Littman 45 Single... anyone using one?

I do not understand what Mr. Jones' problem may be. I bought a camera from him and

it was D.O.A. on arrival in every respect, besides what I stated earlier another test was

performed where the viewfinder parallax lines were checked against the ground glass

and were found to be significantly different than the image produced then a mask

was placed over the parallax projector to see if the viewfinder window itself could act

as the viewfinder and that was totally off.

 

The camera therefore has no viewfinder period.

 

What war does he want to wage, he sells a faulty product insisting it works perfectly

for an application it could never do, he now has requests for procedural etiquette?

 

I never stated that I had many mistake, he offered to send the camera saying "I may

have made a mistake" and I replied that "yes" as to "please send the camera", clearly

one prefers to receive something today and not tomorrow I know nothing of camera

made with odd bits and ends, he represented he was shipping  something well made, 

I realize he may be disappointed that the truth is disclosed, Mr. Jones should be

apologizing for the mess he has created.

Whatever may have been the problem with the camera, I would have thought that some contact with me persoanlly would have been the norm.

Any fault would have either been corrected or a full refund given. To run along to see William is somewhat of a mystery to me. The camera had been used by many intersted parties, prior to it`s appearance on Ebay with much success. I feel that this whole scenario stinks and I am deeply disappointed with the behavior shown here. I would have thought better from such supposedly esteemed gentlemen. (for want of a better word).

the matter at hand is not whether the actual camera was used previously to the satisfaction of someone else , or as I am sure that some people who bought cameras from Dean Jones are satisfied with them, maybe all of them are , the matter at hand is whether the product is what was offered when it has been purchased to verify just that , My concern is whether products offered as able to do what mine can acctualy do that, that is why it was purchased.

 

The product was purchased as evidence as stated and not intended as a users camera therefore the expectancy of allowing a warranty or offered service to occur is not applicable.

 

Furthermore it has been established that regarding the fact that it cannot be a 4x5 point and shoot camera , that could not be repaired as nothing is broken, it is that way as a result of the caracteristics of the original product, that is not Mr jones fault, the problem is not the characteristic of the original product but the insistance that it can do what it cant, regarding the shutter , bellows that wouldnt have mattered in this case , and that would not have prompted the disclosure of these facts as clearly if one only spends a fraction of the cost, the product can be expected to be a lesser product, and if it could technically be considered as a 4x5 point and shoot and the rf had worked then it would have been a

great bargain even if it had some problems .the fact that it wasnt what was offered and nothing worked was the case.Mr. Jones: earlier today you wrote"The next thing that totally eludes me is the obsession with the Polaroid rangefinder and parallax compensation! " as of today you state the following in your site"Obviously the 110B with its all in one brightline parallax corrected finder is supreme" earlier you had written" the model to follow, which spoilt us with its big brightline finder, parallax corrected, and now all in one! Much faster focusing and composition was now possible, thereby rendering the model 110B the most popular. the obsession you speak about was partly fueled by you

and when the truth finally comes out that the fact that when you utilize a 110b to make your product it doesnt retain the properties you have boasted about for so long you say that the advantage you have promoted for so long as beneficial " that it eludes there is an obsession ",in any event it is not an obsession but a recognition that even you have made . N'est pas?

Dear Mr Littman -

 

Firstly I am glad the old Littman 45s are worth more than the orginal price - that means other people are making money off them, and maybe you shoudl go back to your original design as it is obviously better (otherwise why would people pay more??)

 

Secondly I am glad you are happy you are OK with people saying your product is overpriced, because I feel it is.

 

Thanks

first model was discontinued so I could make the new model which owners already report is better than the first, the first model will now build collectors value, but I may have to still make some as an option, I'm fine with some people thinking it is overpriced because that shows they do not appreciate what it can do and as few will be made it is clearly best that it is used by those who are appreciative of its properties,

Mr. Jones nothing proves my case better than this recent appearance here by Mr. Morgan, after you ended the threads of last September in which you admitted it was you that had started the instigation against my patent on photo.net but not really necessary since many threads had previously existed in which people compared products, some liked it some didn't some thought it was the best thing some said it was silly, It was healthy those were true photo.net large forum threads after you made a clear and dedicated effort to rally people against my patent all that changed , when you ended the threads by saying that in your opinion a legal patent needed to be respected what that meant in your case was that you would have to seek advice on what is covered and not as to not again go online to

make false statements in order to justify what you prefer then you would have to technically understand it before making something and insisting again to the public it is justified for reasons it clearly isn't , I am not saying your product isn't justified at this time but saying that the reasons you provide aren't such as " snapback"and then that would also mean that you would not again try to rally support against my rights if the truth did not fit your preference because you made assumptions rather than understand what it means.

