Is the Littman 45 Single now legal or ludicrous?

Discussion in 'Large Format' started by razzledog, Oct 3, 2003.

  1. It seems there are problems arising from the recent granting of
    Guilliermo`s Patent? After reading the following link, I`m not
    surprised!
    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005ypC


    Interesting stuff.
     
  2. This is the text of Mr. Litman's last email to me, all in capital letters as I received it:

    THE UTILIZATION OF THE POLAROID 900 AS REPAIR PARTS, IMPROVEMENTS TO OTHER ROLL FILM CAMERAS, IS PROTECTED EVEN IF NO FORMAT CONVERSION OCCURS, AND ALSO
    PROTECTED FOR THE 4X5 APPLICATION.

    CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY IN US PATENT APPLICATION 6608971 AND OTHER APPLICATION PENDING.

    JUST LOOK AT THE LIST OF PARTS ASSIGNED FROM EACH CAMERA MODEL.

    THESE CAMERAS ARE WORTHLESS UNLESS USED FOR THESE PURPOSES, YOU HAVE STARTED BUYING THEM AFTER MY PATENT WAS ISSUED, AND I REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT CAUSE ME
    TO PAY MORE BY COMPETING ON ITEMS YOU CAN NOT USE, MAKE OR SELL, BECAUSE THE PARTS ARE IDENTICAL AND WITHOUT SERIAL NUMBERS I CANNOT MONITOR THEIR USE, SO I MUST
    MONITOR THEIR ACQUISITION, IN YOUR CASE , IT IS PRETTY CLEAR AND DEMONSTRABLE USE INTENDED WHEN COMBINED WITH ALL OF YOUR AUCTION DESCRIPTIONS,

    THESE ACTIONS ARE HARMFUL TO ME BY INFLATING THE PRICE ON ITEMS WHICH I WOULD NORMALLY PAY 10.00 OR LESS AND BY DEPRIVING ME OF
    INVENTORY , AND BY DISTORTING THE VALUE OF THE UNMODIFIED CAMERA
    AND THE MOVE TO PURCHASE THEM , MOTIVATED BY CONVENIENCES WHICH I OWN.

    SO IN THE FUTURE I MAY HAVE TO PAY MORE EVEN IF NOT COMPETED AGAINST

    EVEN IF YOU HAVE PROOF OF HAVING MADE YOUR110B ADAPTER EARLIER AS YOU CLAIM, YOU ARE TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING THE POLAROID 900 CAMERAS OTHERWISE I MAY ALLEGE
    INFRINGEMENT ON THE USE OF THE POLAROID 900 PARTS.

    OF COURSE IF AT THE TIME SUCH ISSUE MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE , IF YOU WOULD HAVE ALL THE POLAROID 900 CAMERAS COMPLETE AND UNMODIFIED
    OR YOU HAVE SOLD THEM TO OTHERS WITHOUT ALTERING THEM YOU WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

    I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MONITOR THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE PARTS AS THEY HAVE NO SERIAL NUMBERS, BUT I CAN MONITOR WHAT I HAVE EXPRESSED AND THEREFORE I ASK YOU TO
    REFRAIN.

    THANK YOU.

    Anyone have any thoughts?
     
  3. Well Richard, I guess I was gobsmacked by the
    by the huge response to my original posting! I mean the old Polaroid 110 series is a great camera, even after 40 years, but it`s no Linhof. Any modification performed by others to its structure shouldn`t attract such furore. I figure that as the long shadow cast by the Littman arm is quite apparent, attention to the situation should be well aired. Polaroid enthusiasts are now being instructed by this fellow not to outbid him on Ebay auctions in his pursuit for the 900. These antics should be made known. Perhaps I`ll develop an even more compact rangefinder assisted 4x5 than what`s currently offered! (Not utilising the Polaroid 900 finder of course!)
     
  4. If Mr. Littman is emailing people demanding that they not bid on Ebay auctions so that he can win the auctions at a low prices, people might want to contact Ebay and supply copies of the emails to Ebay. This behavior is very likely against Ebay's terms of service. I am sure that Ebay takes a dim view of people interferring in auctions so as to lower the final price. With enough complaints, Ebay might terminate his account. The idea that other people can't buy a particular camera because Mr. Littman asserts patent rights to a particular modification of the camera is ludicrous. He is outdoing SCO, which is quite an achievement.
     
  5. r s

    r s

    I agree, if that truly is an email going out from Mr Littman then that surely seems to be violing both eBay policies.

    What is Mr Littman's eBay id?
     
  6. Here is a link to the patent itself. What nonsense. And we pay our government to
    grant this! He is claming that any format conversion on a rangefinder coupled
    camera is covered by his patent.

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
    Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/
    srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6608971.WKU.&OS=PN/6608971&RS=PN/
    6608971
    CH
     
  7. at least one focusing door hinge for pivoting mounting said focusing door to said front shell of said body shell, selected from the group consisting of Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, 120, 900 and 150 cameras;
    Here is a list of the cameras he needs for his convertion from his patent, lets all get together and bid on them on E bay, just to spite this bufoon...;-)
     
  8. Keep up the fight Dean. The guys in the patent office don't really know what goes on, and probably don't have the resources to research most of the more obscure patents. In the computer world, patents have been awarded for trivial inventions, and if you are in a startup, you try to patent whatever you can to avoid having to compete.

    I didn't see a way to challenge a patent that has already been issued - does anyone know of a way to do this (without a small fortune in lawyer's fees)?
     
  9. The email above is as I received it and it's one of his shorter emails. Note he implies that he's going to come over to my shop and check that all my Polaroid
    900's are "COMPLETE AND UNMODIFIED" so I "WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT"!

    William Littman's name as it appears on the patent is, "Litman, Guillermo E.". His ebay nickname is, "willalwayssendpayment".

    The USPTO denied his first claim to the 4x5 format change.
    Whatever the patent is for, it isn't for converting a Polaroid roll film camera to 4x5. Read it carefully!

    The ludicrousness lies in the way the inventor chooses to enforce his patent, not in the patent itself.
     
  10. A close friend of mine purchased a Littman 45 on Ebay. Mr, Littman wrote him by email and threatened him with all sorts of actions for buying it from a third party in violation of the Littman Sales Agreement which my friend was of course not a party to. As I read the email exchanges I could not believe that anyone in their right mind could write such nonsense.

    Have you ever read Littmans agreement? What a joke, the guy writes on a 3rd grade level. (I digress)

    Anyway, a few months back I considered buying one. I wrote Littman a letter and discussed the purchase of one of his modified cameras. Ultimately I decided not to buy, but in the meantime Littman was calling me on my cell phone during my vacation complaining about my friends purchse. I tried to be cordial, but after a number of annoying calls my wife finally took my phone and made me turn it off.

