Jump to content

Does anyone actually believe this dribble?


razzledog

Recommended Posts

Does anyone actually believe this dribble?:

 

"the tech improvements of the l45s Iv over all previous models

include new tech where all variables are not considered via

triangulation but quadrangulation so result in a much tighter

synergy and precision.

The camera backs we utilize are considered to be of the highest

industry standard graflock systems and allow for the

interchangeability of filmholders without having to utilize wrenches

to loosen 4 bolts to flip filmholders and are ergonomicaly designed

as not to pose a risk by protruding bolts .

We have preserved the rear red button on the original cameras for

two very important reasons

1) the art deco award winning design of the Land camera Development

swith was inspired by elevator& light switche design which were

installed in the lobbies of New your city sky scrapers in the 1930s

and 40s .

It is considered as one of the preetiest camera ornamentation of the

era and ranks alonside with the attention to detail of the Kodak

medalist II and the Kodak Chevron. I greatly serves to brake the

monotony of an otherwise empty space and besides being beautiful art

and symetry it has valuable utility reasons for its implementation.

2) from an utilitarian standpoint it was designed to serve as an

ergonomic thumb grip to a camera that otherwise had a weight in

excess of what a gentle handgrip could provide .

As the development red swith is no longer needed we have designed

arround that and trimmed the protruding red plastic while preserving

the thumbgrip portion of the switch.

3) another reason to presrve the switch enclosure is that it serves

as a bumper preserving the fragile rangefinder enclosure from

accidental damage".

 

 

That`s actually 3 reasons, all of which are complete rubbish. In

response to the comments about the 'RAZZLOK' requiring 'wrenches' to

flip filmholders, as per usual this fellow has it completely wrong.

NO WRENCHES ARE NEEDED as the back is actually spring loaded. The

four thumbscrews simply allow for complete control over the tension

required as well as having the ability to lock down holders in

seconds.

How anyone with such a lack of attention to detail, spelling, or

facts, construct anything that resembles a camera is beyond

me...........<div>00FKNJ-28294784.jpg.4544c0930c6864b8d37d90ee0561f7c8.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean:

 

The situation is this: The swithch is someone else's trademark.

 

The intent was to make the trademark a visible and tactile experience.

 

My opinion:

 

The switch is an atavistic appendage that resurfaced when these cameras became useful again after undergoing evolution.

 

This is what beats me? Triangulation-Quadranguation-tighter synergy and precision...

 

How about: Excesses in slop (tolerance) have been taken care of with a nail file. Does this sound better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dean:

 

Wow & I don't believe it - Next version will perhaps be called the P.T. Barnum, Littman & Rene Mackintosh design - only the first & last names being worthy. Given that two of the three are dead I guess there won't be any litigation issues.

 

I always thought the red switch was cheesy & made it look like a cheap flashlight. Never thought it was the "preetiest" (sic).

 

A new soap opera "As the Stomach Churns" is inevitable after that short story.

 

Guess it's time to do another "Bi-Polaroid" revision to help the mechanically disinclined to understand the concept behind your backs in comparison to other backs.

 

I will buy one of your cameras someday.

 

Thanks for the amusing story Dean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a further note:

 

Hilfiger et al has a trademark on the green stitching surrounding the button opening in the front pocket of their shirts - I saw the mark at the US Patent Office a few years ago & was surprised a bit but do agree at this point that it's a recognizable feature that allows one to identify with the company. As a disclaimer I own no Hilfiger shirts.

 

So - did Polaroid seek trademark protection on this incredible aspect of their overall design? The red button aspect? I am not convinced & am going to guess that is was a bored engineer's method of simply making it work as simply as possible. May have even ordered the parts off the shelf from Rayovac or another flashlight company - or maybe a transistor radio company - or ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been advised by a colleague the word I needed was 'drivel'. In this case it`s definitely 'dribble' as I found it quite mouth watering. This gobbledegook was lifted from auction no 7591487444. You`d better check, just in case I made a mistake in the spelling.<div>00FKWH-28301484.jpg.4e7ee934025ca2bcdf2ace9827f130fb.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A case for 'Spring Loaded Harassment'?