 

I have no intention of bothering any private individual , the subject would have never come up if you hadn't validated and instigated as you have.

 

At the end of the threads I agreed to waive my rights as a result of a pressure you created which amounts to extortion, you threatened you would and you did, but as you then insisted that a legal patent needs to be respected and when I tried to limit my claims to allow

an alleged prior art, I was told that because there was no valid proof It was out of my hands.

 

If you wish to consider terrain you gained as a result of extortion as a matter having been addressed , that is your choice but at end of threads I followed your advise and took a vacation except that when I arrived at my destination Mr. Morgan had started a thread apparently because he did not understand what the differences were between your product and mine.

 

After I had to say something stupid to him, he admitted that he had visited your site but was unclear what the differences were.

 

Now let me be perfectly clear My site describes in great detail what my product is and does, yours absolutely does not, it never has and that has been my quarrel with you since you started, in that thread which was started using the name of my product people started promoting yours based on the belief that "it can" do what mine does and as a result people started posting an address to your site and your auctions except that obviously they still had no clue as to what it is that you offer so the nonsense went on and on placing me in the position of having to explain what the difference is because you do not wish that the truth comes out, that is why you haven't said it in your site or your auctions.

 

Obviously that places me in jeopardy because I shouldn't have to be the one describing your product because you do not wish to and when I speak it will clearly appear as If what I am saying is only to my advantage, never mind if its the absolute truth, that is not the position I need to be placed in or see the value of my product get trashed based on omissions of the truth in your promotion. It is also not up to satisfied owners of your product to come and make a "puff" piece about being satisfied with it , if your product could do what mine does then yes by all means

Have no doubt that some of your customers do not mind if your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot which would mean that when you point it you get the benefit of the whole neg or most of it, you present it as a hand held 4x5 point and shoot and people assume as proven that is what the photos will be, that the neg or Polaroid gets fully exposed is a separate issue from the fact that the photograph cannot be the photograph selected, and my question is If you agree that you realized that the auction for the faulty Horseman back which was a nightmare for Mr. Graham and that it produce an image off center, how would it be any different that your customers have to obtain an image off center from what the viewfinder sees

on the film when you represent that your camera works perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot, clearly a back of center is a gross error but ultimately on a point and shoot camera so is a finder which does not show at all what the film sees , in one case you get an additional distortion as a result of the back being permanently shifted and an image which is not the one the owner chooses and in your case the owner just cant choose an image and get that on film.

 

Lets be clear N.Nixon can shoot 8x10 handheld without a finder , most people cant or choose not to and in your case when you represent that the camera will work perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot with the assistance of the viewfinder, those who

consider buying it might actually expect that to be true, some may not but they have the right to know before they buy and as it is clear that up to now all believe that your camera could work perfectly as a 4x5 point and shoot and that would be possible thanks to the assistance of the 110b viewfinder which you have boasted so much about .

 

Having to find myself in this position on a constant basis places me against a sword and a wall just as you had done in the threads in September where I either waived my rights or I got bashed further, I do wish to get a life, I had one before you decided to re write the laws of coexistence and business based on your consideration that because these cameras had been discontinued earlier on " improvements to an existing product" would not qualify as novel.

