LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI front standard struts.

While browsing my favorite auction site, in the LF section, I came across the

new and "improved" model of the LITTMAN 45 SINGLE VI.

 

This latest version is to have a major improvement in the struts of the front

standard. The manufacturer has installed some sort of "counterweights" on the

front struts.

 

I read his explanation in the advertising, but could not understand it because

the prose in which it is written is quite disastrous.

 

I would like to ask if anyone in the forum knows why the "counterweights" have

been installed there and what exact function do they serve. I have never seen

anything like this. I have an identical Polaroid, and the struts are fine, they

do not twist nor bend and never need adjustment or repair.

 

What is the reason for this? The ad indicates also that it is a technique used

in bridge construction. Never seen the like of it.

 

Any thoughts? Is this an innovative technique or just added weight?

Is there no end to this misery?

OMG. What a pile of cr*p.

Do a search on Littman here and over on APUG and get ready for some really weird reading. If you think the eBay posting was confusing, wait until you actually read Mr. Littman's posts on internet forums. Anyone who buys a camera from this guy must be into some strange pain therapy.

Give it a rest Diwan. No one pays any attention to Littman anymore. No good is being done by beating this dead horse.

 

BTW: Working on any new cameras lately?

Frank:

 

Yes, the struts have a very interesting design addition. I wonder if they are for vibration dampening.

 

I am trying to come up with a 5x7 of the same type as my other cameras. I have been asked repeated times if it will be possible to build one like that, RF coupled, handheld and of course, lighweight.

 

This 5x7 will be used to obtain contact prints, as the size of the negative allows "viewable" prints. The 5x7 format has a very pleasant aspect ratio, which mimics the 35mm type.

 

The main problem that I am faced with is the lens choice. Coupling the lens to the RF is trivial. The minimum focusing distance needs to be consider carefully, as the bellows extension is disminished for these longer focal lenghts.

 

Let's see what fruit this winter will bear. I hope also that you are coming up with some interesting stuff yourself. Please, do not forget to post your latest model.

Wow, my brain couldn't get through three sentences of that turgid desecration of language before it caused a sympathetic response in my lower GI tract.

 

For all the (overly-simplistic) quoting of patent and copyright law that Mr. Littman does, I didn't find a single issued patent or patent application under his name (go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm and http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html and see for yourself).

The name on the patents is, "Litman; Guillermo E."<p><A HREF="http://patft.uspto.gov/

netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-

bool.html&r=10&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=litman.INNM.&OS=IN/litman&RS=IN/

litman"> Click here </A>to see the third patent.<p>There are links on that page to the first

two.<p>Click on "Litman" under, "References Cited".

Yeh, well at list his stuff is reasonably priced!! ;)

As stated in the patent of the above link;

 

"to convert a 31/4.times.41/4 camera into a 4.times.5 camera with a coupled rangefinder/parallax combination that allows sequence shots taken at a higher speed than ever before possible for a 4.times.5 format, at about 1 shot/sec, and allows increased concentration on artistic aspect of picture taking and the ability to capture snap shots with spontaneity without asking the subject to wait until the camera is being readied. Additionally, the modified single window rangefinder 4.times.5 camera of the present invention provides a proper turn knob focusing system for accuracy and improved tolerances for a 4.times.5 format."

 

I guess that "Graphy" is also being patented as we speak.

Seems to me Littman's cameras are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

If any one does a search for Diwan Bhathal in Photo.net, every post every response is strictly dedicated to defamation of my name and product while he claims that he has made a camera that outperforms mine in every regard. almost a year ago I confronted him with the technical aspects to prove he was lying and he said; " yes but mine is a toy camera and Its not for sale".and then when he was made to face some of his own medicine he rapidly stated" Moderator! stop this! its not fun anymore!" . As I informed Mr. Bhathal many months ago his claim of " his camera being his introduction and his idea was libel and defamatory" . Weeks ago I received notice of allowance from the USPTO and the patent issue fee has been paid which means that within a few months " his camera" will be patented under my name

with a protection date back to 2001.

