Can anyone help me with this?

Noah:

 

Call me Lee - I am an illustrator & not an attorney - my knowledge of patent matters are by proxy of my business involvement with my clients, all of whom are either patent or trademark attorneys. My work has been mostly corporate clients along with intellectual property law firms. Occasionally we are involved in the preparation of court exhibits for litigation purposes.

 

As to whether or not his tactics are illegal I am not to judge although if I were one of the parties being harassed I would seek legal counsel in short order to have a professional evaluate the issue.

 

I'm sorry if I've stirred the pot so to speak as I'm merely an outsider watching these things unfold. I'd like to say it's amusing but it isn't as it appears that not all is right with this situation.

I have had both a Littman and a Dean Jones camera. I guess that would qualify me to comment on those two.

 

First It was a nightmare experience to deal with Dean JOnes. It took over 5 months to get the camera, and then it arrived DOA. The lens that I purchased (in excellent shape and working condition) was improperly installed. The shutter no longer worked, the F stop took stronger men to brute force it to change. This torqued the whole lens board set up. The back was not seated properly and was installed using cardboard. I was very upset after sepnding over $1000 to get that camera. As to communication during that time, at first it was ok, then at 2 months it stopped. Dean claimed he had lost his password to another forum so he couldn't contact me. He had my email address and never used it. He had my snail mail address and never used it. He also had my phone number and never used it. It took me contacting several of my photography friends in Austrailia and having them set to go to the police in my behalf (I sent the last email describing this to Dean Jones) before he finally answered me.

 

I was left with an expensive DOA Dean Jones camera. A few months after that, I was contacted first via PM then through emails by Littman. He did not threaten, he just offered straight forward to trade me one of his cameras for the Dean Jones camera. Being a normal thinking person with a nonworking camera that I had spent a lot on, I did the trade. Not until I had thought about it and asked many of my friends if I should do the trade. I too had been influenced by some of the negative things said about the man. I found I was wrong. He was nice and pleasant. So yes I did pay for the Littman in the manner of a trade for the expensive DOA Dean Jones camera.

 

The Littman has worked just fine. I find it easy to use and does what I wanted from the camera. It has had the lens board replaced and the whole lens holding set up redone to accomadate a lens without torquing if you adjust anything on the lens. It has been properly paralax focus adjusted to accomadate the lens put on it. The back ahs been seated properly and done with the proper material so that it won't deteriate over time. There is also the comitment that you can send the camera back every 18 months to have it adjusted if it needs it. I know another Littman owner, and that person and myself periodically will get a call from Littman asking how the camera is preforming and keeping in touch so that any problem encountered can be corrected.

 

Now I know for making these comments I will again be harraganged. I will be villified as a dupe fro Littman. It will be said I got the camera for free (not true) It will be said I will be doing free advertising for Littman (not true) It will be said like in the past that I am JUST a female, yep and darn proud of it too. There is a long host of complaints against me for speaking up and not saying Dean Jones cameras are wonderful. My experience with them was not wonderful. Igt was not a one off case of a dissatisfied customer, there are more but I am the only one vocal about it.

 

If like stated in a subsequent post above, Dean Jones truely wants to put the business with Littman behind him, why did he start this thread? All it is, is another thread to dump on Littman.

Agnes, what the h-e double toothpicks are you on about ?<p>All I know about you is that

you're the customer from h-e double toothpicks.<p>That and you're a Littman shill.<p>This

woman sent a camera to Dean to convert to 4x5 that had been run over by a steam roller and

then made everyone's life miserable about the whole deal.<p>Then after accepting a bribe

from Littman, started a slander campaign against Dean, even though he did everything to

accomodate her erratic personality and demands.<p>She is typical of this whole situation.

Any low-life thing you can think of, Littman does.<p>Agnes is part of it.

If Guilermo Litman were as nice and pleasant as Agnes claimed, his 'replies' here and there certainly put paid to that notion.

Funny Noah I purchased that polariod which was checked out by a camera repair place in California on ebay. It was in perfect working condition before being sent to Dean Jones. If you read back through PN the old threads you will find that even Dean Jones said that the conversion he does you should expect to have the camera scraped up and the body not look like it was new. So much for the claime (this the first I have heard of this one) that it had been run over by a steam roller.