 

If people choose to believe the wrong thing about a product, there is nothing wrong with that, but as a manufacturer who has avenues of promotion like a site and as I have proven that you have also started threads specifically to promote his product on photo.net as you have, but have chosen not to reveal what the product does in your offers, you are then entirely to blame if in turn it is shown that people are damaging the prestige and value of my product based on both your unwillingness to admit what it is that yours does and now as proven that you insist it does what it cant and what it cant do is what is considered as the main value of my product, This is not a patent issue, that I have had to regurgitate the existence of a patent as the only means to protect myself from the falsehoods that you have allowed to endure and finally stated is what is truly ludicrous,

 

Again we found ourselves in this thread where people were continuing to believe the same, and posting your auctions as a viable alternative to my product and at that point I realized that I was never going to be able to have a life unless the contrary was proven, I did not choose the role you cornered me into as you cornered me when you instigated against my patent, and finally I had no choice , the public is not at fault for wanting to know the truth or discussing a product, that they have to come to a thread to learn the very basic differences because you do not disclose anything in your site or offers places me at risk, four months had passed and no progress was made, the confusion you have created is so documented and pervasive that when the comments by the best of the profession, the reviews , the awards, the galleries from the owners and finally their testimonials were offered in these threads they were either met with hostility, disbelief , or plain antagonism,

 

I do wish to get a life and would have never have had to keep bringing the past back except for the fact that nothing changed in the public eye and people were still willing to cling on to false beliefs,

 

Your duty to describe your product is not a duty to me, but to your clients / general public, when you admit that you are willing to bid on ebay auction just to bring attention to your site ,I listen, you are doing the exact same thing here , when I can prove that you have started threads to promote your product and which showed that no one cared I insist that If you knew I was getting pounded since November on these matters you could have made an effort to disclose the truth in your site , you preferred not to , clearly having the public believe what is false benefits you, and having people send you business from threads like this one also sits well with you, I'm not the only one who gets screwed, ultimately it is the public, the very same public you are so intent in convincing first that the 110b is gods gift to photography and then telling them it eludes you that an obsession exists because in your case the 110b issue doesn't go your way, the same public which you first rally to undermine a patent and then ask them to respect it.

 

It is clear that I am a gentleman and that there is a clear difference with you being able to slap a 4x5 back on a camera is one thing, If you had gone to say just that and not found a need to misrepresent the product as what it isn't, and also omitted the truth about the final characteristics for so long because otherwise people wont be interested I would not find myself harmed and constantly diverted from my life as you have admitted.

 

What Im saying here is nothing but the actual truth, but just as you have insisted that a legal patent needs to be respected but you refuse to read what it says, You also Imply again here to be surprised as to what the status of things actually are and that you are surprised that a new patent pending may exist when you knew that since September, it is posted in my site, if a legal patent needs to be respected, that applies to 2,3 whatever.

 

In any event the main issue has never been the patent, the source of disagreement

can be clearly proven to be what I state here, and the most damaged by all this is the general public, who has had to read all of this, you admit this situation is really annoying then better face the fact that you also created it, that I have clear and definitive proof it was not justified including your own admittance.

 

Perhaps the greatest damage done to me and my product is that those interested

in it in a forum as this one have had to endure this , and my problem is that I am not a .edu I am a business who is very small and requires a lot of reinvestment and

when in a thread destined to understand my product it continues to be devaluated

by falsehoods and has caused me to loose enormous sums and placed me at risk, of either facing discredit because I have to defend myself against the falsehoods or risk further financial loss, I had no choice , I had to choose putting up with the abuse and discredit because I cant afford to loose the business, that is not a pleasant choice.

 

Rest assured I have cleared my good name in full, I should not have had to endure all this nor should the public because of your refusal to examine things for what they are and instead hope to rally the public to allow you to gain advantage , you are not

a guy in his house making his own camera, you are a competitor when you represent your product can do the only thing mine can , when you go on to state that

yours can do it perfectly, when that is proven false, and that can be done 100 times further you have lost all credibility ,proved my case , and have finally closed these matters for good.

 

If what you offered to the public was what you delivered then you could squeal all you want ,but as that has not been the case , and when your squealing has discredited me immensely and it turns out that I can no longer conduct my business as a result, you show up again to give me advice that I should get a life.

 

The first who deserve to live is the general public by not being enticed to buy something presented as what it isn't, then I also wish to live receiving the benefits of my efforts which I should after my product has performed well and was considered as the most responsive yet since 2002, Then you also deserve to live receiving the benefits which you deserve for whatever it is you offer if it does what you say and you are legally entitled, The public comes first and you come second , when it is clear that you have not even observed the golden rule you are hereby asked to desist expecting the public support against someone who has not only put the public first by providing them with what is considered as the most valuable alternative for a task but has done so at great personal sacrifice but that now is in a very bad situation after your admitted instigation.