 

Once again I am forced to disclose technical details before the time is right because this person resorts to defamation as a means of poking

 

I have designed real improvements for such configuration so as to overcome any obstacle present and was hoping to introduce it when the time was right if someone wanted to make it.

 

Once again I am forced to disclose technical details before the time is right because this person resorts to defamation as a means of poking. I did not post images of this improvement on my first offers because I was busy protecting the improvement and couldn't afford the time to deal with Mr. Bhathal interferences which sprout every time I introduce something. I mean he did start a thread to trash my camera and tell everyone his outperformed mine but he had no idea of what my im,provement looked like so while the thread caused a lot of harm by the use of lies its not like I have a choice.

 

 

 

But the case is that It will be an insurmountable task due to the ensuing efforts by Mr. bhathal to utilize photo.net to interfere with

the public perception of everything I say or do.

What Mr Bhatia has represented regarding his camera is libel.he has used that misrepresentation to discourage many from investing in many other viable products.I can understand that Mr. Bhathal has nothing better to do than harass me but I remind him he is taking it out on the public when people hoping to trust their investments seek

advice on how to spend their Money.

 

I do not believe in using the discussion forums to advertise products

nor that I should be cohered by defamation to have to respond to these attacks .I have already announced a long time ago that I do not accept any business from members of photo.net because this individual and a few others who has declared repeatedly that he will not buy my product and is making every possible attempt to discourage everyone else thru the use of libel and harassment is allowed to disrupt my business unfairly for whatever motivates him, whether he is one of the two people trying to sell products here using an alias to discredit me or simply obsessive makes no difference ;

In any event my camera does not have counterweights but a piston type arrangement so as to correct any error in the front standard so it can remain parallel to the film plane at all times. it allows for precise adjustment and when tightened it acts like a vise which compress the parts with a torque of hundreds of pounds which yields arms which are much sturdier. I doubt they will require any future readjustment since accuracy is not achieved by any bending of the arms as previously required , but if it ever did require adjustment then the capability is present.

 

Anyone who has a speed graphic and focuses thru ground glass can ensure the front standard is parallel to the film plane by using the tilt control as a temporary adjustment in each instance if the front standard is slightly bent but most existing cameras have some variance on how parallel the front standard is to the film plane and

because most LF work was done on a tripod and thru ground glass the fact that the planes are not perfectly parallel can be easily compensated for.

 

Rangefinder; the word range in rangefinder applies strictly to the measurement of distance and not to any acceptable tolerance as in the use of the word " range like saying, " it ranges between this and that or the other" therefore because the telemetry accuracy depends on both planes being parallel and in most cases this was not present or could be better rangefinder has been perceived by many as something which guestimates by aproximation and this misconception stems from the idea that you can utilize a measuring instrument and expect precision independently of an actual structure being utilized.

 

If you take a light meter and get an accurate reading but your shutter speed is off you don't get a proper exposure and in this case the light meter may be independent from the camera altogether but whatever the rangefinder represents can only be true if first the planes are parallel which in turn allows for the camera design to hold true and in its best configuration which otherwise it is nothing but a fiddling guestimate which has a lower performance than expected.

 

someone can say they just close the lens and everything is sharp anyway but if the planes are not parallel than one side will be softer and its great to have this if you want selective focus as a control using tilt but the inability to have even focus regardless of rangefinder considerations is considered as an unwanted swing or tilt or both.

Reference to bridge construction was made in reference to the L45s 5 front standard where strengthening of the front standard by bracing / welding and other methods proved to be just as counterproductive as weak front standard because something strong is harder to correct and while more resistant to impact that does not ensure it is straight or can remain straight.again his misrepresentation of my words is defamatory.