    During the calls, Nr. Littman was irrational and threatened my friend with law suits. Little did Littman know that he was harassing the wrong guy.

    Anyway, my personal experiences with this individual has me wondering why anyone would purchase one of his cameras. Besides being incredibly expensive, I found Littman to lack people skills and was nasty, arrogant and obnoxious.

    Buyer beware, this guy is not the type of individual that I would do business with.

    The above is my opinion based upon personal dealings with the man.

    -MJK
     
  11. I like Jorge's suggestion. Maybe construct a performance art piece where you
    assemble about a hundred polaroid bodies and crush them under a large weight. That
    wouldn't be patented would it?
     
  12. Is it just me? Or is this like patenting a transmission to couple an Edsel engine to a Studebaker car? Wouldn't the market for these things be about 10 a year? And declining?
     
  13. r s

    r s

    I am all for hearing both sides of a story and have asked Mr Litman to join this thread.
     
  14. One thing I forgot, as you can read in the response by Ebay some auctions were ended by Ebay In great part because these sellers
    have been offering to sell alternative products in their auction descriptions,by providing their email address directly and thereby as ebay would get no fees that is not permissible and considered " an offer to sell outside Ebay"

    I have no idea if such sales took place but such ebay policy violations were present in many of the auctions of such sellers for years.

    It amazes me how this important ethical detail was omitted when these complaints stated here attemting to present me as if acting incorrectly.

    I believe ebay fees are quite fair, they offer great service and deserve not to be stiffed.

    they also forbid sellers from placing their web site address inside the auction description , there is an authorized place for such links,but it isn't the auction description, at least one of these people complaining here has placed such link in the auction description against ebay policy in dozens of auctions for years.

    Another one of these sellers who claims to have legitimate rights has been offering his products on ebay to undisclosed or concealed buyers,which makes me wonder if such sales can be so well validated why the sneaky tactics?.
     
  15. Littman wrote me again today threatening libel action against me.

    This is pathetic, telling the truth about my experience is not libel.

    I propose a legal defense fund be set up to hire legal counsel to fight Littman's patent and defective. If 30 of us donate $200 a piece we can get this thing started. I for one will donate $1000. That is how annoyed I am with him.

    An attorney should be able to contest the patent and get it repealed.

    Why is it that when people such as Littman threaten legal action others get scared and panic. Just because he has an attorney does not mean that he can hurt you. The law protects people such as us from people like him. Besides, it costa roughly $100,000 to try a Federal intellectual property suit. I doubt that Littman is willing to go that route against you guys.

    I am quite serious about this. Littman must be challenged in a professional and legal way. I would post his emails to me, but he now includes a non-disclosure paragraph at the bottom of each email.

    His tactics are that of a schoolyard bully. Don't let him intimidate any of us.

    Mike
     
  16. This is the text of an email from the real Guillermo from before his patent was issued. It was sent under the fake name,"William Littman" instead of "Guillermo Litman", so we were unable to verify his claims:

    Upon closer examination of your auction I understand that what you offer and represent to have made the first one 25 years ago is an adapter or more specifically an interface between a grafic back and a 110b
    that is removeable and can be placed on the back of an unharmed 100b.

    But as you may know, a day before your auction started a littman 45 single sold on ebay, so the point is that while if you are truthfull about having made one of these 25 years ago, you may be entitled to make
    it, what you are not entitled to do is represent it as what it isnt, when there are established products which have rightfull patent applications which will suffer if you misrepresent yours.

    i understand the feeling that because people have modified pathfinders all is free, that isnt exactly the case, 4 designs did the pack film and i understand from others who worked for marty did as well, but under
    improvements to existing products, one can protect a specified
    claims that is why Polaroid made me a OEM to make my camera.

    I have the willingness to trust that you did indeed make such adapter 25 years ago, if you did that is what you are entitled to,
    you cannot represent it as a conversion or a modification to the camera while you insist it isnt,

    You are limited if that was the case to making such adapter and you cannot further improve the camera beyond what you have described, the weight must remain the same , and no modifications beyond
    receiding infinity and calibrating the rf in its original configuration can take place or utilize any other configuration to make such adapter
    as then you would cross, designs which have been included in applications and allowed.

    this is not a modification of a pathfinder to the 4x5 format but an adapter which sits behind it.

    if the image projected onto the film is a full 4x5 frame you can make refference to 4x5 otherwise you can say it is a 4x5 back but the image is whatever size it is.if its not a full 4x5 image you cannot say 4x5 in the
    title of the auction.

    you must also volunteer the weight of it, and what portion of the film image is represented by the parallax for the biggest film size it carries.

    I respect your rights if they exist and you have to respect mine by representing your product accurately and making sure bifdders will not expect to obtain from your auction a cheaper version of my camera as
    that isnt the case, yet several bidders in your auction

    have previously contacted me on my camera and i know they assume they are getting a cheaper alternative to mine by buying
    yours.

    You can have your way if its rightfull but you can not have the cake and eat it too, if you have the willingness to represent your product
    in a truthfull manner, state its complete combined weight when installed on the camera, limit yourself to just making the adapter and receding infinity and only using the same exact configuration in the adapter
    and its method of attaching to the camera.

    It may be uppsetting or surprising to feel limited by what it originally was, but that is what you may be entitled to, all else has been protected.

    you can know two things, your adapter cannot in anyway invalidate my patent applications as we reviewed it today, it also cannot invalidate any of the individual claims in it,

    I hope you understand im trying to work very hard to work arround you, I understand you may feel that because you made something 25 years ago, 25 years later you can represent it the way you would have
    back then, it was a different world,my familys farm was
    700 acres back then and now its only 20, yet we can all live together as well as possible, Im sorry if you felt that i was
    hasty in my previous comments but you were irresponsible in that you did not research existing products today before you went on to be too broad in representing yours.

    If you are rigtfull on this adapter then by all means, its yours,

    the distances have been established, the apearance has been established and the perameters have been established by you, that is the space you have to work with.

    So that we can rightfully coexist you are asked to do the following
    revise the description of your auction to reflect the following
    A) full weight of camera with adapter installed
    B) how much is covered by the parallax for the biggest size of image on film
    C) if the image is not a full 4x5 you cannot say 4x5 in the auction title

    D)if it is you need to represent how much of the image on film is represented by the parallax,which is 75% .

    E) you are asked to email the bidders in your auction and inform them that you have been made aware of other existing products after which you have revised the description and you invite them
    to read it again before purchase. by weighing the components i established the weight to be at least 6.7 pounds

    you cannot in the future make any further internal modifications
    i.e. parallax coverage or r.f reliability.