 

Look out things are changing by the minute.......

 

"Spring loaded backs were discontinued after world war 2 and are considered obsolete as per todays industry standards.

our system offers them as an optional accesory as a secondary system but it is widely known that the spring loaded tension must be fixed and constant and cannot be dialed by hand on 4 corners individualy at each instance unless you are a walking toque wrench."

 

Looks like I`m a walking toque wrench? What a complete bunch of bananas............ So the Graflok (Horseman) back is not spring loaded, jeepers, what is it electronic, bionic, or magnetic?

 

Dribble (drivel) is quickly turning to 'drabble'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes that 'Store Clerk' reference again........ obviously this indicates some kind of obsession. How unprofessional to list your kit on our main auction site then use it as a soapbox to relegate someones else`s product. Any wonder people get annoyed with such despicable behaviour.......as for the fourthcoming 'Patent Challenge', I can`t wait!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean:

 

Very simply - does he have any patents in Australia?

 

Regardless as to the merit or patentability.

 

Will make a lot of difference as to another company/person trying to dissuade you from making this so called"infringement".

 

To be on the "safe side" it would be good to know what countries (if) they have filed in besides the USA & as a recourse you could simply say "I can't sell in Latvia, China - etc.

 

I seriously doubt that there is extensive foreign filing as it's an incredibly expensive endeavor.

 

I would suggest consulting a good patent attorney in Australia for counsel - I can give you references offline. I would enjoy seeing you be able to freely sell your cameras without the hassles you have been subjected to - this is assuming there are no Australian patents filed. Otherwise these would have to be evaluated.

 

For reference - any utility patents filed in the USA would then need to have been filed within a 12 month period of time from the date of the ititial filing date for any foreign filings & design patents need to be filed within a six month period of time from the date of filing in the USA. Otherwise there is no possibilty of obtaining a patent. This is all my opinion by proxy of my knowledge in my business but in no way constitutes legal advice. Time to get counsel.

 

Can't wait to see your new listings down the road - maybe have dagor77 do an alias write for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, Dean, not that long ago there was a discussion of the product in question on the french LF forum. I learned a new french slang word, a noun, "parano." It was applied to Billy Boy.

 

In that discussion there was a reference to an eBay listing. I looked at it. The listing had more words than any other eBay listing I've ever seen AND a portrait of Billy Boy himself taken with, yes, the product by a Famous Photographer. Very strangely framed, made me wonder how effective the parallax correction is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, folks, I'm ready to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. I can't stands no

more.<p> My patent attorney, at some expense to me, has researched all the original

patent filing documents regarding this situation and I'm ready to have the patent re

examined.<p>If I had the money, I'd pay for it in a 500th of a second, but I just don't.

<p>I have a batch of new Polaroid cases, and I put one up for bids on that auction site

explaining that the auction was to raise money for the court case, by buying a camera

case, but I put an inappropriate link to this site in it so it was yanked.<p>What do you

folks think of the idea ? I'd put the money in a checking account which would only be

used for lawyers fees, and if there was any left over, I'd give it to cancer care here in Rhode

Island. But the money in the account would all be from the sale of the camera cases

themselves.<p>I would do all the research and deal with the attorneys. Would that work,

legally ? I don't wan't to get into a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noah:

 

I understand your frustration as I also understand Dean's - My guess is that it's best to use the legal counsel for a "what if" scenario to determine the potential fallout given a judgement is not in your favor. All is not always fair so I'm simply suggesting that you be on the safe side. You may also contact me offline for references for good counsel as I suggested to Dean. I understand that you have counsel already but it does not hurt to have a second opinion.

 

I personally don't feel that it's warranted to try and go through the expense of trying to have the patent "invalidated" per se unless you have been sued for infringement.