 

I have already announced this improvement does not add any weight because it is light and weight has been removed from somewhere else where it wasn't needed. Mr. Bhathal is again misrepresenting what he knows to create dissent. that is all he has done on photo.net is instigate dissent against my product using libel.

this improvement has already proved to be a major benefit and a couple of manufacturers of traditional LF view cameras are already interested in licensing the improvement for their products.

 

It is my purpose to make a few cameras for those interested in taking better pictures and with the emphasis on creativity and it may be true that in order to overcome these attacks I may somewhat overcompensate when stressing the importance of creativity when many would say that has nothing to do with a camera.

 

Exactly! it doesn't but after wasting years of my life dealing with the harassment of people like Mr. Bhathal I found the cure which was to limit my efforts to be on behalf of those motivated by the imagery itself and if I had to write something that sounds like " war and peace" and makes little sense to nuts and bolters let me just say it worked perfectly as photography is something where beauty comes before age and age does not matter.

 

Whatever it is I have made or will make relates to small quantities and as it is not readily available by impatient people who feel everything and everyone should be made to appear instantly at a click of a mouse on your computer monitor to amuse you or tell you what you want to hear and the case is that not everything can be subjected to a vote. That makes people like Mr. Bhathal very angry and so he tells everyone they should vote to destroy it.

 

The improvement has proven to yield major utility as it allows for a perfect parallel between the film plane and the front standard which can then mimic the behavior of a caliper, as a result telemetry can evolve into tele micrometry and the design or implementation of the camera cam can be made more precise and then the adjustability over time can ensure the settings remain true. No other camera had this and its not more of an improvement it needs to be . it allows for subtle adjustment and subtle variations. Mr bhathal makes a lot of reference to age and appears to be looking for climax and is frustrated that metal structures fail to provide appropriate arousal" no fireworks here" he is right there are no fireworks here and there will be none intended. it is a very good improvement but after the initial excitement of having achieved it myself I have forgotten about it when I took one of the cameras which included it and saw the picture and the technical improvement took second place to my joy after seeing the photograph.an improvement is nothing more than an obstacle removed and trust that I do feel obligated to account for what I claim and which I can prove with the use of tangible structures and by the opinions and results obtained by my clients that is where the benefit can be appreciated.

 

The L45s was started while telling everyone who bought one in writting that the original front standard has weaknesses..despite that we corrected them which allowed the product to perform well while we perfected the implementation of the improvement of the arms. now everyone who owned an older model can upgrade it to be able to ensure great performance over time.

 

Im sure certain identified people will insist this is not required but I have verified this problem in cameras they made and which have ben examined by many others. I also have proof they have already admitted to never attempting this .they assured their struts were straight, which in some instances I verified otherwise and if they were straight at some point nobody can look you straight in the eye and assure you7 they can or will remain straight because that is impossible if it is fixed by bending it will inevitably bend back somewhat. and I have proof that was all that was ever attempted by others..My improvement is not obvious , and statements made by my opponents prove it was not obvious to them. end of story I have proof it is novel, and has the required level of utility. no more no less.

 

The real question is that if Mr. Bhathal finds everything I do to be so insignificant then why has he dedicated the last 2 years of his life to speaking about it trashing it and then claiming to outdo me and insist what counts is the imagery and that large format just gives you a larger negative.

 

Mr. Bhathal please be advised that in a few months coupled parallax rangefinder 4x5 or larger will be patented with

a date of 5 years ago. and is already the title of all my issued patents ..come up with whatever you like just don't come here to misrepresent it was your idea. that is libel and defamatory.

 

Your malicious lies and aggrandizing yourself at my expense. your ensuing misappropriating claims of introducing Ideas I have introduced years ago has increased my cost of production enormously and unfairly deprived me from performing work for my clients who have to pay more for my product. that is a burden in itself because it makes it harder to sell. but then you admit that is your intention when you insist you would not will not buy my product and insist everyone else should do the same

 

 

 

If my posts are long and appear to lack communication skills it is because I am responding to unfair attacks and having to distract valuable time and neglect my work as a result and hope to say whatever it is so I don't have to divert even more of my time to this because everyone knows these instances are intended as an excuse to allow certain identified people to proceed to advertise products and services after they or their friends find some excuse to tell you not to buy mine.