 

As to the claim I accepted a bribe from Littman, that is completely false. Anyone of us who has a piece of junk will definately trade that junk for something of value that works. As to the slander campagin, I stated verifiable facts about Dean Jones and his workmanship/customer service about 3 1/2 months before I was ever contacted by Littman. Some of the photographers that can vouch for the Dean Jones camera condition are Per Volquartz, Mateo Morgan, Jan Ptriezak, They all held it and tried to make it work. I had it in at a camera repair place in Walnut Creek California to be inspected after opening the box from Austrailia. They can also verify the condition of the camera.

 

As you can see I knew I would be trashed for giving a differeing view. I DO NOT KNOW NOAH, HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO HIM, AND HAD NO DEALINGS WITH HIM. Yet he seems to know me. I have never threatened a person on this board, nor have I stated information falsly. As to me having the friends I know in Austrailia go to the police for me, It was the only way I could get Dean Jones to respond. I at least after that got the camera I had paid in advance for.

I side with Noah on this one. I have a wonderful Dean Jones conversion that works very well. No complaints other than I don't get much time to shoot with it.

 

Agnes, it strikes me as interesting that you get the request from Mr. Littman to trade an alleged dud for a good camera for free! All this while you are drummg up business for a new magazine about analogue black and white photography...I asked before, but never heard, are we going to see any Littman adverts in the Emulsion first issue (when it shows)?

 

I'll hang up and wait for your answer.(Pulls up chair and grabs popcorn and awaits Littman-esque response.)

Nope no Littman adverts in the magazine, strange he turned me down.

Funny how screwballs attract screwballs. The Diva obviously loves the sound of her own voice and the Panthere loves dropping names.

What a happy couple. Noah, you are quite correct in your assumptions regarding that particular transaction. Dealing with the Diva was a complete nightmare and it`s funny how Mr Littman got involved so readily! I guess a free Littman is better than NO Littman, (or is it?).

Thank God I`m in Australia, somewhat insulated from these fruitloops.

I find this interesting - He's so backed up on building the "new" cameras that he really does not need to advertise perhaps?

 

My next question would center on the original intent of the question Dean posed - why is he selling preferred priority builds for 1000. unless he is shirking the backlog of his customers that have placed orders or perhaps there is none. Shilling one's self in order to drum up sales?

 

It also is a very inexpensive way to reach a lot of people for the listing amount - Even if he sells no positions in line he has exposed a lot of people to his product. Also gets to post the patent threats at the same time - rightly or wrongly.

 

I do not know Littman or Noah nor Dean - I just came into this ongoing saga & with that said I question a lot of the posturing on Littman's behalf but do feel that it is possible that he has an enforcable patent in the US - I'm not siding with him but rather suggest that it's an issue best left to legal minds & not conjecture. Do I think the whole concept of his is novel? No - I feel it's an obviousness issue but again - I am not to judge this. It's just my quick opinion.

 

I'm curious - do any of you know if there were foreign patent applications filed as well? These would have been neccessary to have filed within a one period of time from the date of filing the US application or I believe if it was shown at a trade show or other disclosures. Otherwise the right to file would lapse. This is for utility applications which his is - design applications have to be filed within six months to preserve foreign rights.

2 hours and 12 minutes to be accused of making everyone miserable, taking bribes, slandering Dean Jones, erratic personality, being a lowlife, dubious business practices, being a screwball, and being a fruitloop. Only three have chimed in to this so far. How many more and what more will I be accused of? I started that transaction for the camera with Dean Jones the last of July in 2004. The camera was sent finally after I was getting people to deal for me in Austrailia mid December. Littman didn't get involved until late Feb first of March. That long after all was posted and read by him on another forum.

 

I am still waiting for the person who sold his Dean Jones camera on ebay because it didn't work to chime in. He refused to complete that transaction when he found out who it was that won the auction. He too will have many accusations to make about me.

 

All said Dean Jones sent me (I can't speakl for others and their cameras) a piece of junk back for the parts I sent him. All parts were in good cosmetic and working order. He ruined a perfectly good lens purchased from Jim Galli.

 

If this was cars and you were offered a good working car for a junker that wouldn't run, you all would take it. I do not hide that at all that I traded a junker conversion for one that worked. At least I was able to recoup value for the money I had put out.

 

Dissent and not dumping on Littman is viewed here with distain. You all should be ashamed of how you react to those who disagree. I have not called you names, nor have I stated an untruth. You in your own conciuos have to deal with what you know. No amount of sputtering and name calling will change the fact of how you act. I would blame your parents for how you were raised, but they are blameless in what you do after the fact once you are grown. As grown men you need to reasses your selves.

