While I appreciate how hard it would be to implement properly, I don't think that should be an impediment to getting the process started.
Isn't that part of what it means to acquire a patent? Trying to get a patent on something that I don't yet know how to actually implement should be denied, right?
Of course the risk is that if someone else challenges you on it, and you can't provide the implementation, you can have your patent invalidated.
At least that's my understanding of the tactics of patent warfare.
other than selling $20 million worth of 1991 Kodak DCS 100, and following it with many more advanced models ....
If that's not dragging your feet I don't know what is. They could have defined the marked for professional digital cameras. Instead they just proved that a digital nikon would work nicely.
I bought a Kodak digital camera in the 90s, and other brands too, so I doubt that version of events.
> when others tried to innovate and create a digital camera, Kodak sued them
Steven Sasson invented the first digital camera (and a device to display it on) in 1975 while working at R&D at Kodak. He had a fully functional DSLR by 1989, complete with memory cards. Kodak never released his work, never manufactured that camera. They kept the patent of the work and sat on it, and when others tried to innovate and create a digital camera, Kodak sued them with that patent and kept suing people right up until the patent ran out in 2007. By 2012, the company was bankrupt.
Innovation, true innovation that really pushes technology forward, is anathema to the average business.