On September 23 2006 this site modified its terms of use which it is therefore obligated to enforce on all members alike which ratifies the following;

 

 

No Soliciting

 

You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section or any discussion forum where the policy explicitly permits, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services.

 

 

 

Anyone who makes anything may have different opinions about what others make but that is no justification for people to advertise products or services here .

 

This website states it is intended for peer to peer education that means " users" but anyone can use an alias to come here and discredit products unfairly and then invite himself to plug his own or as has been reiterated be invited by a few that say they don't mind it because they get bribed by DIY tips

 

After all which has happened I dont believe anyone who inquires in photo.net about my product has a sincere interest in it after reading the sort of abuse given to those who prefer my product by people trying to use this site to plug products and services

here is another instance in which the same handful did exactly the same thing.

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HZY6&tag=

 

 

 

 

 

Aw geez Diwan, look what you have gone and done!

 

Littman:

 

Didn't you say awhile ago that you were not going to post anymore?

 

BTW: there is nothing in Diwan's post that is libelous.

 

 

Here is a recipe I suggest you follow for even greater success. I am not masking these comments as making fun of you; I am giving you my honest opinions:

 

Modify your approach to come across as a classy, sophisticated, reserved, understated company. Customers are attracted to that "aura" and are willing to pay for it.

 

Get an editor. Your use of the English language makes you look really bad. Your ads and your postings need major help.

 

Being proud of your product is good. Puffery of it to the point of silliness fools no one; especially your customers. Explain your improvements in your ads but don't make them sound like HUGE breakthroughs. Intelligent customers will make up their own minds.

 

Realize that any person who wants to convert a Polaroid camera will never have the money to be a customer of yours. So you are not being hurt in any way. Ignore them.

 

Be less agressive in your public mannerisms. Much of what has been posted about you is a direct result of your agressiveness (see your own post above). You seem to fall for the same bait every time. Can't you see that YOU are your own worst enemy? Also, any person here HAS the right to criticize you and your product; that is gaurenteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one likes being criticized, but not every criticism is libelous or slanderous, so backoff. Bite your tongue and do not respond. Remember, your potential customers will read these postings before they spend thousands of dollars on your camera. Don't take a chance to give a wrong impression.

 

There is an old Chinese saying:"The man who does not smile should not open a shop".

 

Why not just build your camera and sell it?

But then again, Mr. Littman's (Litman's?) abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable.

Guys:

 

I have been one to spend time responding to these threads over the last few years as well - as annoying as it may seem I am going to suggest putting this all to sleep. Let him go.

 

It gets more & more distorted & convoluted as time goes on & all are wasting valuable time reponding to it all.

 

Play some hockey (or watch) , spend time with seniors, help out a needy neighbor or provide helpful information to newbies on the various threads here instead of wasting any more time inciting the wrath of the subject at hand.

 

Let's move on ...

 

Regards

I would humbly suggest Fotoman (www.fotomancamera.com) or Gaoersi (www.focus-dayi.com) as much lower cost and more flexible portable 4x5 alternatives.

While every person may have a right to criticize. This website represents to be a public forum where users give opinions about products and My product was introduced in the year 2000 and many members asked politely about it some agreed and some disagreed giving valid objective opinions. It wasn't until the fall of 2003 when 2 people decided to fulfill threats of defamation so as to use my name to promote their products.

I am not aware of any other situation where when someone asks about a product a competitor immediately responds discrediting the product and telling you to buy his instead.

 

I do not care If someone buys a product or not. its his choice but I have the right that public forums will not be utilized by people trying to sell their products.