 

The title of this thread is Littman 45 single, has anyone used one? as many times before it was hijacked by falsehoods , now that I have finally been able to present proof I encourage free discussion and comparison to any product, the conversions cited aren't , I am fine with people thinking that my product isn't for them , that they would rather use anything else, I am fine with anything, if I wasn't fine before is because I was at a disadvantage and so were all bona fide participants which were being knowingly misled , I simply needed some time , unfortunately your curiosity and my schedule did not always coincide and I was forced to participate when I had no choice, I need not be involved, I know my product and I can respect peoples opinions even if that doesn't go my way, I hope you can understand why I felt I had the need to get my product out of the gutter as it did not deserve to be there, neither do I, I feel I have accomplished that , while the truth was required it happens to be really ugly, that is neither my fault or the public, and I trust that in time those who are interested in the subject whether for purchase or curiosity will ultimately benefit, after all when a subject which is really clear and simple cant find closure

it is either because someone doesn't want the truth to be known , on the other hand I ask you all that you Please don't blame me If I could not afford to continue to live with a lie or be at ease with the discussion until the truth had come out as I was at a disadvantage and that the way the truth has had to come out was not my choice,

we would have never had to go thru all this if it was offered from the source on the very first time he offered something , in an auction or in his site,

Happy Easter and Pesaj to all

 

 

 

I'm hereby posting info on another camera which was purchased by me from Steve

Icanberry / alpenhause on ebay auction #2960980935 .

 

The viewfinder issues were identical in both cameras proving that it is not a matter of

craftsmanship or lack of it but of the original product unless modified properly for the

format.

 

Camera back is not 90 degrees with front standard which" is "90 degrees.

 

Shutter speeds are acceptable/actually very good.

 

Rangefinder again did not work well at close medium or far distance and was also out of

axis with images one on top of eachother instead of parallel,Focus is worse that  on the

other camera

 

Camera not a Polaroid 110B but a Polaroid 110A converted into a 4x5 utilizing the finder

parts of a Polaroid 900, just as Mr. Icanberry insisted he was not using on the earlier

threads.

 

The camera was purchased because the seller stated  the following amongst other things

in the description of the auction:"Here is my latest pride and joy ""The parallax frame has

been re-adjusted to match the larger frame. "

 

 

 

Upon receipt it was immediately verified that it did not have parallax correction for 4x5 as

promised , also the title of the auction was offering a Polaroid 110b converted to 4x5, it

was not a Polaroid 110b.

 

 

 

Clearly if a competitor goes to offer the conveniences Of the littman at 25% of the cost

that damages the market for  Littman and that is why we are here where people question

the value of his product, and on the parallax issue  this camera  could have been either a

patent infringement or mail Fraud the later is the case.

 

 

 

I'm not surprised that the market got this confused, after seeing Littman suffer

unnecessarily I decided to do something about it.

 

I have ordered a Littman which I have used successfully since last year has worked

 

as represented in his site and I am grateful for that, when in turn I see the pain  he has

had to put up with and in  light of this evidence I believe it is time to move on.

Hello All,

I just logged on hoping to find some nice words about William and his camera.... and still

nothing.. Well, I guess, I have to do it myself... The camera I purchased from William, is

with me on assignment, every other week at least... it works perfectly well and finally, I

hope to be buying another one sometime soon...

This inter continental nonsense makes me laugh... it sounds like a bunch of children

crying wolf... Again and for the last time, William delivered the camera on time, we had a

very pleasent chat... and you should really start to enjoy photography, instead of harassing

over petty details a very genuine, hard working and honest craftsman.

Well, I apologize for posting the original question! I had no idea that things would

become so ..... well- "wasteful"

 

What a waste of bandwidth...

 

I am awaiting a converted 110b from Mr. Jones... that was my decision... I was not

swayed by any e@ay listings, I made this decision mainly on opinions and price

point...

and I will in good time respond with my thoughts....

sure, I'd love to be able to afford a Littman... but... I must say that Mr Littman has

rather appalled me with his attitudes...