    Im sorry to inconvenience you but the way you presented your offer has been considered extremelly damaging by my lawyers, i have this guy razzledog from australia breathing down my neck
    and i have had to file there as well, then he emails me in a mocking tone that i should look at your auction and the next thing i
    see is he is bidding on it.

    You may have done the adapter 25 years ago and that is good
    all I know is that the day after my camera sold on ebay for the first time you show up and im made aware of it by someone who is buying it to copy it as he started offering conversions again a day after an ex
    dealer of my product offered one of mine on ebay, i had them end the auction a year ago but razzledog saw it and went on to become a problem.

    I hope you can understand these are subtle differences to
    most people but in what rffers to what you and i do in todays world a degree of clarification is needed today which was not needed before.

    I have no intention to argue with you it appears you have focused on other aspects, made your things and never had to think that
    something like this could become somewhat restricted,

    I hope you can work with me on this, i really think what i ask
    is fair and Im willing to forget the original way it has been presented if you fine tune it to what it is. these are difficult times for all You appear with this on a particular time and though im sure you are not a bull in a
    china store , the china has been shatterd, perception of a product is more fragile than what you may think,

    when you present your product the way you did and you start the sale at.99 without a reserve ,it hurts my buisness like its the day after the bomb, Not saying it was your intention so now you have a chance to
    correct it.

    thank you
     
  17. I have a question for Mr. Littman.

    Have you ever heard of "tortius interference"?
    If not, I think you had better consult your legal counsel.

    If I have ever seen a case, this is one. Interfering with one's right to do business is a tort. Most states have this on the books and it is quite enforcable.

    Having Ebay stop an auction on grounds that may not be true may be considered tortious interference and I would suggest that this injured by this event might not be William Littman or whatever his real name is.
     
  18. I have no idea what to believe, all these people are insisting their actions are validated by the words of Noah Schwartz yet MR. Schwartz was
    contacted by me in April insisting that if he had valid proof of his activities prior to mine, that he should forward it to my patent attorneys so that it can be considered, if found valid I had total forthright willingness to limit my invention claims to accommodate his, no evidence was submitted and by what you will read below I clearly could not have taken Mr. Schwartz seriously;Status: U
    Return-Path: <noah123@cox.net>
    Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net ([68.1.17.244])
    by killdeer (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 19aBdUU33NZFlr0
    for <littwi@earthlink.net>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from cox.net ([68.9.135.80]) by lakemtao01.cox.net
    (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP
    id <20030429195705.VUZA8337.lakemtao01.cox.net@cox.net>;
    Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:57:05 -0400
    Message-ID: <3EAED911.9437CAA8@cox.net>
    Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:57:03 -0400
    From: noah <noah123@cox.net>
    Reply-To: noah123@cox.net
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC)
    X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Subject: Inventions
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary="------------E6F4E714BA64773646D86BBC"



    ----- Original Message -----
    From: noah
    Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 12:57 PM
    Subject: Inventions


    Dear Mr. Littman;
    I want to make clear to you as a colleague how sympathetic I am to what you must be going through. I have been there, and I know how much it hurts. I would never willingly put another human being through it. I've had my ideas stolen countless times.

    I am the real inventor of the fiber optic Polaroid back for 35 mm cameras. I am the inventor of the idea to use the strap to get the two exposures on each sheet of film. I made the first 250 of them until I quit (Three times!) when I saw the patent with Martin B. Forscher's name on it and not mine. Marty Forscher stole it from me because he felt that as his employee he had a right to. That is not the case. According to the law, he owed me one dollar for me to assign the rights to the patent to him. But I should have been credited as the inventor.

    This is the first time I've written it down this way in my life.

    Even though the patent has expired, he could still be found guilty of fraud and the records at the USPTO could be changed to reflect that.

    So why do I keep quiet ? Why did I just stand by and let him do it ? (I recently inherited all the records of Professional Camera Repair
    Service from the widow of the man who trained me, so now I have even more evidence to prove my case.)

    Because. Because sometimes you just have to let go. Because you can only aggravate yourself. Because you will make other people, who have nothing to do with the situation suffer. If he were exposed as a fraud, all my friends who worked there, whom I still hold dear to my heart, could have lost their jobs.

    I feel that the greater good is served by letting the people who think that he was what he said he was. The people with the scholarships with his name on them.

    In all the years I worked at PCRS, I am not aware of Marty Forscher ever modifying ONE camera himself. (Except when he smashed a camera with a hammer and crushed it in a vise for a gag gift for Jay Maisel.) He didn't even have the desire to do it. But everyone thought that he did. It was a lie that he carefully cultivated.

    Would the world be a better place if I got up and said all these things about him ? Would I actually be better off ?

    I moved on.

    I'd rather be a Steve Grimes, may he rest in peace, than a Marty Forscher any day of the week. Because he was honest.

    Your camera must be so much lighter and so much more well made than mine. If I had a choice, I would have a Littman over what I am producing. They aren't the same thing at all. Yours is like an ultralite Linhof, and mine is a Polaroid 110B with a flange on the back.

    I'm sorry, REALLY sorry that you are so upset, but it is you who must change, not I. And my camera adapter won't effect your reputation, or your profits one little bit.

    You can't sell an idea in America. You can sell a patent. If you want to sell an idea, you turn it into a patent.


    -Noah
    8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

    then I had seen that in his first auction Mr schwarz had insisted to have made these for the first time 25 years ago, that was in april 2003,
    now he is insisting to have made the first one in 1980 and that would be 23 years ago. the first time he stated that marty forscher had requsted he come up with something, then he emailed me that of course he had made it because it was his job , now he is insisting on his latest auctions that he made the first one for himself at a different date and two years just vannished.

    I have no doubt that it is possible that he made something at some point, but he knows quite well that he has gone to great effort to limit what he claims to have done by insisting that he never did it differently and yet he wishes to encourage others to proceed on whatever they wish knowing quite well that if what he claims to have done is valid, all others could be entitled to is to do exactly the specific configuration that he has done previously if so.