 

The possible damages - given a trial would ever occur - would not be that great in my estimation based on the total volume of sales that you or Dean might realize.

 

The "other" party is grandstanding & trying to undermine/scare you or anyone else that decides to "reinvent" a Polaroid camera with a 4x5 back.

 

Forgive me for sounding crass but based on everything I've read that the other party puts out there in their advertising/listings/etc. appears to be a lack of an elementary education & I am guessing he would embarrass his legal counsel as well as numerous potential buyers.

 

Guy can't even spell - must be really good at determining legal issues as well.

 

By the way - I know "you" or should I spell it "yo" are reading this as you have decided not to "be here anymore" but explain to me why I received an email from you about 15 minutes after posting a question not too long ago with regards to a similar issue?

 

Wherever you are & if you're reading this please don't send me any private emails anymore as it needs to be in the form of a certified letter from an attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee, I am ready to go.<p>The harassment, his lack of will to use an attorney, the co-

conspiritors, if you will, (I've received harassing emails from several characters in this

sappy story).<p>With all due respect, I know you want to help, and I love you dearly, but

you're wrong. If he won't sue me for infringement, then the only choice I have is to try to

have the patent overturned. He can't sue me if I fail to have it overturned, but I can sue

him for his business practices even if I do fail to have it overturned. And if he decides to

sue me for patent infringement, which he won't do because his patent is so weak and is

why we are here having this conversation, the odds swing in my favor anyway. I have solid

evidence, and my patent attorney is ready to go. .<p>The only thing I'm asking about here

is the fund raising. I think that if someone buys even ONE case from me for $4000, that's

entirely legal. It would be like someone paying $4000 for a Polaroid 110B!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GENTELMEN

mR jONES HAS FRAUDULENT PICTURES POSTED ON HIS WEBSITE INSITING THAT THE PARALLAX CORRECTION WHICH I OFFER IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS

HE DREW ME INTO DISCUSSIONS FOR YEARS AS HE AND HIS CO CONSPIRATORS INSIST " THEY ARE TRYING TO STOP ME OR AT LEAST KEEP ME BUSY"

 

 

a few weeks ago Michael schmid confronted Jones with the issues and his responses are posted below.I will not waste any further time engaging him as you can see he dismisses every tech aspect as a figment of my imagination but those who underatand photography can make their own minds, after all if you only read that most of who support his proposals insit they couldnt care either way just consider yourself is at this point in time the tech aspects presented make any difference to you and if they dont then that is fine .

 

 

 

michael schmid , feb 06, 2006; 03:53 p.m.

hello,

recently i built myself a 4x5" camera on the basis of the polaroid 110b(like dean johnes's or l*mtan's). now i want to change the 127mm lens for a 135mm lens, for example a schneider symmar. i remember, that someone, i think it was dean johnes, posted an article about the polaroid conversion, stating that a 135mm lens also works with the rangefinder without changing the cam. can anyone confirm this? because cam modifications are beyond my possibilities. it would be nice to have a more modern lens on this camera, also i think that the angle of view will be more similiar to the frame in the viewfinder. that means, when you cnahnge the format of the camera to 4x5 from 3x4 during the conversion, the actual picture on the film is always bigger than the lines in the viewfinder. so with a slitely longer lens one might be able to compensate for this?

 

thanks for your input, and apppologize for any bad english michael

 

Dean Jones , feb 09, 2006; 03:56 p.m.