 

regards,

 

Bob Keene

Mr. Keene thank you for joining in, I thought the party was for you! very fashionably late !,

Clearly you wont be influenced by his offer on ebay after reading my comments in a thread which you started to find answers about my product and after I specified what the omissions of his offers are, you have to be kidding,nobody here questions your intelligence , you came to get answers about my product you were pointed to his, and you end up saying that you purchased and will bring it over, you have made my point better than anyone before, and I am certain that your findings will only prove my point further!

 

Cheers W

All my recent appearence proves, is I had time to post - nothing else :-)

 

*GRIN*

 

(BTW Mr Littman - do you actually take photos or are you solely a camera designer??)

This highlighted banner was posted in Mr Jones website as of yesterday when he denied

ever reffering to his back as " made by Polaroid" ,  this banner has been Posted in his

website since January 2003.<div></div>

He replaced the old banner with this new one which still implies that the back is made by

Polaroid, what does a 4x5  camera back have to do with Polaroid unless it is made by

Polaroid ?= nothing!!<div></div>

AS Dean Jones continues to lie and has again gone to post insults on his site and here as

well , I cant believe that instead of sticking to the facts insults are used to justify this.

 

 

instead of accepting the reality I have reviewed my email and this was the communication,

 

His email;

 

"The auction was actually for the conversion of a camera that you supply, not the camera

pictured!  I was simply using my camera as an example of what your camera would look

like when converted.   I realize you may have misunderstood the listing, but if you use

Paypal for payment, I will ship you the exact camera pictured,"

 

, If he feels he has misrepresented the auction in any way why would I be to blame, how

come he assumes that I may have made a mistake? In any event  he did not do me a favor

by shipping a faulty camera ,anyone would prefer to wait a couple of weeks or send an

actual camera than get this atrocity as the shipping costs alone would exceed the cost of a

110b, what is devious is trying to turn the tables around  he insiste that a patent should

be respected and then insults Littman for buying a camera which is  his  right, Jones never

intended to respect the patent, he does not respect trademarks or the truth.

 

 Ultimately it doesn't matter to me or anyone whether the camera was originally intended

for sale, at some point he decided to sell it and on his own why should that reflect on me.

 

 In any event as he represents in the auction that the camera offered would have been

identical to the one pictured I would have gotten an identical product as he states  right?.

You showing up here with this timing confirms that since last November this question has been force fed upon me to promote Dean and others based on the falsehoods mentioned earlier and I have proven that wasn't/ isn't kosher, the existent evidence is vast and pervasive.

You showing up here now proves as you know that this hasn't progressed and Yes I am a Photographer as well but unfortunately since last September, my life has been interrupted that has been proven and even admitted By Jones who on the other hand insists that I can have life by just living with all this , I found that after the animosity he created I havent been allowed to have a life until now , But as it is clear that no further poetry and embellishment and insults will be believed I will now have a life and " all " of my rights back and on that note I grin but also sad that this has had to occur in the first place , I never started threads to discredit someone , I did once start a thread to offer gallery space for those who had used the cameras, owners and just users and thread participants requested it removed on the basis that it "smaked of commercialism" , photo. net doesn't treat all the same way but I would have hoped that my rights would have been respected, they have not .

 

In any event let me just say that jones now insits in his site that My camera is expensive in an insulting manner , and i remind you that 3 separtate cameras were purchased on ebay from different people and and were not really inexpensive since they were neither what was offered and no need to get into performance details, I never met Mr Graham and havent spken to him but twice but that was not a purchase i was involved in , I was also disrupted by the falsehoods stated by the the seller but that was an actual end user who had that experience.

Hello To All, I have spent considerable time reading most of this forum contents and I am digusted at the long winded GARBAGE being spewed forth by mr Littman, It is hardly any different than the last forum held last year. It is my intent along with others who enjoy building Polaroid conversions that we will continue UNABATED! If you think one of us is "Violating" one of your fraudlent patents well you just go ahead and pay the exhorbitant amount to your attorney and come out to Los Angeles Federal District court and see if they give a rat's ass about your case, perhaps you would like to lodge a foreign lawwsuit in Canberra Australian Capitol Territory? Bottom line Mr. Littman is this: We are NOT trying to place you out of business or really competete with you for that matter, We are hobbyists and we sell now and then to suuport our hobbies.