    I repeat that I have informed all these people that I had emailed Mr. Schwartz and requested the info after which I had absolutely no quarrel with adjusting me patent claims if the new info so indicated.

    therefore these attempts here to discredit and by reverse effect promote these efforts are not so justified as you may have thought, first because the only one with limited potential rights would be Mr. Schwartz and he would do a great favor to his colleagues by submitting such evidence to my attorneys as I have repeatedly requested from him and brought this to a close a long time ago instead of hoping to get some disruptive PR , after all he emailed me that was his intention, and secondly, his product remains an anonymous mystery until April of 2003, why if as someone stated here that the public might be interested even in a lesser product as Mr. Schwartz states, why is it that when large format was very active all these years his product remained a mystery while he was an ebay member selling lens boards and seeing 110b cameras every week, how come both him and Mr. Jones started offering their cameras respectively a week or so after one of my clients sold theirs on ebay, just too many questions which make no sense, in any event I had several attempts to obtain proof and none was forwarded to my attorneys,
    then I got the following frase in an email; Status: U
    Return-Path: <noah123@cox.net>
    Received: from lakemtao01.cox.net ([68.1.17.244])
    by eagle (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 19aCcv5Gx3NZFji0
    for <littwi@earthlink.net>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from cox.net ([68.9.135.80]) by lakemtao01.cox.net
    (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP
    id <20030429205934.WKIC8337.lakemtao01.cox.net@cox.net>
    for <littwi@earthlink.net>; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:59:34 -0400
    Message-ID: <3EAEE7B7.399EB235@cox.net>
    Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:59:32 -0400
    From: noah <noah123@cox.net>
    Reply-To: noah123@cox.net
    X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC)
    X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    To: William Littman <littwi@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re:
    References: <200304281257.h3SCvUrZ016694@mx10.sjc.ebay.com> <3EAD4895.3E4BF3F3@cox.net> <00ff01c30e77$6b94b230$162ef7a5@your6jnhhu0520> <3EAEC780.2317FCA5@cox.net> <014301c30e88$9cdf0af0$162ef7a5@your6jnhhu0520> <3EAEDA0A.DC562FBF@cox.net> <015d01c30e8b$00da5ee0$162ef7a5@your6jnhhu0520> <3EAEDF7A.9D7D4530@cox.net> <016701c30e90$5ca2abb0$162ef7a5@your6jnhhu0520>
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
    boundary="------------E736959A74F2D66DCC8BB016"

    you'd better stay away from me, because I could sure use the publicity.
    Sincerely yours,

    -Noah
    ------------
    then last week i sent another email stating that i had waited many months for the evidence and I would have to assume that if it wasnt submitted in a timelly manner that perhaps it just wasnt there, or because as he stated he can use the publicity

    the response to that was that all these people decided to follow thru on their earlier threats to discredit me ., I have no quarrel with limiting my rights,
    and certain that the only one here besides myself who may have limited specific rights would be Mr Schwatrz, I have done all i could so that he would present the evidence to my attorneys,and assured the rest that when Mr schwartz words would be corraborated
    i would immediately inform them.

    In reference to my people skills, i admit im overworked, constantly under siege by these sneaky tactics and being that my camera became rated as the most responsive large format camera in december of 2002 and that i had no previous experience in the field when i started the research, perhaps those who see me overworked and on the edge can understand that this may not be easy for me and that , the presition the commitement and the job may have taken all my time, when clients who are aware of my efforts and who have emailed me with gratitude of the enjoyment obtained from my efforts, should not
    forget that in demanding that i have people skills despite all odds they are being quite unfair,It is true I hav been overworked for a long time, I hope this wasnt the case, those who appreciate such commitment are welcome, those who expect more are disapointed because unfortunatley by the nature of the work itself it is already
    more than i can do.

    If you add all else which may be required including having
    to deal with these constant half truths by those who do not aprove of my rights while I insist that no valid proof has been submitted to
    make me feel that any of my rights are acomplished by prior effort.

    as stated many times to all of them if such rights exist proof should be sent to my attorneys if it doesnt, then this is ridicouloos.

    to the rest i apologize as I admit it is true that I have been easier to deal with when I didnt have to work this hard, ironicaly on behalf of people sometimes as you have read here who think what I do is brilliant but unless I work arround them to their pleasing then " I lack people skills" I do lack a lot of things right now and one of them is any time at all, I apologize .

    Due to patent and other application pending, asumptions should not be made

    i understand how things look, but as you will read from what has been written to me i can hardly believe a word but im still trying to get evidence this is a matter that should be kept between buisnesses and I hope i have provided some clarification,
    i cannot further contribute to this forum matter as I dont believe that some of the participants hsve played with all the cards first because it should have been resolved between buisnesses and second because in the absence of evidence submitted in a forthright manner as requested and to the right parties,, while i kept requesting it, i find most of these complaints without merrit because if he who calims to have rights
    hasnt submitted any proof to me, what are the others doing dividing the cake when in truth they are hopefull of much but certain of nothing after which, the postings are hereby malicious by that mere fact.

    I have been overworked and perhaps not easy to deal with,
    i accept even unpleasnt at times, yet that does not justify
    a lot of these insistances in the absence of proof by mR Schwartz to my attorneys.

    I close by insisting that the initiator of these postings Mr D jones has been made aware of my efforts for years , therfore his claim of being recently surprised by my patent is a simply an effort to justify his complaining,

    I reasert my commitement to have any evidence which may be submitted by Mr Schwartz carefully examined and because i consider this a matter between buisnesses i will not further contribute to these postings,and i feel i may not have been always as pleassnt and good in communication skills as i tried to explain but I have done my duty as per the law to request the evidence, i hope it is submitted.

    here is a shortcut to something more pleasant ;

    http://www.photoworkshop.com/double_exposure/publish/article_408.shtml

    now i understsnd that no matter what i say many will feel my words at times to be unpleasant, my english could use some help too,I couldn't agree more, me and my life are a work in progress ,
    I ask that those who expect me to be more balanced be more appreciative of why under the circumstances this has not been possible,

    this whole matter could have been settled by the first week of may of this year, in choosing to drag it on these complainants have brought this upon themselves at it is very clear that I have repeatedly insisted that upon examination of the evidence
    things could reach clarification. thank you




     
  19. I propose a legal defense fund be set up to hire legal counsel to fight Littman's patent and defective. If 30 of us donate $200 a piece we can get this thing started. I for one will donate $1000. That is how annoyed I am with him.
    No, no, no Michael, with a $1000 you can bid on 100 polaroid 110B cameras.Lets just all get together and bid on the cameras and drive their price up. That will annoy the bufoon more than getting a lawyer. If we get stuck with the camera, just send it to Dean or Noah for conversion and let them sell it on E bay. Sometimes is better to fight fire with fire...:)
    To Dean and Noah, examine his patent carefully and just change a small thing. If he uses a graflock back, adapt yours to use an international back or a polaroid 545i etc. How about one using film holders? The possibilities are endless....:)
    If E bay stops your sale, send them his patent and your modification specs clearly showing they are different. His patent only protects him from doing the same exact conversion, not a different one.
     
  20. Jorge,

    Nice idea.

    I think that the LF community must all get together on this one.