You are right Michael, it was me who stated that a 135mm made little, if any difference to the rangefinder accuracy of the 110B! In theory it should, but after performing this lens/shutter replacement, I did some testing at all distances revealing the images were nice and sharp throughout. A 150mm does require a slight amount of cam grinding and a 90mm requires considerably more. You may need to remove the silver aluminium lensboard face plate to allow clearance of the later Copal 0`s moving aperture arm, but that is a minor problem, (perhaps a shim or two between the shutter and the lensboard might suffice?) A difference may arise with the infinity focus however, so some careful checking with a ground glass and loupe may be necessary. You may need to set the film plane further back, or relocate the front standard`s locking plate further forward, whichever is easiest. Despite the later lens being more advanced, I doubt you`ll see any improvement in quality over the original Rodenstock 127mm! You should be able to screw the 135mm elements directly into the original shutter, but be careful to maintain the correct distance between front and rear elements. Aperture scale will now commence from f5.6 instead of f4.7. The beauty of doing this is that the shutter button will still operate without manufacturing some kind of link from the shutter release button to the Copal`s release arm. If the Prontor hangs at speeds below a quarter sec, get it serviced,(sticky governor, they dry out after 40 years) or just use the Copal 0. Cheers.

 

such postings can be found on the following thread

 

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

 

 

Mr Wolffe

 

free to go about our work undisturbed? that is quite a bad joke ,"my estimation of his lifespan" (Mr Wolffe"s wishful thinking capable of machinations so Machiavellian that nothing would suprise me)

and then Mr Wolffe acts in any way possible as to shorten my lifespan as has been admitted by the usuals who reffer to themselves as "we"

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Polaroid-110A-4X5-Conversion-Camera_W0QQitemZ7590656353

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Polaroid-110A-4X5-Conversion-Camera_W0QQitemZ7591852865

 

Nice work of yours!

 

 

 

In regards to Mr Scwartz refference of harrasment I believe as do most people that this website is reserved for users only and excluded to buisneses and that the intention

 

is that users can select and prefer products after evaluating them but Mr Jones and Mr Schwartz have intimidated anyone who would dare prefer my product.

 

early on in this saga when these people managed to convince Michael kravit that i was a bad person and unfair Mr Scwartz was delighted to have his support but Mr kravit tried all products and had to endure much harassment from these people to the point that he quit PN entirely.

 

When Michael received his camera he wrote that he wanted to write a review about it but that he would not do it in PN to avoid the usual harrasment a few months after that Michael dropped his camera and I felt that his gesture to have the courage to give my camera a chance after he was one of the people who were cohersed into attacking me the most was a great act of courage and which i felt deserved recognition. everyone knows that he went thru a lot evryone knows that he is a great guy.

 

This didnt sit well with Mr Schwartz who decided to twist the facts arround as everyone knows that many have recently sold their cameras which have worked well for years and still do.

 

Mr Schwartz decided tyo use Michaels misfortune as a chance to trash my product as a marketing strategy for his services and while trashing Michael kravit who no longer was of use to him

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/LITTMAN-45-SINGLE-Pain-there-Bris-REVERSAL-Option_W0QQitemZ7564053817QQcategoryZ15247QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

 

 

when Mr kravit contacted schwartz to confront him with this

 

this was Mr Scwartz response

 

Who do you think you are? Eleanor Roosevelt?

 

You took a $1000 bribe in the form of that repair to write that

review. And you took a gratutious swipe at me and everyone

else who does these format expansions. When you wrote: The

Littman 45 Single is not for everyone due its high price tag.

There are other conversions on the market that less expensive. I

have tried two of these and found that they do not perform as

the Littman 45 Single does.

 

SO, if you don't want to be quoted, as in what you wrote on

photo.net, then by all means shut up.

 

If it bothers you that I've quoted you, I'm only going to do it

MORE.

 

I could care less of what you think of me, you seem to be

ethically challenged.

 

I'd like to run my Mercedes off the road and get it repaired under

warrantee!

 

So please, do what you have to do, and DON'T GET IN TOUCH

WITH ME EVER AGAIN.

 

Don't quote you? Yeah, right.

 

Noah Scwartz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for using eBay!

 

 

 

Mr Scwartz has not told the truth here by misrepresenting my actions and those of other members has admitted to starting rumors that ai wouldbrake into peop[les email folders, admitted to lying about submitting prior art and accused anyone who would dare preffer my camera of having erratic personality or told people who diagreed with his solicitation to pay the dues or shut up. I dont know who would want to pay dues to listen to the endless lies posted here and the" what if" scenario is indeed quite larger than a patent issue by now because patent or not this site is not intended for buisneses altogether and if a few DIY advice recipients insist they dont mind because they can use the advice that makes no difference.