Hello Mr. Icanberry! I knew we'd hear from you!

 

<p>To answer your question, Mr. Keene, if you buy a Littman camera, this is part of what you get.

 

Mr. Litman, what you are saying about Dean posting the threads on photo.net is a gross distortion of the truth.

 

<p>Dean only posted the threads on photo.net to get Mr. Litman to leave us all alone, and it seemed to work for a few months.

 

<p>I'm writing this because Mr. Litman has now started writing threatening emails again, breaking his word not to assert his patent against us which he gave back in October.

 

<p>Mr. Litman has been waving his patent in the faces of we Polaroidiots, ( Dean, me and rest of us ) for about a year. Even before it was issued.

 

<p>In the first claim in his patent he claims to be the first to modify old Polaroid cameras to 4x5.

 

<p>He isn't. Others have been making 4x5 modified Polaroid cameras for many years.

 

<p>That would make Mr. Litmans patent invalid.

 

<p>Nothing any of us said, or any of the evidence we produced would get him to leave us alone. I have never heard ONE WORD from his attorney.

 

<p>This is an excerpt from a letter from my attorney to me dated October 17th 2003 ( WILLIAM LITMAN's real name, as it appears on the patent, is Guillermo E. Litman ):

 

<p>"Dear Noah;

 

<p>Re: Guillermo E. Litman, U.S. Patent No. 6,608,971 Coupled Rangefinder/Parallax 4x5 Camera. .

 

<p>..we have determined that the above identified patent is invalid because the invention was practiced at least more than one year prior to the filing of the Provisional Application date

of March 12, 2001....Mr. Litman's last email to you dated October 8, 2003, indicates that he will not be asserting his patent against you. In the event that you should hear from Mr. Litman again, please let me know immediately..."

 

<p>What my attorney wrote means, in this case, is that ANYONE can do ANYTHING to the Polaroid cameras in question and anything the patent holder, ( Mr Liman ), does to stop them from doing so will not hold up in court.

 

<p> Also, the first claim of this patent being invalid means that NOT ONE of the other claims in the patent is valid, and NO OTHER PATENT can be based on or refer to this patent

if it's overturned..

 

<p>And that's that about that.

 

<p>Mr. Litman has brought all this on himself.<div></div>

And Furthermore Mr.Littman your descriptions of The camera I produce is an all out Lie! I have only sold a few of them and the clients are absolutly delighted, I know these people who have purchased my cameras and the still have them in their possesion,

Dear TPETER T, it puzzles me greatly as to why you never contacted me regarding this alleged faulty camera. I would have gladly received it back here, paid you all shipping costs, put whatever faults right or simply replaced the whole thing! I GUARANTEE all my conversions indefinitely against failure or whatever. I DID NOT HEAR ANY WORD FROM YOU. Do you feel that is a fair way to behave? The camera I sent you was used by MANY local photographers who were impressed with its results. At no time have I compared my camera with a Littman and for the price, nor should you!!

Please return the camera (please make sure all the pieces are included) for a FULL refund.<div></div>

<p>If you don't understand why Steve and others are talking about Mr. Litman the way they are, it's because you've never received a threatening series of emails from him.

 

<p>Imagine being told that all the Polaroid 900's you've bought on e@bay might be inspected to see that you haven't modified them or switched their parts to another camera!

 

<p>This thread is just a small taste of it. I can't believe the gall of what he's written about other peoples work. That just isn't done. It's unprofessional, lowball, hearsay, and immaterial. I could tell you what some people have told me about mine or Mr. Litmans cameras as well, but it's utterly irrelevant.

 

<p>We all stand behind our work.

 

<p>All any of us want is for him to leave us alone. THAT'S why we post these threads.

I have to go to Shul now, I'll be back after Shabbos.....

He replaced the old banner with this new one on April 5th and then this one came

later which still implies that the back is made by Polaroid, what does a 4x5  camera back

have to do with Polaroid unless it is made by Polaroid ?= nothing!!