    Am I just getting old and experiencing a problem with cognitive understanding, or does anyone else understand what Willie Littman wrote in the post above?
     
  21. You are all welcome to send me as many Polaroid cameras as you'd like. The point is that as far as I know, I was the first person to put a 4x5 back on a Polaroid 110 camera back in 1978 or 1979. ( Other people may have done it before me, but I don't know.) I did it because Polaroid had stopped making color roll film, and I didn't like the idea of cutting up the camera for a pack film conversion as I was asked to do by Marty Forscher. ( See my listings on ebay under the name noahgoodeal. ) I had to figure out all the complexities, like would the lens cover 4x5 and would the inside of the camera cut off the image. Marty thought it was ridiculous. I ended up keeping the camera for myself, and the camera ended up being stolen. Fortunately, besides all the other evidence, I have the picture of myself with the camera and a Polaroid 500 film holder in my hands. And, by the way Guillermo has no patent on converting a Polaroid roll film camera to 4x5.

    I am a craftsman and inventor. You are all free to do a search on my patents at the USPTO.

    I'm sick of people stealing my ideas, much less beating me over the head with them. And by the way, this isn't much of an idea compared to some of the things I made or saw at Professional Camera Repair Service. It does make a nice camera, though.
     
  22. r s

    r s

    As "interesting" as the discussion is I'm kinda getting more interested in these cameras.

    So I'd be able to shoot full 4x5 (actually getting a 4x5 image) using one of these modifided 110 polaroid cameras? How's the image quality? Anyone got any examples scanned and posted?
     
  23. Frank might have a point. Littman is selling his cameras for more than $3000. Now I dont know what all entails converting these cameras, but surely it must be easier and cheaper than making an 8x10 view camera. My Gandolfi was only $2500 for pity sakes!
     
  24. One thing I forgot, as you can read in the response by Ebay some auctions were ended by Ebay In great part because these sellers
    have been offering to sell alternative products in their auction descriptions,by providing their email address directly and thereby as ebay would get no fees that is not permissible and considered " an offer to sell outside Ebay"

    I have no idea if such sales took place but such ebay policy violations were present in many of the auctions of such sellers for years.

    It amazes me how this important ethical detail was omitted when these complaints stated here attemting to present me as if acting incorrectlyand as solely responsible for that. it isnt true

    I believe ebay fees are quite fair, they offer great service and deserve not to be stiffed.im not saying It happened but such listing configurations are not allowed .

    they also forbid sellers from placing their web site address inside the auction description , there is an authorized place for such links,but it isn't the auction description, at least one of these people complaining here has placed such link in the auction description against ebay policy in dozens of auctions for years.
     
  25. Richard, I dont know about the conversion, but the Ysaron lens is a great little lens. Back when I used to work at a camera shop we used to get these polaroid cameras in trade and we would take them just so we could take the lens off the camera and sell it. The photos I saw taken with them were very good. Since the coversion only entails getting a back that wont leak and is at the film plane I imagine the cameras are as good as the lens on them. Certainly is beter than a Crown or speed graphic. Hey Dean, how much for converting one of these for me?...:)
     
  26. r s

    r s

    Jorge, thanks. I was just curious because if these converters actually enable a Polaroid 110 camera to produce 4x5 images (and note I mean actual 4x5 image and not a smaller image on a 4x5 sized sheet) then that would be one of THE smallest 4x5 camera options I've ever heard about.

    Which - would be really cool.

    Not 3,000 dollar cool.

    But cool.
     
  27. Mr. Silfverberg I have pictures taken with my cameras on photo.net. and a fixed price listing on ebay for an adapter.
     
  28. I should really say, my adapted cameras.
     
  29. By the way, Deans cameras are much cleverer than mine, switching the format to 2 1/4, not 4x5.. I would love to own one some day.
     
  30. r s

    r s

    Noah, some great photos there. Loved the one of you in '78 taken with the Graflex (and what WERE you doing up on that bridge by the way?) :)

    All the polaroid photos were great - but my question is still, as naive as I am in these matters: Will I be able to get a 4x5 IMAGE using these converters/adaparters or will the image size be much smaller?

    Regards,
    Richard
     
  31. Dude, the photo of the green mini, the helicopter, and the neon sign were all taken with a Polaroid 110 camera. They are full frame 4x5 on Polaroid sheet film.
     
  32. And Peter B. Kaplan took me to the top of the Williamsburgh Bridge because he wanted me to make him roller skates for his parrot. Which I did, of course.
     
  33. Richard, I agree. I mostly shoot 8x10 and 12x20 now, but a camera like this would be a great everyday camera to carry in the car for those unexpected shots.

    Noah, where on e bay? Do you have a web site? I would like to see what you offer, I certainly not going to pay $3000 for one, but a few c notes would not be out of the question.
     
  34. I'm noahgoodeal on ebay, and the title of the item is "4x5 Graflok Back Adapter for Polaroid 110B"

    http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=noahgoodeal&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=25
     
  35. Ok here is the link, I found it Noah!

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15247&item=2954143542

    Now, lets see. Noah is charging $500 for making the parts and adapting the camera if you send him the camera and back. Littman is charging $3000 and more. Is this a no brainer or what? No wonder Littman is upset, Noah is preventing him from gouging people. Noah, I have put you in the queue, I will get to you with an order in a few months.
     
  36. r s

    r s

    Noah, the photo of the helicopter in particular is awesome.

    Right now I'm trying to assess how well a Daylab 120 would work for me (i.e. taking photos in 6x6 and then producing 4x5 polaroids based on them through the Daylab).

    If that turns out to be a dead-end then this contraption would definetively be very interesting to me.

    Once again, great results posted here. It always helps a LOT to see examples of the output.
     
  37. In 2002, when I worked freelance for Steve Grimes, may he rest in peace, I made a 4x5 Polaroid adapter for a customer. ( Steve knew I had done this for years.) I was only then that I found out about Mr. Litman. The customer was kind enough to tell me about Mr. Litman and his web site after he had the camera in his hands. I believe I charged him $200.

    Strange, the record seems to show that Steve was aware of Mr. Litman and his claims before that time. Was I set up?

    ANYWAY, I never knew about Mr. Litman, and it kind of bothered me that another one of my ideas had been absconded. So I posted the item on ebay to see what would happen.

    This happened.
     
