Debtors Eighteenth omnibus objection to claims. Response filed. Nineteenth omnibus objection to claims. Responses filed. Fourteenth omnibus motion authorizing rejection of certain executory contracts nunc pro tunc. Application for compensation by Groom Law Group, chartered as special counsel to the Debtors. Twentieth omnibus objection to claims. Response filed. Twenty first omnibus objection to claims. Twenty second omnibus objection to claims. Application for compensation by K&L Gates LLP as special litigation counsel to the Debtors. Notice of Agenda Objection to Motion of Global Digital Forensics, Inc. for Entry of an Order Allowing and Compelling Immediate Payment of Administrative Expenses Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a), 503(b) and 507(a) (related document(s)3691) Application for compensation by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as counsel to the Debtors. Adversary proceeding: 13-01332-alg Ricoh Company, Ltd. et al v. Eastman Kodak Company Pre-trial Conference Motion by Defendant enforcing the automatic stay against Ricoh Company LTD.'s and Ricoh Americas Corporation's adversary proceeding. Opposition filed. 12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Motion by Nicholas and Angel Mecca for relief from stay. Adjourned Reset for 06/20/2013 at 11:00 am Motion for appointment of a committee to represent holders of Kerip and Kurip claims. Adjourned Reset for 06/20/2013 at 11:00 am This is today >> anyone going to court or expecting anything to come of today's court events? >> thanks
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 28, 2013 20:10:26 GMT -5
So when will the fat lady have sung?
(4 Each of these dates is subject to change as set forth herein. ) Doc 3763 Filed 05/23/13 page (5&6 of 36)
Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline June 7, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) DS Hearing Order
Disclosure Statement Hearing June 13, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) DS Hearing Order
Voting Record Date June 13, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.(Eastern Time)
Solicitation Mailing Deadline On or before 7 business days after entry of the Proposed Order.
Event/Deadline Date Reference Deadline for Debtor to request claim be expunged, reclassified, or allowed in a reduced amount for voting purposes July 1, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline July 9, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Deadline to Publish the Confirmation Hearing Notice July 12, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Deadline to provide Cure Notice July 23, 2013
Plan Supplement Filing Date July 24, 2013 Plan 2.2.126
Voting Deadline July 31, 2013 at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Confirmation Objection Deadline July 31, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Assumption Objection Deadline July 31, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Voting Report August 6, 2013
Proposed Confirmation Hearing August 9, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time)
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 28, 2013 19:34:51 GMT -5
Issue: EKDK.AG Description: EASTMAN KODAK CO Coupon Rate: 7.250 Maturity Date: 11/15/2013 Execution Date Time Settlement Status T - Trade Report. C - Trade Cancel. W - Correction. Quantity Par value of the trade. Price The reported price for a trade is the all-inclusive price, inclusive of a mark-up or markdown. If there is a commission on the trade, it will be entered in a separate field on the trade report, but will be disseminated as the combined price. It is this all-in price that is disseminated. Yield The effective rate of return earned on a security expressed as a percentage. TRACE will disseminate the lower of Yield to Call (retirement of the bond at a date prior to maturity) or Yield to Maturity. For certain variable-rate securities and defaulted bonds trading flat of accrued interest, no yield will be displayed. Commission Fees paid to a broker for executing a trade as agent based on the number of bonds traded or the dollar amount of the trade. Modifier This field will indicate if there are any special conditions or modifiers applicable to the trade transaction. Associated values after 2/6/2012 are: Z Trade Reported Late (Out of Sequence) T Trade Reported After Market Hours U Trade Reported Late After Market Hours Associated values for transactions prior to 2/6/2012 are: @ Regular Trade C Cash Trade N Next Day R Sellers Option A Trades outside of market hours W Weighted Average price Z Sold Late (Out of Sequence) 2nd Modifier This field is used to describe a second sale condition that is applicable to the trade. Associated values after 2/6/2012 are: W Weighted Average price Associated values for transactions prior to 2/6/2012 are: Space No Second Modifier Applicable A Trades Reported After Market Hours Z Trades Reported Late (Out of Sequence) Special A trade was consummated contrary to the current standard convention for the particular bond. Also known as a 'specified trade.' A trade identified with a 'Special' price indicator will, if eligible, be disseminated, but will not be incorporated in the calculation of the day's high, low and last price for the security. These trades will be denoted by a 'Y' in the 'Special' column under Time & Sales Results screen. As Of A trade reported by a brokerage firm on a date later than the actual trade date. As-Of trades are not included in the day's market aggregates (i.e., high, low, last sales), but, if eligible for dissemination, will be made available through TRACE and FINRA BondInfo when received with the date of execution indicated. Reporting Party Side B Customer trade where reporting party (dealer) bought from a customer. S Customer trade where reporting party (dealer) sold to a customer. D Inter-dealer trade (always a sell). 05/28/2013 16:09:37 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 35000. 