Mr. Frank R the public as you insist is not stupid and for the most part has a pretty good understanding of where things stand as shown in the following thread where once again people expressed and confirmed that a conversion offers less utility that a speed graphic which is what I stated all along while people using the threads to offer products and services breathe down the neck of users hoping to stir the market to their advantage

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ijcw&tag=

 

If my product looks and utilizes parts of Polaroid cameras it has been proven to outperform them and any other products in regards to responsiveness. It is not I who says so but accredited professionals. regarding puffery my clients can confirm that what I represent is not puffery and after all I'm not saying my improvements need be anything more than they are. they are what they need to be. I

 

My position is that people are free to express whatever they like but that public forums of photography are reserved for people who use products. Not for those who sell them because otherwise at it is proven the users are csubjected to cohersion to retract their positions as a result of the intimidation by those trying to sell products if the opinions offered do not benefit the sales pitch. I couldn't care less if I never sell another camera or hear the word camera ever again. My camera was discussed in many forums here before these people decided to discredit my name and product thru defamation and I did not feel invited to respond. The situation changed after September 2003 I was not invited to participate and defamatory threads were started by these people to discredit me and my product as a means of selling theirs.

This is insane . be the bigger man? sure

 

I am perfectly fine with every member of this forum disagreeing with my product even if I am aware that is in great part as a result of the admitted instigation and defamation but you cannot ask me to accept that people trying to sell products and compete thru defamation and false imputations are allowed to appropriate standings by addressing the public directly where the public is supposed to be able to be free to make its own mind.

 

The people who have confronted me in these discussions are the same 4 or 5 people half of them because they hope to make money from it and half of them are either aliases or people discrediting me to then insist you should disregard when I say something but listen carefully when they appropriate my opinions after discrediting me.

Mr. bhathal has gone to great efforts to mock me for making an emphasis on the importance of creativity and the use of the word " graphy" after which he stated here on photo.net"

Diwan Bhathal , nov 10, 2006; 09:45 a.m.

The fact is: If a negative that has a good image is produced, the negative is by itself a good image, it will give a meaningful print. Conversely, if a boring image is produced, there is no darkroom or magic bullet that will save the banality of the product.

 

Most of the reason for the darkroom artifices and gyrations is an attempt to save a bad image through technical tour-de-force.

 

If I were a beginner, I would start by learning how to take good photographs instead of looking for the larger negative to solve all the creative and vision learning process that a beginner has to do."

 

 

 

To summarize the emphasis here is not on what is being said but weighed by who says it.

 

For everyone else my response is keep the forums free of solicitation and that is where freedom of expression will flourish

 

On the thread titled" i want to buy a Littman camera Mr Schwartz proceded to assert that Littmanistas reffering to my clients have such attitudes that when they eat out it consumes too much waiter spit and that they take such awful pictures it really makes him sick.

 

 

 

The problem is not that he said it if that is the way he feels , the problem is that it was deleted as it goes to show that these two people are not apreciative of the creative choices by the most talented .or why they would apreciate a more responsive product.

 

 

 

Mr Schneider I dont think you are informed of the facts

 

Mr Schwartz has made false imputations as to having submitted prior art to me and then admiited that was a lie. Mr Schwartz has made false imputations that there werre rumors that I would brake into peoples email folders and then admitted to starting the rumors because he couldnt find a few emails from a client. Mr scwartz has made false imputations of receiving an email offensive in its religious content and blaming me for it. Mr Schwartz has questioned my allegiance to my religion or implied a requirement of afiliation as pertinent to selling a camera. He misrepresnted having had access to yu patenmt application # and used that to discredit me and as an excuse to start defamatory threads after threatening me saying it would be a federal offense in his oppinion to insist I had a patent application pending if it were false the flip side of that would be that he misrepresented the events as to discredit me and use that to promote his sales.

 

 

 

Whatever I have stated about the competitors product is the opinion shared by the public or I have tangible proof and statements from witnesses and users who have posted in photo.net.