  38. Who the hell wrote the first Littman post? certainly not MR G himself. I mean it makes some sense, quite contrary to the later addition by the man we all know and love! Will Guilliermo EVER understand what is happening here, or will he simply stumble on? If that`s 'Intellectual Property' in action, I want none of it. Here`s the link if you`d like to check out my Polaroid conversions. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle Thanks for the support guys!
    0069rq-14739184.jpg
     
  39. Mr. Littman is a major regular buyer of Polaroid Cameras on Ebay; and usually targets the 110A; 110B; and 900 in equal amounts. He sometimes gets a 250 model. The auction prices of these models has increased on Ebay; as collectors and dealers see swift sales. To get a decent low price; one has to vist Ebay when Mr Littman is sleeping; and scout out the buy-it-now auctions. At a local camera store I heard about these Polaroid purchases; when I noticed the store owner had his Polaroid 110A and 110B gone. He said "some guy on Ebay is buying the old Polaroids all up; so its time to get some money out of this old stuff."
     
  40. Mr. Schwartz

    I'm hereby sending a final proposal after I don't believe that you intend to submit the evidence that I requested and in its absence if you feel your ideas have been stolen countless times you also have to
    respect I may feel the same way specially the first time.

    I have emailed D Jones proposing that if the discredit ceases and all threads are removed on the basis that they are bashing and photo net would I believe be agreeable to that I will no longer expect your
    evidence submission and will consider these matters closed.

    neither you or Mr. Jones are aware of what may be covered by patent application pending, therefore in trusting that one patent was issued you can trust that more rights may be on the way.

    If my tone has been unpleasant, I don't believe that after you knew that I had requested the evidence that it was fair to portray me as you both have specially since I have
    no way of knowing if you were telling the truth If you also feel/ felt that your ideas have been stolen countless times.

    I have unblocked my email awaiting your response I will keep it that way until end of Sunday, I hope that we can stay away from further insults, and come to an understanding otherwise I find that much of what
    has happened in the forum is not
    entirely kosher or accurate and im damaged by it.

    Since I have not seen any evidence which would prove any priority, that I have been presented as I have is omitting the most important fact and therefore all such postings are to some degree a gross distortion,
    the fact is that you knew that I requested the evidence, you knew that I haven't seen it, that you allowed this to take place encouraged it and to now not admitted what I imply is rather serious.

    I don't have the health for all this and I can not continue to live under the threat of discredit, therefore I choose to end this if it is acceptable to you and ego's can be
    put to rest.

    I will also expect that you email each person on the postings to inform them that we have reached an understanding which is satisfactory to the parties.

    we don't need to go thru everything all over again I'm quite tired and I'm sure you also would prefer to get back to your life

    please advise what your choice might be.
     
  41. Mr. Littman emailed me last night and apologised for his actions during my vacation. He stated that he had been affected by insomnia and was not himself. He has also stated that he will in fact honor his warranty for my friends camera even though he purchased it in Ebay.

    I would think that Mr. Littman is serious and at this point wishes to work with the LF community rather and be isolated. As long as <r. Littman limits his actions to the specific terms of his patent 0Assuming that it remains valid) and leaved Dean, Noah, and others alone understanding that competition is healthy, I find no reason to continue discussing this issue.

    Mr. Littman must understand that if market conditions are such that he must reduce his prices, then so be it. If his camers is proved to be so far superior to those made by others, then his camera may certainly be worth the extra money.

    Mr. Littman sppears to want a fair resolution to this issue.

    -M
     
  42. Mr. Schwartz has had more than 6 months, to inform me in any way he chose that
    he had justified rights, he chose not to, he has not denied it because it is what happened, no one here including myself has seen any valid proof , no one here including myself knew of him or his product, so absconded is a clever word, I had to look it up in the dictionary, and it means " to hide" to " conceal" , I would say that he has done a great job at concealing his earlier efforts so that by the time I came around no one including those who had been around since his days knew about it,

    I later asked around and still no one remembered or knew, I can accept and seek the truth, and in April I asked Mr. Schwartz to substantiate what he insisted and he chose not to, Instead he insisted that if I ever chose to bother him he would discredit me,
    So here we are, I'm expected to simply take his word for what he insists while he feels entitled to insist that everyone steals his ideas, so after waiting so long I have decided to drop the issue , no proof has been given to me and I don't believe any proof will be forwarded to me, so no one has hidden or concealed Mr. Schwartz previous efforts but himself , that is his own doing, I have insisted to him since April that I would gladly yield as soon as some proof was forwarded, and I find myself criticized here as people insist that things have been done previously , I repeat that no one here insisting that except Mr. Schwartz knows that to be the case ,

    I have had the willingness to find the truth since April, so I have concealed nothing,
    and have done what I could so that the truth was not concealed from me.

    I do not doubt there is a truth , I have tried to obtain it, since I have not been able to despite all my efforts , I have decided to drop the issue.

    I insist that because the truth has been deliberately concealed from me It is not fair
    that they have resorted to attempt to hurt me by discredit when in fact , the person who knows the truth, has concealed it , I have tried to obtain the truth, it has been
    kept from me.

    I hope that some day I will learn the truth, but since that day has not yet come I cannot accept that these people have resorted to this smear tactics which are being justified
    by what someone says they have done previously , but no one has been able to corroborate either , if the evidence is made available today that still does not justify
    that yesterday no one knew for certain . and people cant insist something is ludicrous
    based on evidence that has not been seen by anyone.

    I have made it clear to Mr. Schwartz that I did not want him to incur any expenditure
    that all I wanted was that he forward proof and that I would yield ,then others insist
    that my patent is ludicrous because of what Mr. Schwartz has apparently done earlier,
    when they have no proof either, If proof had been presented, then I could understand,

    Under such circumstances and such willingness to discredit and bash based on assumptions, I find I have no choice but to yield without seeing the evidence.
     
  43. I've got to find a catalog that I've got kicking around from a company that used to do conversions on Polaroid cameras around 1980. I for one don't mind seeing these posts but it seems Noah has already submitted the proof that's being asked for. Noah, you can email me and I may be able to part with some of these cameras.
     
  44. Thank you, Joe Photo.

    Guillermo's complaints about links on auction pages on ebay are about someone else. Not me. I don't have a web site yet to link to!

    And Guillermo Litman's first patent application for converting Polaroid cameras to 4x5 was rejected by the USPTO. He had no business bothering me in the first place.
     
  45. I had the duty to report findings that could be substantiated, to this date I have no proof and by the time my patent was issued Mr. Schwartz had not even provided posted the photograph and only conflicting statements.

    in regards to the claim that was rejected it was too general as applied to an interface for various photographic systems and I decided to drop it, yet by the abstract of the patent alone, I would say that if the patent is not "only" meant for converting Polaroid roll film cameras to 4x5 , it certainly indicates that it is as well.