 

I have quit this forum and have no regrets about having done so . I have posted this because confirmation that the parallax correction issue was finally proven was important to me beyond that these people will bark and If you care to be a part of that then suit yourself.

 

 

 

There is no risk to me in a partial limitation of my patent claims or if my patent is invalidated by legal means until then I certainly hope that this forum will be free of solicitation by buisneses and that is all I have to say.

 

thank you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a thought that everyone shares. I offered to adjust my patent claims at my own expense as is posted on Pn on several threads since October of 2003. neither Mr. Schwartz or anyone else responded to the offer and that is because no evidence exists and if this is prolonged as it has been the answer is clear and simple: Mr. Schwartz claims to have made conversions for 28 years and that would mean that instead of posting test shots of a few cats which he refers to as " test shots from Polaroid conversion shot by himself he would have the fruits of the labor of hundreds of photographers and since I did not start this until 2000 and had no contact with him until April of 2003 then where is it all ? that is why when I requested that he submit the evidence to me his response was" stay away because I can sure use the publicity and went on to discredit me as a means of solicitation, the way I see it is nobody was in his way before and nothing happened so no there will be no invalidation of relevance and on that note I hope those who can see thru all this finally do and for the rest good luck!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fairly new to LF photography ( semi-pro 35mm shooter for 25 years), however having just bought my 3rd 4x5 camera and my first 5x7 I am a admittedly interested in Large Format cameras.

 

Today I stumbled across this thread and it intrigued me. As a result I visited the sites in question and I checked out the US patent.

 

Now I may be a new to LF, but it seems to me that Mr Littman spends a huge amount of time talking/writing/hinting/overtly mentioning about a patent that really in essence only applies to a back and finder that is affixed to a PRE-EXISTING CAMERA that somebody else designed years before him, and not enough time about what makes people buy cameras for in the first place - creation of images!

 

In addition what strikes me here is the sheer amount of infantile poorly formated text that is used to justify his claim.

 

Personally all I want to do is take pictures. I will buy products from companies that show me how to do that better and with greater ease. Mr Littman has shown me that I can only do that while thinking about his patent. Frankly I am very ammused at this.

 

This exchange has show me ( and countless others - due to search engines) just how petty and how single minded somehow can be when they feel threatened. Sure Patents are important, but get over it really.

 

All I want to do is take picutures. I will buy camera from sellers who share my vision. If I am going to spend $3500 on a camera I want to know the person that made it. I want to know their heart attitude. I think I found that out today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee, but I have already sought legal advice from a patent attourney some time ago. End result was that I should not be intimidated, persuaded or deviate from my endeavours, whether it be a hobby or otherwise. So amused by the claims made against me, the lawfirm didn`t charge me a cent!

All the huff an puff is exactly that. It`s not the threats so much, but all the garbage we have to endure when just messin` around with these old cameras.

I received an email recently from a colleague, it made me laugh......

 

'...There was a nutty guy who made Polaroids to 4X5 and was going to sue me for making Pol 545i backs fit the 600SE and Mamiya Press. The guy stopped bothering me after realizing I would keep his suit in court for decades with delays etc. He claimed to have a patent that covered everything to do with 4X5'.

 

Perhaps instead of funding a patent overturn, a ONE WAY SHUTTLE FLIGHT might be more suitable? (Tiles removed to be sure).

 

Everything one states is either misquoted, misrepresented or misconstrued by this buffoon, therefore I would encourage everyone to disregard this PITA and just enjoy 4x5 photography doing and building whatever.