Lee, this is the way I see it...... If I take a Polaroid 405 pack film holder and attach one side to the Polaroid 110B body (a la 4 Designs) then I attach a Horseman full frame 4x5 back to the door of this Polaroid packfilm holder, (as per Ebay item 7560665827) then I am CLEARLY violating the existing Patent. If I (or anyone else), chooses any other method to attach a Graflok (or other) style 4x5 back to the 110B, then clearly there is NO violation. All the Littman cameras I have repaired to date quite clearly mirror the well known 4 Designs packfilm conversion, obviously they didn`t take out a Patent on THEIR idea.

The most satisfying thing about this whole affair is that I KNOW who`s using my converted cameras. As I`m not a name dropper, I will simply remain smiling about it.

Agnes, with the Dean situation, you had people in

two hemispheres trying to help you, but you think your problems are the problems of the

world. I don't think any of us want to relive what you did to Dean.<p>You behaved like an

obnoxious mobster prima donna.<p>Then you took bribes

from Guillermo and have been singing his praises like a choiping boid ever since..<p>THE

ISSUE HERE IS YOUR FRIEND GUILLERMO'S UNENFORCEABLE PATENT AND HIS BUSINESS

PRACTICES. <p>By the way, Lee, the point here is that his patents ARE obvious, in the public

domain and unenforceable and NO, Guillermo has no foreign patents.

And again, everyone, Guillermo has patented convering ANY Polaroid Roll film camera to 4x5

by retarding the film plane at least 3/8th of an inch, regardless of using the Polaroid film

holder as a structural element.<p>So that would cover any 4x5 format expansion on these

cameras.

Agnes:

 

I mean this with all due respect - I am going off topic here - if you are planning on publishing a magazine I would suggest having someone else other than yourself to do the editorial work/editing & proofing. Your last post was filled with errors - just an observation. The main section wehereby you list all of the slurs you spelt just fine :)

 

Also - curious as to whether or not you would accept advertising from either Dean or Noah - guilty until proven innocent?

 

Lastly - I always tend to look at the profiles of the interesting parties in any thread - it appears that you've been a member for 3 1/2 years & have posted 9 responses total - at least four of these are this thread alone.

 

Makes me wonder big time why all this has you in such fits.

Agnes, why all the incessant whining? Has Mr Littman phoned recently? Surely a respectable and upstanding person such as you should refrain from such mud slinging? Some may stick to your goodself. How unprofessional. Let me know when your Littman fails.

I only have one ID on this site - one

 

I am curious as to how many others use more than one - even years removed but simply as a backup in the event they feel prosecuted or removed completely from photo.net (or any other site for that matter).

 

I would personally just leave if it were me in a situation like that.

Read: Persecuted not prosecuted

 

Maybe I can get a job proofing although I'm slow ...

What seemed like a very simple question from Dean suddenly drew an attack that wasn?t really related to the question posed. It starts to look like serial fruitcakes. But it?s asking a bit much to ask Dean to let this slide and I hope no one is bothered by this fairly long post.

 

I?d already seen the ad and was mystified, especially by the one for the back which was more a tirade than product description. Given the jumble, I couldn?t tell whether there was an offer being made to sell an imitation Polaroid or just some whack who makes bizarre threats as his sales pitch. The initial impression given is that a camera is actually being sold ? when it?s actually just a down payment on an extremely expensive piece of gear and for your money, you might get it earlier.

 

Doesn?t seem to be a way to entice customers, but I?m not sure that?s the game. One of the more common complaints these days is ?opportunistic patent litigation? or the threat of same that apart from stifling innovation increases costs to everyone. I can?t make a judgment here but the sources I read say that that kind of threat can be a sign of serious business problems ? or of just another business bully. \

 

Nor would I buy a camera from someone who spends so much time making threats in what I discover to be multiple spaces ? and at such considerable length and venom. Then there are the proxies who show up. I wouldn?t take these threats too lightly ? and they may be cause for litigation if they don?t stop and you have reason to believe they?re aimed at you. If you?re a small businessman, these irrational threats or even litigation can amount to a fairly ugly form of blackmail.

 

I don?t personally know Dean or Noah or any of the others who make Polaroid conversions ? and haven?t bought anything from them. But just take note of what they call these ? ?Polaroid conversions.? The ad on EBay depicts what looks for all intents and purposes to me as just another OLD but recovered Polaroid camera. So far as I?m concerned that?s all it is. If Mr. Littman wants to put his name on it, well, I suppose you can?t get as much money for a used Polaroid assembled from various models with essentially interchangeable parts. Just because you can bring a used car part back to spec doesn?t mean you can call it new ? and once you open the box, you usually have to call it refurbished.