 

For crying ouy loud the guy says he works full time at a camera store, thus if he says

 

Polaroid before a product he knows it menans it is made by Polaroid,<div></div>

 

 

I believe my patent is valid.,and Mr. Schwartz insistence about the claim in my patent is false as I have sought advise in October when he had insisted then that the patent Office " had rejected my claim to convert Polaroid cameras to 4x5" he then went on to insist other such things and I learned that if proof of a prior effort is accepted a claim is limited to a specific configuration,if its too general it gets restricted, first the actual prior art would have to infringe on that claim for a limitation to occur

 

As the spirit of the invention is the coupled parallax rf camera and it is made clear that the conversion aspect is but one of the components I doubt that what he states is nt the case

 

 

I was placed under extreme pressure in September October 2003 when the truth was that Schwartz was asked to submit evidence that he had a prior effort but chose to come to the threads and insist that he was surprised by my email saying I had a patent pending , but then admitted in the thread that he knew about my product and site since a year earlier , as I said before Believe in my patent and I believe that those who have rights due to a prior effort have those rights, I do not understand why Schwartz did not present the evidence of his prior art to The USPTO, when after the threads I learned I still had no proof to present, I do not understand what Schwartz is talking about invalidity I'm not a patent dictionary but I know that in the last threads he stated that my patent did not protect for conversions to 4x5 , because a claim was rejected in the original application and that is not the case, at the same time he cannot insist that all conversions are validated by his 1 alleged prior art, for which I tried to obtain the proof from him to proceed to benefit all.

 

I have not stopped any auctions or prevented the sale of anything since then and I have kept my word In exchange I would have expected that their offers to the general public disclosed what it is that was offered and on these threads it is made perfectly clear that people believe otherwise and when I have purchased products and I find they are not what was offered and that they believe these were sold to the general public, my waiving my patent which I believe is valid as a meant to ask a respectful coexistence, if they mind the waiving that doesn't justify offering something and delivering another.

 

If my patent were invalid which I doubt that wouldn't justify that their offers do not disclose what it is that is offered and in some cases what is offered is not delivered.,

 

Mr. Jones is stating that my product is expensive in his site and then stating here that he never referred to my product as being expensive, last summer when a ebay seller contacted Schwartz to ask for the weight of his 110b converted camera he replied "The weight ? I'm can't weigh the camera. It's already packed to ship. Take

a Polaroid 110B and a Graflok back and weigh them. That's about what it

weighs. " At a time when I was communicating with him to see if his instance was valid I felt that if he had invented or performed that conversion for years that he should know about it without having to open a package and when he had followed thru on starting the threads with Jones and I read a long explanation about how surprised he was and how rude I was he then told me that it was him and not forsher who had invented the fiber optic Polaroid back and finally to stay away from him because he could use the publicity, then when he came in the threads he misrepresented the fact that he knew exactly who I was therefore all the resulting discredit from what wasn't true should have been avoided.

 

In any event patent or no patent matters between businesses should be resolved between businesses, I do not want to enforce rights I don't have but I also don't want to be forced to waive them as a result of considerations of public domain and then when the threads are started all that was presented and still is is apicture of the front of a camera and in summation of what Schwartz had told me, others and his words in the thread, I say im willing to believe "what is". then Jones states that a legal patentshould be respected , then Schwartz stated that the patent was not ludicrous.

 

A patent is not required so that the public can learn what it is that each seller offers and that would be less typing than all of this,

 

surely these ebay sellers have made offers since October 2003 and there is a pervasive confusion , nobody prevented them from speaking about camera weight , properties, etc, there should be a better way to sell a camera than to discredit me , since October they have had a chance to do just that, at the end of those threads Schwartz emailed saying he would send me a win-win proposal, I'm still waiting, I also offered all of them the production of my camera as I wanted to return to photography , none were interested any event I kept my word,

I lived with the conversions and did not prevent them but in turn I found myself thread after thread having to explain their product and people pounding the value of mine and when Jones does just that in his site today I buy one to show it is both not what was offered and is not a point and shoot 4x5, they want to make a 4x5 conversion I expect them to say what it does and doesn't do, they have not been prevented and in return I don't want to be prevented from having a life its a 2 way st.

