Firstly, lawsuits are often a matter of perspective. The fact that RR Donnelly alleges infringement of its patents does not necessarily mean that infringement occured.

Secondly, great minds really do think alike. If Quark and Eastman-Kodak did, in fact, infringe on RR Donnelly’s patents, it may not have been intentional or with foreknowledge of said patents. Most often, technology patent infringements are accidental and the result of two or more people coming with the same idea independently.

To wit: A few years ago, Adobe and Macromedia traded lawsuits alleging infringement of user interface elements developed by each company. Adobe, for example, claimed that Macromedia had co-opted the tabbed palette idea and implementation that had become a hallmark of the Adobe products’ interfaces. Macromedia countersued at the same time. Macromedia lost the suit because it was proven that the company did infringe upon relevant Adobe patents. However, that infringement wasn’t willful; palettes and tabbed palettes was a logical next step in organization large amounts of information , tools, and options in a software program. Macromedia reached that evolutionary step on its own, but after Adobe.

Lastly, it’s also important to note that this is business. While no company wishes to be sued, I doubt there were strong emotions going around within the offices of any of the three parties. In all likelihood, the legal firms retained by Quark and Eastman-Kodak received the RR Donnelly notice, then calmly went to work gathering evidence to ascertain if the allegation had merit. If they choose to fight the suit, it will be done civilly and without the intrusion of “good guy” or “bad guy” labels. It’s just business.

None of the parties involved in the RR Donnelly suit have as yet commented on the suit. Thus the particulars are not known, and one should not make assumptions or villify one party or the other.