 

I don?t know Noah?s work, regrettably, but I?ve seen Dean?s site and it?s damn good. He?s got multiple types of Polaroid conversions, including the J66 that looks to me more like a different camera than the Littman. Putting Polaroid aside, he is obviously a craftsman who builds cameras, sometimes using Polaroid parts, other times not. The Obsession looks to be his new fabrication other than lens and finder. But a Polaroid is a Polaroid and I think it?s misleading to label a remanufactured camera as new.

 

It is not encouraging a violation of a patent to say that you think it is invalid nor does it necessarily have anything to do with the product?s quality. Nor does it defame anyone. There?s nothing new about parallax adjusted rangefinder/viewfinders. Nor is there anything new about upsizing or downsizing the film size, or even adjusting the medium from Pola to film. Putting a Graflok back on a camera? Grafloks have been put on almost everything. This sort of thing has gone on forever. Without commenting on the quality in any way, I don?t see any way you can get a valid patent by rebuilding a Polaroid Camera with Polaroid parts so that it could be used as a virtually identical camera? Minor improvements to someone else?s designs? Different use? Now it might be something else had those parts been used to build a new type machine gun or airplane? This is more akin to taking a Porsche engine from one and putting it in another series Porsche and naming the car after you, then filing suit against Porsche for patent infringement if they decided to use their own engines. From most angles, a Polaroid of this series looks like ?. a Polaroid.

 

Patent law says that: ?A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.? That means that you can?t patent something that any ordinary capable craftsman could conceive based on prior art. I haven?t seen any clear statement of what the basis for the patent is ? they?re all over the map including threats ? including of subpoenas -- against people who simply buy Polaroid 900s, much less a reconstructed Polaroid. Drug treatment usually helps.

 

The Ebay posting says: ?The L45s utilizes the parts of 4-5 Polaroid cameras to make just one, all modified to new tolerances and configurations and while a conversion is present this is the only coupled parallax rangefinder 4x5 camera in the world? To me, that?s evidence of lack of patentability. If I remember right, Zeiss licensed the rangefinder from its patents but it is in principle not new. And free speech is still free.

 

The U.S. Patent Office, and many others, are concerned about the proliferation of what are called ?junk patents.? Here is the Patent Office. ?In view of the escalating amount of prior art literature, the extremely limited time available to patent examiners to examine patent applications, and the increasing complexity of technologies, it is not surprising that a substantial percentage of issued patents have invalid claims. Moreover, in view of the serious problem in the patent field, wherein patent infringement litigation is sometimes conducted, or just threatened, on invalid patents against large numbers of companies, including many small businesses that cannot financially afford to defend their business in a patent litigation, those patents with invalid claims will remain presumptively valid.

?Clearly, there is a significant need for a fair, cost-efficient, and effective system whereby invalid patents can be challenged. It is respectfully submitted that the current inter partes reexamination is not such a system.? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/reexamproceed/kristin_vidovich.pdf (elsewhere there are concerns about legal fees generated for ?junk? patents).

Motley Fool in http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05042605.htm

takes on ?The Lowdown on Patent Shakedowns? with a section titled ?The Patent Terrorists.?

 

The British Patent Office says: ?The UK patents legislation (the Patents Act 1979) contains provisions which are intended to protect certain businesses from being threatened with legal proceedings for infringing a patent when there is no basis for it. Allowing empty threats to be made would be unfair, and allow businesses to be intimidated for no reason. The provisions, therefore, provide a remedy, in certain circumstances, for those who are affected by an unjustified threat of being sued for patent infringement.? Goes on to say, ?A patent holder may have correctly assessed that infringing acts are taking place and may negotiate with the infringer in good faith. But he can be found liable for making unjustified threats if his patent turns out to be invalid.? Other countries have similar laws.

 

Unjustified threats can cost major league money. Depending on which country?s law applies, you could see not only an assessment of costs but a levy for malicious prosecution or other tort involving misuse of process. Evidence could come from the number, placement and wording of threats against a person/company/craftsman. The courts have ruled that the public MUST have a clear understanding of the basis for a patent. Hence any inaccurate claims regarding the patent made in the threats or other statements by the holder are directly relevant as is the failure to clearly state the basis. Your actions could give rise to suits in multiple countries where you will have to play by their rules.

 

Maybe there?s something more serious here, but when something comes at me that is frothing at the mouth, that?s time call for animal control and worry about getting rabies, not sitting down and listening patiently. A little dignity in a hard world is always helpful.