16.450 0.000 N B 05/28/2013 16:09:37 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 35000. 16.550 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 15:28:24 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 60000. 20.850 0.000 Y S 05/28/2013 15:28:00 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 60000. 20.750 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 14:31:35 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 25000. 18.250 0.000 N B 05/28/2013 14:31:35 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 25000. 18.250 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 14:31:00 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 30000. 18.500 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 13:28:49 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 15000. 16.000 0.000 N B 05/28/2013 10:41:06 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 100000. 19.250 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 10:40:18 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 100000. 19.000 0.000 N B 05/28/2013 10:19:10 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 20000. 18.000 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 10:19:06 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 20000. 18.000 0.000 N D 05/28/2013 10:19:06 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 20000. 17.900 0.000 Y B 05/28/2013 08:07:17 5/31/2013 12:00:00 AM T 80000. 21.155 0.000 N S cxa.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/finra/BondCenter/BondTradeActivitySearchResult.aspx?StartDate=05/27/2013&EndDate=05/28/2013&SelectionOption=2&TradeSize=&SortBy=0&ID=Mjc3NDYxQkQw
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 27, 2013 19:13:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 22:41:38 GMT -5
As you read above it seems like an issue that should or could happen on "thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board" but our volume is not thin at all on the dates in question...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 22:37:07 GMT -5
from above link
II. "Naked" Short Sales In a "naked" short sale, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time to make delivery to the buyer within the standard three-day settlement period. 3 As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due (known as a "failure to deliver" or "fail").
Failures to deliver may result from either a short or a long sale. There may be legitimate reasons for a failure to deliver. For example, human or mechanical errors or processing delays can result from transferring securities in physical certificate rather than book-entry form, thus causing a failure to deliver on a long sale within the normal three-day settlement period. A fail may also result from naked short selling. For example, market makers who sell short thinly traded, illiquid stock in response to customer demand may encounter difficulty in obtaining securities when the time for delivery arrives.
Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security4 generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board,5 as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 22:27:03 GMT -5
maybe this link is helpful **** B. Reasons Why A Security May Appear on a Threshold List A security's appearance on a threshold list does not necessarily mean that any improper activity has occurred or is occurring. An equity security will appear on a threshold list if it meets the definition of a threshold security set forth in Regulation SHO, meaning that failures to deliver the stock (i.e. to the party on the other side of the trade) have reached an aggregate of 10,000 shares or greater at NSCC for five consecutive settlement days and are equal to 0.5% of total shares outstanding; C. Reasons Why A Security May Stay on a Threshold List for Longer Than 13 Consecutive Settlement Days Even when broker-dealers close-out delivery failures, a security may remain on an SRO's threshold securities list for longer than 13 days. Examples of why securities may remain on the threshold securities list: after broker-dealers close-out all delivery failures, the security stays on the threshold list for five consecutive days; new delivery failures resulting from long or short sales may have crossed the threshold, keeping the security on the SRO's threshold securities list; or the delivery failures at NSCC may have been established prior to a security's appearance on the SRO's threshold securities list, and are grandfathered from the close-out requirement of Regulation SHO. For information about specific securities, contact the appropriate SRO or its market center listed above. *** www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 22:08:59 GMT -5
I am not an expert so others might explain this better >> but when a short contract is closed the shares must be delivered and often parties don't own the shares so they have to go buy them in the open market to deliver them... Since the volume was so high you would think shares were out there to be bought >> so why for 9 days were there issues in delivering the shares... Sorry if I am mucking this up... don't do options but they can be good tells *** cut and paste from above and link *** Threshold Definitions Regulation SHO defines threshold securities as any equity security of an issuer that is registered under Section 12, or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) and where, for five consecutive settlement days: there are aggregate fails to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more per security; AND the level of fails is equal to at least one-half of one percent of the issuer's total shares outstanding www.otcmarkets.com/marketActivity/reg-sho-otc
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 21:49:23 GMT -5
But there is some interesting info >> 9 days straight 1/2 percent of 270 million shares or 1.35 million shares were not delivered...