 

I guess the upshot is, it`s all been good for a laugh............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess many including Michael Briggs know that you cannot install a longer lens in a Polaroid shutter and use the ysarex scale and insist the aperture now starts at 5.6 instead of 4.7. all the numerals in between would be positioned differently it is of paramount importance and expected and vital. SKG grimes would confirm this and so would many of you. that is in what relates to exposure for the last 3 decades most equate Polaroid with exposure. so a proposal for a Polaroid camera unable to render a correct exposure is not a suggestion that someone claiming to be diligent can make.besides I know who received the camera pictured by Jones in response to Michaels question and I know that what I have stated is precisely the case.

 

Months ago I referred to Mr. Jones as a store clerk he responded that he was the manager of the large format department of a camera store and took offense to my calling him a store clerk so today I made reference to store clerk because when I consulted with one here in NY on the matter he laughed.

 

Then the issue of the parallax correction is exactly as Mr. Michael Schmid describes and while I understand that many of you could care less the issue is whether so many who have to read these forums have been affected by those assurances.

then the issue of the camera cam is also false in the sense that a modification is required whether it be grinding or something else makes no difference .

 

Then insisting at this point that Michael Schmid would also not be able to tell the difference between the results yielded by a 127mm Ysarex and a Modern Apo corrected lens is ridiculous as can be confirmed by the postings of many knowledgeable members on hundreds of forum threads.

 

I have come to accept that Mr. Jones would dismiss all I say and that I am a buffoon but whether this is nerdy stuff to some it encompasses all that is vital in a camera of large format because if you have no desire for such specification then all would agree LF should be avoided altogether. while much can be brushed under the expectation that newbie's don't know or don't care I do because I have no choice my livelihood depends entirely on these factors and as they are and continue to be dismissed as fabrication I am justified to insist that this person does not have the knowledge required to have disputed my research for years when it is clear to any knowledgeable member that he does not know as of today, that some don't care is fine but I have a right to remind all that I am constantly being subjected to abuse as a result .Clearly that a member who is a camera user ignores something is no big deal , I myself do not know everything but I have a right to expect that if someone admittedly insitgates the entire market against me that he would be expected to know these facts before doing so.

 

That is in what relate to the tech issues so any suggestion that should I describe my product more I would gain support is a premise I have no desire to pursue here because I tried that reluctantly as I believe businesses should keep their hands out of the cookie jar to avoid these type of situations.

 

Many believe I would be the only one to loose out should all this be as I say and those people should realize they don't care either way and that is why they believe that.

 

In what refers to the legal issues you can read that all these people insist that cost is prohibitive so go ahead, they dared me to show up with legions of lawyers and we now find out I could not even recover 4 g out of an effort which costs several times that so it is neither cowardly nor incoherent that I still have not proceeded.

 

When Mr. Schwartz has assured everyone here that my product is a self destructing time bomb for years and people keep offering their Littman cameras for sale in the public domain insisting they still work perfectly after years , when Mr. Jones has called everyone who prefers my product a buffoon, and when Aggie dared say she prefers my camera he replied that she should contact him when it brakes and Mr. Schwartz cited her erratic personality. I didn't know character was a requirement to buy a camera but What he refers to as erratic personality I would say is what most expect of artists I don't believe that gender sexual orientation should be an issue after all it is my belief that at this point in time 4x5 is greatly aimed at artistic subtle differences and the endless invalidation of artistic attributes provided on this website to anyone daring approve of my camera has been pervasive. then there is the reference to my clients being pretentious etc etc. and when Mr. Wolffe intention is that I should expire so he can take over in the presence of such well heeled intentions I understand I cant compete for approval with those who offer DIY tips in exchange for votes.

 

I don't expect to become popular around here any time soon but only ask that those who understand the tech issues make an effort to realize what has happened here.

 

I do not would not expect any reasonable person would put themselves at risk of the usual abusive treatment which has been given to those who have defended me in the past. What I propose seems elitist when all that matters is belittled but everyone can decide on their own.

 

 

I have been challenged for years into these discussions by such assurances, I should not have had to be in that position and glad that I do not have to be in it again as it is quite clear to those who would appreciate my work that I do not have to be subjected to this any further. If this has entertained a few then so be it.

All best W

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...