    An interface for adapting a photographic system for a specific format to a camera back for a different film format, in particular from a 31/4.times.41/4 format photographic system to a 4.times.5 format film back,

    A 4er.times.5 adaptor for changing a 31/4x41/4.times. format photographic system to a 4.times.5 film format,

    In particular, a coupled rangefinder/parallax 4.times.5 camera that utilizes components from Polaroid Models 110, 110A, 110B, 120, 900 and 150 cameras and the 4.times.5 adaptor.



    Mr. Schwarz has offered his product since April and has always been able to do so since.

    if he made his product when he says he did he had 20 years of time
    before that to establish it in the market.

    Mr. Schwartz and I communicated on very few occasions and any further loss of time could have been avoided if he provided the evidence to which I was entitled to establish the parameters, so It was my life that was in his hands since then , by having to deal with not being able to bring things to a conclusion.

    I believe that Mr. Schwartz indicates that he would prefer to obtain certainty at this point, but did not find that useful by the continuous offer of certainty which I had offered which would have only required a trip to the post office

    a product does not need to be identical for an issue to exist,all I did was attempt to obtain the information I needed so that these matters could be considered final.

    I required the evidence for those reasons and while insisting to have the willingness to limit my patent accordingly. therefore
    while my tone may have been upsetting, Mr. Schwartz has already established to be the first to believe everyone has stolen his Ideas
    and in light that I was making an effort that would have accommodated him at no cost to him, I believe I should have received the cooperation required to do so.

    Since I indicated to Mr. Schwartz from the first contacts that I would
    gladly yield to his rights if they existed, I insist that much more time has been wasted by having to wait 6 months and still no evidence.

    It is not so much as Mr. Schwartz chooses to present things either, as a result of his words, others have insisted they feel entitled, after which it is no longer sufficient that he is satisfied but it is required that he substantiates all the endorsement and encouragement with facts specially when he insists that everything
    is public domain, that is irresponsible and one sided to then insist that he was not required to submit evidence as clearly, I made an effort to consider his rights when no proof existed but he refused , still refuses to consider mine when since we spoke the first time
    I had clear and definitive proof of my rights and I provided him with my patent application number as he insisted"Hi Mr. Littman: I'm afraid I have to ask you for your patent application number."

    I did even though my attorney insisted that until it was published it was confidential.

    If Mr. Schwartz "needs" to receive my patent application number to verify that I'm being truthful so do I in turn deserve to receive proof that he is also being truthful specially when Im doing so
    to avoid further costs for everyone and valuable time as Mr. Schwartz indicates.

    If his time is valuable , so is mine , at the time I contacted him I was extremely busy, and my product extremely established, on the other hand his product as he insist, was placed on ebay "to see what would happen" ( not a very considered after he has admitted here that he was aware of my product since 2002) as he has once obtained a patent on a camera support ,and knows better that to start insisting priority to the entire world, and place me in a tough spot because in turn he refuses to provide the evidence which I need to adjust my reality to this situation that when the person insist to be experienced and then insist that he " just place it for auction to see what would happen" is clearly not being considerate of my needs to establish truth or the needs of those who insist found incentive in his words.

    I find that being informed of my product and choosing to withhold the required evidence and in light that his words and actions became an incentive for others to either interfere or make assumptions, proof was not only merited by mere reciprocity, it was required.

    Yes and I do have the right to get good rest, I became ill when I had to divert my time to explaining to people how come this and how come that. while having to do my work plus everything else I have to deal with, the product was placed by ambush,this thread is also of the same nature since I wasn't invited to participate
    until very late , I apologize that I cant avoid getting sick when things are done in such an inconsiderate manner and then when Im under the weather as a result Im expected to be able to not feel disrupted which obviously occurred as my client has corroborated, and since my product was so established and yours a mystery, perhaps my needs should have been considered.

    that I have admitted proof by customers that I was disrupted by the way you chose to initiate your presentations and while you knew about me and My product you chose
    to originaly present yours , while you were insisting to have never have made your product differently, you were at the same time offering that if the customer should so desire, you could further customize it to their liking while insisting you can make anything that a customer would like, in contradiction to the contemporary insitance of never having done your adapter differently, therfore i was again disrupted by this.

    I made sufficient dedicated efforts despite being very sick to find resolution from the start and clearly resent that in the end I find myself here criticized even of my people skills when the duress I encountered was originated In the admitted careless approach which was taken to commence your new effort in April and lack of reciprocity in attempting to find resolution.




     
  46. Mr Littman, why don`t you take a long vacation? You will never find the so called truth you require. Your current postings are simply another of your tactics in order to gain some form of pity. It was you who instigated the attacks in the first place, threatening legal action, seizure and destruction of our converted cameras and verbal abuse. Any conversions regarding Polaroid cameras should be fun, exciting and rewarding. They should in turn help others to access the joy of photography by the availablity of a product at a realistic and honest price. You made it quite clear from the outset that ANY modification to ANY 110 series camera, whether it be sheetfilm, rollfilm or packfilm was your right only and must not be carried out by anyone else. This claim is utterly ludicrous, hence the title of this thread. I have repeatedly stated to you that my conversions in NO way resemble yours, nor do they utilse the full 4x5 sheet in their exposure coverage, furthermore that my 120 rollfilm conversions (6x9 and 6x12) do not require the attachment of ANY Graflok or other system you employ, but alas, the threats keep coming. You appear to alternate between threat and sorrow, somewhat of a mystery behaviour to me. How do you find the time to build your cameras, whilst inflicting grief on others? It is my opinion that you either co exist or take a hike.
     
  47. Ok, Happy New year Mr Schwartz!
    So ,On the day of forgivness perhaps it can be put to good use and funny that we should be put to this test, this is a two way street and potholes can be found on both sides if that is the intention .

    Please help me find the resolution i have seeked since we first spoke
    so that next Yom Kippur we both have something to be proud of.

    Thank you
     
  48. The Polaroid 110A arrived in 1957; the 110B and 900 arrived in 1960.
     
  49. HEY MR. LITTMAN! Are you fatigued with our efforts to irritate, annoy, and prosecute you? Look at all of this time that has been wasted! You go and perjure yourself to ebay saying that a simple 110A packfilm conversion violates your patent, What in the hell have you been smoking? There are records of me selling this exact camera conversion back in 2001 on ebay, shortly thereafter I discovered the usefulness of 900 parts on a 110A without the input or even the slightest effect of another entity. I have a copy of your patent and NO! None of my conversions use a CB-103 to hold up a Horseman 4x5 back or any other damn brand of 4x5 back! You are so full of your own Sh+t it is astounding! No! Your patent does not prevent others from attaching a CB-103 to a Polaroid 110 type camera either! I am calling on all of those whom you have harrassed to band together and petition the authorities and ebay to SHUT YOU THE HELL UP! YOU THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD ALLOWED TO PURCHASE, MODIFY, AND SELL POLAROID 110, 120, 110A 110B, AND 900 CAMERAS! YOUR PATENT IS GARBAGE! I Hve read most of what is written in this forum and you have made a lot of enemies, it will not take a lot of effort on the part of your enemies to band together and find an effective yet inexpensive methodology to make you really regret what you have done. You apologize now and leave us alone and you might be able to count on us not to try to BURY YOU!
     