With our huge volume of 100 million shares the first day how is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 21:24:11 GMT -5
When you think about it May 7 from the above data might have been the first day that would qualify the rule about "five consecutive settlement days" and it tock till the 17 to cover all the shorts to deliver shares on closed contracts >> but then why is the short position more less the same at the end of the period? I notice the days to cover are 1 for the new shorts...
Any thoughts >> thanks
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 21:18:18 GMT -5
I find this confusing since short total data changed by less than 10,000 shares but there were 9 days where there was a failure to deliver on trades as can be read about below... Reg SHO & Rule 4320 Status Date Reg SHO Threshold Flag Rule4320 Flag May 17, 2013 ****Yes******** No May 16, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 15, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 14, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 13, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 10, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 9, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 8, 2013 ****Yes ******** No May 7, 2013 ****Yes ******** No Threshold Definitions Regulation SHO defines threshold securities as any equity security of an issuer that is registered under Section 12, or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) and where, for five consecutive settlement days: there are aggregate fails to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more per security; AND the level of fails is equal to at least one-half of one percent of the issuer's total shares outstanding www.otcmarkets.com/marketActivity/reg-sho-otc
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 21:12:36 GMT -5
New short data out no change... May 15, 2013 20,896,440 -0.04 23,223,428 1.00 No No Apr 30, 2013 20,904,519 0.99 4,796,129 4.36 No No Apr 15, 2013 20,699,638 3.23 2,357,801 8.78 No No Mar 28, 2013 20,051,699 11.76 9,467,524 2.12 No No www.otcmarkets.com/stock/EKDKQ/short-sales
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 21:11:16 GMT -5
Hey Jacksonhole>> I found the link and above info after I posted >> But on a short there are two sided to the trade and if it was clear that the shares were going to zero one side of the trade would just walk away and no new or additional short positions would be created >> for the positions that are still open it would seem there is no reason to close them if people think the shares are going to zero since there is that 100 times strike price deal (from above link)
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 9:02:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 8:37:04 GMT -5
Found this site not sure if it is correct or not... "What happens to the options on an equity if that company files for bankruptcy? Do the options keep trading until expiration date? If a company files for bankruptcy and the shares still trade or are halted from trading but continue to exist, the options will settle for the underlying shares. Quite often, the shares begin trading on the Pink Sheets or over-the-counter if delisted from the national stock exchange where they are listed and when they do the options exchanges will usually announce that the options are eligible for "closing only" transactions – no opening positions are allowed. Generally, there are no exercise restrictions. However, if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing." www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html>> If the above is true you would think an increase in short numbers would signal parties think it might be canceled while a decrease in short numbers could mean parties think there might be an upside... Not sure about options myself...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 7:58:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 24, 2013 7:37:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 21, 2013 20:49:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 21, 2013 16:13:53 GMT -5
Getting involved how? Explain Epson just filed papers to get info; maybe they are interested in buying Kodak's consumer printer assets unless those are sold already...
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 18:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 18:13:59 GMT -5
Seems like May 23 is a be deal too; from the disclosure link 11:00 a.m. (ET) on June 13, 2013 (the “Disclosure Statement Approval Hearing”) at the Court, One Bowling Green, New York, NY 10004 to consider, among other things, entry of an order (I) approving the Disclosure Statement; (II) establishing a voting record date for the Plan; (III) establishing an initial administrative claims bar date; (IV) approving solicitation packages and procedures for the distribution thereof; (V) approving the forms of ballots; (VI) establishing procedures for voting on the Plan; (VII) establishing notice and objection procedures for confirmation of the Plan; and (VIII) establishing procedures for the assumption and/or assignment of executory contracts and unexpired leases under the Plan (the “Order”). The Debtors will file and serve a motion seeking approval of the Order (the “Motion”) with the Court on or before May 23, 2013, consistent with the Order Authorizing the Establishment of Certain Notice, Case Management, and Administrative Procedures [Docket No. 362], as amended [Docket No. 1655]. www.kccllc.net/documents/1210202/1210202130508000000000006.pdf
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 17:48:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 16:06:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 16:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 15:57:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 15:41:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 13:33:36 GMT -5