 

Mr. Icanberry I am glad your clients are satisfied with your cameras . i have a camera and the package was opened in the prsence of the buyer and it was determined that parallax correction was not present and you had offered it as part of the offer, twice at least that i know, Im glad that the customers are satisfied we are confusing oil and water here! insults wont change that.

 

 

But i hope what is written is consistent It is unfair to take what i said in October out of context when in november I explained what I had learned , nobody has prevented you from presenting your evidence to the USPTO on the contrary I keep posting that I would hope that you would so that photo.net could become aplace where people can discuss photography instead of all of this, I have not brought anything upon myself, If you had presented the evidence none of this would have happened.

 

I contacted you the moment i was advised of your offer.

 

You seem convinced that uou have what it is required and based on what you told your counsel they feel similarly, the fact that you havent done so bothers me more than the prospect of looseing what Im not entitled to if that is the case.

 

MrSchwartz :Whatever needs to happen in that respect is between you your lawyers and the Patent Office ,

 

If the patent office limits my claims or as you insist invalidates my patent should be based on the existance of truthfull evidence , if that day ever comes then fine.

 

Until then I ask you that as all of this disruption is based on your word while you insist to be experienced in theses matters that you put an end to it.

 

let me just sate that no respected buisness would resort to going on the internet to claim to have prior art instead of just presenting the evidence to the patent office and getting the matter handeled tastefully rather , than joining photo.net the week after my patent wa issued then trasshing me and never saying anything about photography , these matters do not belong on threads, i didnt bring them here .

 

If you insist i am at fault i insist i can prove that none of you who have complained acted as a model citizen,two wrongs dont make a right

 

If my frustration doesnt justify anything in your eyes , your frustration doesnt justify anything in mine and none of this is justified by the public, i have finally learned that what a few thread patricipants may say however hostile is not a reflection of how everybody feels, people feel differently, in any enent it is time to move on, these matters will not be resolved here , and while my patent is active I expect it is respected.

 

again happy easter and pesaj to all!

 

 

Reading the posts listed here, why is it I get the feeling MR LITTMAN and TPETER T are one and the same person? Why do they write similar phrases and make similar mistakes in uploading files? It`s either that or they are brothers in arms? This post has more twists than a psychopathic evaluation. It`s MORE interesting than photography ever was and I`m enjoying it immensely! Keep it going guys, we may get a award for the most interesting forum ever or something?. For those interested in the parallax issue, my latest camera will undergo a comparison between groundglass and actual rangefinder/viewfinder content. We will then all see the variation. I`ve not attempted this before so it will be an extremely interesting exercise. WATCH THIS SPACE! If nothing else it`s doing wonders for sales.

T peter is a real person as it can be established if necessary and when most of what he writes are truths which are self evident after proof has been presented

that should not matter depending on who says it, this should not be a contest to win,

 

If this turns out to be the most interesting thread ever rest assured that other things interest me more , in any event the pictures speak for themselves the only thing that could be questionable would be whether the focus and shutter worked well upon arrival and those two issues are not related to the camera being able to be a 4x5 point and shoot that can be operated as such and get the intended image one pointed at, to be fair and as Keen said he would report on your camera I will have the shutter and focus fixed by independent top NYC repair and delivered directly to

a photographer to test as a user and also the camera will be evaluated by tech person as to whether it can do what was offered because any owner is more likely to be subjective. in any event whether your camera can be considered as a 4x5 point and shoot that can be operated with the assistance of the viewfinder can be verified by anyone who owns a 110 and opening the camera back and placing an empty box of 4x5 film removing front and back and placing either draft paper on one side or a piece of ground glass and then tapping the whole thing centered, first you

try whether the brightlines give you the picture as the glass on the finder and then you cover the parallax projector to see if the outer window will give you acceptable results, neither will, nothing needs to be tampered with the camera you sent to prove this as any 110b ever made will give same exact result. an image " not marginally different" that is a big deal if its also the only way the camera can frame.in a hand held application when people expect to as it has been proven desirable and a great part of the value of my product.