 

 

 

Ultimately the public is not interested in patents which are commercial documents and not nobel prizes and If anyone can park their car in a parking lot and use their claim ticket to retrieve it without causing a ruccus these people can adress buisness related matters in the proper channels and not as an excuse to plug products in public forums using abusive rantings and libel to discredit those who have earned the respect and standing as is the case with the most respected photographrers as some of my clients who have offered their opinion about my product

 

Mr Scwartz insited that he is not interested in repairing my product which he refuses to repair but has lied again

 

as he proceeded to post defamatory offers insisting that most of my product needs to be discarded. has told everyone in photo.net that my product is a self destructing time bomb and that he is trying to prevent them from making an expensive mistake

 

 

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7560846332

 

Mr Jones behaviour is very much the same posting defamatory threads stating my product is now made in china stating that everything is weird about my product right now mocking my designs and choices and then insisting these are his ideas

 

Please free the public forums from the claws of these people .

 

Mr Scneider I have patents and that doesnt give me the right to use the forums to advertise products and services . I am simply asking that this website enforce its policies. that is not patent misuse. people are not allowed to compete here patent or no patent. that has been the case from the start this website editor in chief had clarified that commercially oriented postings were not allowed so these people had no right to engage me publicly and using false imputations as to force me to respond and then they are still not allowed to advertise products and services. no patent need be involved or required for what I have insisted is my righful request be observed by everyone alike. every buisness has the right to be free from these interferances nobody needs a patent so as to expect that people wont use the public forums as a means to compete. it is not a patent which says so but the terms of use of the website itself

 

 

 

"Modify your approach to come across as a classy, sophisticated, reserved, understated company. Customers are attracted to that "aura" and are willing to pay for it. "

 

You are correct what you suggest I should proceed to accomplish in the future is the actual reality which exists and which competitors have admittedly told all of you to disregard my standing and accept their defamation instead.

 

Mr Jones first words as to proceed with the admitted instigation were

 

Dean Jones , sep 12, 2003; 07:27 a.m.

"I have recently noticed that a certain member of the photograhic fraternity, supposedly well respected and known for the conversion process applicable to the Polaroid ."

 

He lied ...he did not recently notice me on september 12th 2003 but had been aware of my efforts and standing in the buisness for over a year and a half and as you can see he represents to be aware that I was well respected and known. That is the standing i have earned and deserve and these people did not have the right to use the forums as to utilize false imputations to bait me into having to respond and most unfair that people resort to misplaced outrage as to represent that I have to withstand false imputatioons from competitors because I sell a product . I say perhaps but I say I will deal with it somewhere else when somewhere else allows such unfair appropiation of standings . I expect these people will behave like this after this long . Im not surprised nor outraged simply ask people can conduct buisness and promotion of products and services outside the public forums everyone can expect this as fair .

 

when i presented the evidence as to clear my name from the burden of these false imputations I was contacted by the moderator who told me he had removed my posts and the posts of others because he found it was not interesting.

I agree with him none of the false imputations were inteesting to me or anyone else but they were left published and I have the right to be free from the burden of defamation and false imputations which is more important to me than selling anything and if the bill of rights gives anyone the right to crticise others It also gives everyone the right to their good name.

 

I was told that If I wanted the situation to end then to not post further as new posts generate responses.

So heres the deal . people are entitled to their opinions and Im entitled to my good name . If I lack the skills or ability so as to deal with the baiting and poking after that is something which should not be held against me specially since the evidence to clear it was removed and i was told that i would be publicly reprimanded or suspended for presenting evidence.as to clear my name from the imputations which have been admitted false by the same people who made them in the first place

 

 

I would like to reiterate ad nauseum that my camera is not for sale. Additionnally I would like to indicate that my camera is not subject to any patent whatsoever, since it does not contain the conversions applied to the so-called patented Polaroid conversion.

 

To state that my camera will be subject to a retroactive jurisdiction by these so-called patents is clearly an act of accusation and coercion.