 

The threats seem to be endless and go back a long way. The current US patent system encourages holders of invalid patents to litigate. But playing the litigation game can backfire and badly.

 

Jmc

 

Ebay item 7561146678 is the best yet!

Mr. Chapman;<p>Your assessment of the situation is dead on.<p>I've been reading up on

all that you've said and it's really baffling that Guillermo is putting everything at risk the way

he has.<p>He has abused every rule and law he's come across because he won't risk

litigating a weak patent.<p>The links you provided are quite illustrative of the kind of 'stunt'

Guillermo is trying to pull. He's either insane or stupid or on crack or something to think he

can go on like this forever, but I guarantee you it's going to cost him.<p>As far

as barking dogs, I suppose I'm guilty, but Guillermo seems to have that effect on people.

<p>And although I don't have a web site, you can see some of my work on my photo.net

page.

incredible - at least from my european perspective...

 

I sacrificed an hour of my sleep to read all this, including the linked looooong thread with the verbal excrements of Mr. Littman.

 

it was worth it - very entertaining ideed...

 

For me my Sinar Norma (4x4 / 5x7 / 8x10) ist my all-purpose LF camera, so these modified Polaroids have not the slightest appeal to me.

 

But considering this ridiculous war and the obscenely overpriced refurbished Polaroids this Mr. Littman offers, I'm seriously tempted to get such a Polaroid 110b and take it to the genious-mechanic I know and in whose workshop I spent hours considering photographic adjustments.

 

Pack film holder - Graflock back - parallax-correction for the range finder --- he would scratch his head for a minute, scribble on a paper for two and rush to his machinery - laughing over the ridiculous patents of Mr. Littman...

Noah:

 

Not at all on dog for you -- it's been a long time of it. Took a look at your work and it's interesting -- gave me a good idea what you do -- have fun and do serious work. Not obvious to everyone, but through text translation in the earlier post, question marks were substituted for some characters, including the quote marks around direct quotations.

 

There is a cautionary tale in www.idlewords.com/2003/12/100_years_of_turbulence.htm which I won't cite, but relates to aviation, patents and good business sense. I remembered that the Albada rangefinder was used on all but the 250. I believe in terms of what an ordinary workman (e.g. repairer. builder, tinkerer) the concept of the 4designs and NPC 195 break the door of film conversions plus all the reports of other conversions. The NPC 195 specifically cites use of the Polaroid 203 back as an adapter.

 

Wharton cites the problem with suing your customers (or potential customers) in an extended monograph. "The recording industry, however, has gone one step too far with its latest legal move. Suing your customers is not a winning business strategy. Industries have a completely different strategic relationship with customers than they do with rivals. And this sort of strategy does not play well in the court of public opinion."

 

"Most ordinary people of Ford?s era had been content to stand by and watch the automobile makers slug it out over the Selden Patent. It was just an industry cat fight. But when the big ?money men? started suing ordinary people who were just trying to buy a cheap car, public sympathy shifted against the incumbents. People rallied to Ford?s side against the bullies. Editorials weighed in against the industry?s heavy-handed lawsuits, and Ford helped his own case by purchasing litigation insurance for his customers. By the time the patent litigation was over ? Ford won on appeal in 1911 when the court ruled that the Selden Patent covered only cars made with a special type of engine nobody was using anymore ? Ford was a hero, and the largest car manufacturer in America.What can the Recording Industry Association of America take from Henry Ford?s story? First, you will never win your market by suing your customers. Quite the opposite: you will rally ordinary people to your opponents and alienate a generation of buyers." http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&id=863

 

I'd rather hear about cameras than threats.

I haven't read all of the responses, but I'd recommend to the moderator that the whole thread be deleted. When a thread like this erupts it has one outcome for me: I'm not going anywhere near a Dean Jones, Littman, or otherwise converted polaroid camera. Not only because I don't want to be associated with this thread or any of the others in cyberspace on the matter, but I also wouldn't want to advocate anyone get involved because they saw me using one in public. Just my opinion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one...

That's exactly the point, Dr. Smith.<p>But I must warn you, Smucker's patented the peanut

butter and jelly sandwich.<p>You don't want to get seen in public eating one of

those.<p>

that is hilarious

 

by the way, the original posting, how can the Littleman camera be advertised as NEW?

 

btw, in one of the responses here, someone said Littleman is either thus and so or on crack or something....based on his pic I'd say it's the latter