11:00 AM 12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Adversary proceeding: 13-01310-alg Shutterfly, Inc. v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc. et al Pre-trial Conference Adversary proceeding: 12-02070-alg GLOBAL OLED TECHNOLOGY LLC v. Eastman Kodak Company Pre-trial Conference 12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Application for compensation by Richard Stern, as fee examiner, and Pro, Stern & Eisler LLP as counsel to the fee examiner. Application for compensation by Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Nixon Peabody LLP as special counsel to the Debtors. Applicaiton for compensation by Jefferies & Company, Inc. as investment banker for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Global IP Law Group, LLC as intellectual property consultants to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Application for compensation by Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as financial advisor to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Motion by Nicholas and Angel Mecca for relief from stay. Application for compensation by Togut, Segal & Segal LLP as co-counsel to Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Motion of Global Digital Forensics, Inc. allowing and compelling immediate payment of an administrative expense claim. Application for compensation by Arent Fox LLP as counsel to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al. Application for compensation by The Segal Company as actuarial consultants to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al. Application for compensation by Zolfo Cooper, LLC as bankruptcy consultants and financial advisors to the Official Committee of Retired Employees of Eastman Kodak Company, et al Application for compensation by Haskell Slaughter Young & Rediker, LLC as co-counsel to the official committee of retired employees Application for compensation by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP as special litigation and transactional counsel to the Debtors Application for compensation by Linklaters LLP as special foreign counsel for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Groom Law Group, chartered as special counsel to the Debtors. Application for compensation by Jones Day as special litigation counsel to the Debtors. Application for compensation by K&L Gates LLP as special litigation counsel to the Debtors. Application for compensation by Lazard Freres & Co. LLC as investment banker for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Deloitte Consulting LLP as actuarial consulting services provider to the Debtors. Application for compensation by Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP as counsel for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Ernst & Young LLP Fourteenth omnibus motion authorizing rejection of certain executory contracts nunc pro tunc. Application for compensation by Harter Secrest & Emery, LLP as special counsel for the Debtors Eighteenth omnibus objection to claims. Response filed. Nineteenth omnibus objection to claims. Responses filed. Application for compensation by PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent auditors, accounting advisors and tax advisors for the Debtors. Application for compensation by Brinks Hofer Gilsion & Lione as special litigation counsel for the Debtors. Twentieth omnibus objection to claims. Response filed. Twenty first omnibus objection to claims. Twenty second omnibus objection to claims. Application for compensation by Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as counsel to the Debtors. Adversary proceeding: 13-01332-alg Ricoh Company, Ltd. et al v. Eastman Kodak Company Pre-trial Conference Motion by Defendant enforcing the automatic stay against Ricoh Company LTD.'s and Ricoh Americas Corporation's adversary proceeding. 12-10202-alg Eastman Kodak Company Ch. 11 Motion for appointment of a committee to represent holders of Kerip and Kurip claims. Adjourned Reset for 06/20/2013 at 11:00 am www.nysb.uscourts.gov/calendars/alg.html
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 20, 2013 6:52:22 GMT -5
Last paragraph...
Where are the millions of future profits from Uni-Pixel? How come they're not in the new Disclosure Statement? If UniBoss' profits are truly expected to be of the magnitude that analysts project, Kodak must update its projected figures. Our only conclusion is that Kodak believes the agreement with Uni-Pixel is unlikely to amount to anything.
There you have it. The silence from Kodak is deafening.
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 18, 2013 13:36:57 GMT -5
Moved this to the front page to see if anyone had some thoughts... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This ruling August 31, 2012 which Apple opposed increases the value of IP... “divided infringement” is when company X does part and company Y does part and together are able to work around a patent... CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum: The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies & McKesson Technologies, Part 1 www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/09/04/caf....um-p1/id=27774/*** below a bloomberg story talking about Apple "Limelight, which argued that it can’t be held liable for infringement unless it performed all steps of an Akamai patent, was supported by Apple Inc. (AAPL), Google Inc. (GOOG) and Facebook Inc. (FB) who are seeking to curtail similar suits against them. Drugmakers including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Inc. (PFE) sided with Akamai, arguing such a limit would weaken patent rights and hurt innovation. " www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-31....-claims-1-.html*** It was around this time frame that Kodak started talking about keeping the patents or spinning them off >> if my memory is correct... Pro talked about 4 patents that where from memory ITC case 377-831 >> those might have fallen under divided infringement where part was done by the camera or phone and part was done by the PC and so Kodak was asking for discovery from both Apple and Microsoft in regard to the PC side of things in that ITC case... I put this up for consideration suggesting that the IP has value... I can't imagine that there is not more in the works that we have not seen yet... Time will tell... I will hold till the end... I am not a Pro... link is local site... Read more: kodak.boards.net/index.cgi?board=kodakvaluation&action=display&thread=5522#ixzz2Tfe2cUyR
|
|
|
Post by forkodak on May 18, 2013 13:28:46 GMT -5
|
|