 

The fact is that if anyone can come up with a better device than currently produced available or not, this should not be considered as an act of promotion of a product, or peddling of wares. Again, my camera is not for sale. Questionning on the merits of such and other product does not constitute a libel, and does not imply soliciting. It is merely a common question to which other manufacturers are very willing to answer as all of them make public their specifications.

 

In the case of the L45 Single VI, these specifications are unknown, all we get is unintelligible drivel. Its merits, as stated are grossly exaggerated and moreover, the Wrath of God and all other Deities will fall on anyone that tries to question anything regarding the L45.

 

I have offered my camera for an independent evaluation with other handheld 4x5s, there are no overstated secrets surrounding it. There has not been any motion from the L45 to do so, on the contrary. Independent evaluation will show what has been exaggerated and what has not, as well as merits and shortcomings.

 

My camera has been qualified as being a toy, it is a toy that is vastly superior to any camera of this type made today. It is the lighter and smaller of the handhelds, has an bright RF with full parallax correction and accommodates all types of film holders. It does not copy existing cameras or any camera devices but, regrettably is not for sale.

 

The fact that my camera exists, and that it was shared with the photographic community, does not constitute any of the acts that it is accused of. It is a very versatile camera and promotes the ease and creativity of its user. The first time that I published a picture of my camera, I was deluged with accusations and forceful wordings.

 

The intent is to let camera tinkerers and innovators to continue improving on the tools of the photographic art, and not, as one of them does constantly and forcefully, to try to repress these advances. This is intolerable, patent existing or no patent at all.

 

How can one be accused of solicitation when the product that is solicited is not and will not be in the market?

 

I would seriously consider Mr. Shneider's comment,--abusive rantings against competitors might open him to a charge of patent misuse, which renders his patent(s) in question unenforceable--

 

This is clearly where we are heading to.<div></div>

Pico: funny stuff. Sadly, you're probably correct. I don't know what the counterweights are for. Maybe Littman can draw us a free body diagram so we engineers can analyze it, or provide the technique used on bridges, I've been around a lot of bridges under construction and after completion, but I'm a civil engineer, not a bridge engineer. If I was looking at the ebay photos without the text, I might guess that the "counterweights" are slides to lock the struts in place, like a folding table that has a rectangular piece of metal that locks the legs open, don't know why you'd need it though. If I was seriously looking for a camera like this, there is no way in heck that I would even consider the camera on ebay, the way the ad is written, never mind the price.

Mr. bhathal; .

you are stating your camera has coupled rangefinder and coupled parallax correction.

please read the following allowed claim

 

 

"A camera having at least a 4x5 format and a focusing element comprising a rangefinder element coupled with said focusing element for rangefinder correction and a parallax element coupled with said focusing element for parallax correction"

 

Nowhere in that claim does it make any reference to conversion of a Polaroid camera; specific use of camera models or parts.

 

What I informed you regarding my rights is true and not limited in any way to the use of a Polaroid camera. you were advised of this the first time you made reference to " your camera"

 

you were confronted almost a year ago with the following facts;

 

the camera cam in that viewfinder offers no possibility of adjustment and corresponds only to a 114mm lens. that is not vastly superior to the L45s the focusing system on that camera has lots of play and it is impossible to maintain parallel film plane and back which fluctuate with focusing. that is not vastly superior to the L46s s.

 

Infinity can only be achieved by shimming and that is not vastly superior to the l45s

 

parallax correction offers no independent adjustment from focusing and that is not vastly superior to the L45s

 

If as a DIY enthusiast you feel entitled to make anything and do not resort to interfering with the public perception of other peoples rights making misrepresentations then you are also entitled to your opinions.

 

I do not care that you would make yourself a camera but harmed by the fact that you misrepresent its performance and represent that because you did not look at any structure so as to make the camera then no patents apply.

 

coming up with something on your own applies to copyrights not patents. In the presence of a utility claim as is the case with the claim I posted.

 

You may not be competing for business but you are competing for a standing that belongs to someone else. you were informed that this utility was patent pending and you insisted that no patents apply. there is no patent misuse here. I informed you of a claim that was patent pending and now I inform you it has been allowed.

 

It is you who is utilizing strong arm tactics and misrepresentations so as to impede my sales so much that I fail to find the time to allocate to describing my product better because I am obligated by your poking to post offers or disclosures before I'm ready because you will otherwise proceed to further interference. I fail to see what obligation do I have to inform you anytime before I am ready to do so after you have declared you would not buy my product under any circumstance and instigate others to do the same.

 

you have already admitted earlier that your camera does not perform as you insist. if its a toy fine. just don't toy with the perception of my product and my rights so as to admittedly hinder my progress. the fact that you copied nothing in order to make my camera does not excuse your abusive behavior towards me in this forum and is no\excuse that would allow you to publicly engage me in this way. you are being rude and abusive while I am telling nothing but the truth and it is my right to preserve the standing of my product which I have worked very hard to improve. apologize ;stand down and get real because what you are doing is unfair.

 

If " your camera" is a toy; I am not your toy that you can summon by the use of defamatory and ensuing poking having dedicated all of your posts over the last couple of years to impede my offers insisting I am obligated to satisfy your impatient requests.

get a life. I have not started any threads as to question you or your camera you have done nothing else on this website but question everything I do or say. please don't misuse your membership to this website to interfere with my business. My camera may be for sale but it is not available to you and we agree . you don't want to buy one and I don't want to make one for you. we have nothing to discuss.

 

I find it perfectly normal that someone would make an eventual comment about a product but when I see that someone dedicates all of his time to speaking about a product in a derogatory manner and insists this should have a direct effect on the product I have the right to be free of these interferences by the terms of use of this website.

I am not saying I have not said you are resorting to solicitation . I have said you invite and instigate others to resort to solicitation in violation of the site policy. if solicitation is forbidden then its instigation is too.

 

 

Mr. bhathal. for all your claims of proper use of the English language something should be perfectly clear to you

It is you that went on to volunteer that your camera meets the specifications of a patent pending claim which has been allowed. I have not accused you of anything nor charged you with anything. It is you who has claimed and represented the utility you insist is present in your camera. don't twist the facts around.

 

It is perfectly fine for me to respond and advise you that such claim was pending./ now allowed and issue fee paid./ will be patented my actions are therefore merited and you have no right to misrepresent them.

How surprising that within less than 24 hours some intense education has rendered the sudden appearance of punctuation, paragraphs, better spelling and above all better manners.

 

All the patents in the world will not sell cameras. All manner of threats and intimidation will not sell cameras....incessant ramblings and buffoonery will not sell cameras.......most of all inflated prices will NEVER sell cameras, whether they are portrayed as artforms, innovations or whatever else.

 

I once stated that Patents should be respected....that is genuine patents for original ideas that no one had yet put into practice, however a Patent attained by false claims, utilisation of age old ideas and bravado is complete rubbish and cannot be taken seriously.

 

Hiding behind a supposed team of lawyers, applying for numerous seemingly worthless patents, threatening all and sundry and behaving like some Idol that must worshipped, will never change the perception of the person or the product.

 

A Patent does not a camera make......................

 

How many famous people one knows does not make one also famous.

As they say: 'Empty vessels make the most sound'

 

The amazing and well designed Polaroid 110A/110B along with similar models of this era are far more worthy than the buffoonery offered up so far by the 'Ogre'.

WILLIAM; add some <br><br> or <p> ; and select html to make your posts easier to read. One long giant paragraph is about impossible to read. Add some breaks and paragraphs.

Diwan; a Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 Ektar is an extremely fine slow lens, and was really designed as a 5x7 lens. It usually is on Ebay, usually in shutter.

As an eductional statement; one can just buy a 80 year old 5x7 Speed Graphic with a coupled rangefinder. if one wants a camera larger than 4x5 with a rangefinder. One cannot patent items already made 80 years ago, made in volume, used by thousands.