  50. Mr. Icanberry,

    I apologize first because we haven't communicated better, I would have wanted to learn about your comment on the 900 earlier so that I could have forwarded proof to
    you so that we would not have a misunderstanding.

    my efforts on the Polaroid 900 parts you refer to go back to a year before the provisional application when I introduced my product, so 2001 would be much later than that.



    I hate to have to be in the position of having to protect something , specially when everybody seems to agree that because the cameras are old its public domain, and by that mere fact, it puts me at odds when the truth is that is the last position I would like to be in.

    I agree that attaching a pack film back to a 110a camera is not an issue and ebay was clearly advised of that , however I insist that the 900 parts issue you refer to is a the least important consideration as the auction also contained an offer to sell outside ebay .

    the patent is more involved than the brand parts, as there is use, method ,process, claims to consider plus a patent aplication pending with the same priority.


    making a small comment on 4x5 conversions,
    there is also the issue of the distance from original film plane which would be required to achieve 4x5 application on such a camera ,
    so regardless of the structural configurations there are other
    things which may not be apparent at first, in any event i had emailed you insisting that I was actively seeking to get proof from Mr Schwartz so that the 4x5 conversion isue could be cleared, which conversely to what many assume by just glancing, is very much protected, and that is why i needed to learn from Schwartz what the deal was so that we could all proceed better.

    By the same token , I could sit here complaining that I have been slandered here when all these people have been made to think I'm so unfair when the truth is this auction merited to be ended by the mere fact that it contained "an offer to sell outside ebay"in the auction description. auction #2950543341,which automaticaly qualifies it for termination.


    like you said I really want to put all this behind and hope that we can all work together in the future, The auction you refer to was ended for valid "reason",
    I'm not going to post the auction description here as you know how it read,
    several reasons were present, hope that we can all get along much better.

    I apologize sincerely , I'm better these days, and I will unblock the email and hope that we can come to an understanding without insults and prosperity for all!
     
  51. r s

    r s

    And on that note I hope everyone can shake hand "virtually" and look forward and not back.

    Understand that you can co-exists and use your products to differentiate yourself and let the customer benefit from what this great land offers so well - options.

    Happy New Year Everyone and peace and prosperity to everyone!
     
  52. Hello Mr Littman, Wow! I must admit I am impressed that you are now trying to reason with us. You must realize that most of us are just hobbyists and flat out do not produce the volume of converted Polaroids that you do and I mean with a certain probability of all of us combined might count for 40 to 50 cameras sold on just ebay in a years time. I have a copy of your patent and have read it many times. my methodology of attaching various 4x5 backs is just flat out different than yours and varies from unit to unit depending on whose back I use. I am constructing my own type of 4x5 back and I assure you that the film plane distance will be different than yours and does not involve a cb-103. I really like your conversion though, it has an enviable versatility to it, but you got to trust me in that I promise not to build one like it. As for 900s they have their uses, I like the bellows and the top part. There are a lot of 900s for sale, cheap too, In fact I would say that there are enough of them around to easily satisfy the needs for all of us and with a bit of cooperation we can all have them at reasonable prices, Noah has told me that there are probably still millions of old Polaroids waiting to be placed on ebay as the word has gotten out that these old cameras have value and all of the other ebay members are seeking them out to place them on sale on ebay. So, In essennce of what I am trying to convey here is that most of us are just doing these conversions for fun and a little "Pocket Money", I am a heavy equipment operator by trade but I go for weeks sometimes without work so it is nice to make some cameras for a rainy day and certainly had no intent to annoy someone on the other side of the country or tamper with their business.
     
  53. Thanks Steve; I look forward to working with you and the others as colleagues
    and i apreciate the new tone.



    examine claim # 4 and you will see that it isn't limited by any brands , graflock graflex etc.



    I have the willingness to work with you all as my coleagues and be more cooperative in the future hoping that you all can do the same and put the past where it belongs I will email all three of you as business to business and hope that we can keep it that way , if we are to get along this discussion here has to be considered closed at some point.
     
  54. i have agreed to yield to my coleagues and not further expect the presentation of evidence by Mr Schwartz and simply limit the claim which would prevent anyone else from an applicable similar conversionas he has done . I have volunteered since the day i learned of a previous effort and was simply waiting to be able to verify it was valid, yet i will no longer do that. You have my assurance that I will not bother my fellow ebay members or anyone else unless the camera has the improvements which are clearly novel, I believe this is what everybody wants and Im willing to do it for free. Thank You

    I have contacted my colleagues and i promise to work with them


    thank you
     
  55. Willam,

    Actually I have to say publicly taht you are a gentlemen. You have contacted me and apologized for your past behavior. You have offered to repair my friends camera even though he purchased it on Ebay and not through you.

    That is truly admirable and commendable. I will say thank you and welcome back into the fold of the LF users. Please allow me to extend my thanks and appreciation.

    As I stated to you privately some time ago. You make an unbelieveable camera. It is special, a lot of fun to use, promotes spontenaity and is of first class construction.

    Please feel free to repost my positive review of your camera on your website should you desire.

    Thanks

    Michael
     
  56. As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure. It has been a truly interesting thread, and my thanks to all who contributed their views on this subject. It appears that problems arising from past behaviour have been addressed and at this stage, it seems that we all may have a bite of the apple. It is my opinion that a legal Patent should be respected. It also serves as a means of clarification in regard to what can and can`t be offerred as an alternative to the modification of the Polaroid camera. The input provided by William Littman in this matter is much appreciated, but at the same time, such input must be considered as words only. I`m sure that any future action taken against ideas that do not infringe upon the rights of Mr Littman or his methods of attaining 4x5 or other formats would be met with disdain and result in appropriate action through this medium arising once again. It is for this reason that such a posting has such an active role in self regulation. My thanks to all and cheers!
     
  57. Dear Dean;

    Let me just thank you for your words today, and much in the same manner as I have stated ,it is my intention to work closely with you guys in the future, As You are/were willing to believe that previous effort on 4x5 conversion of a 110b was valid based on a photo of Mr. Schwartz which doesn't show the matters at hand, I originally hoped that you could have trusted me when I provided you with the following shortcut , to the Polaroid OeM catalog Published in fall of 2000 and which shows a Polaroid 110a converted into a 110b and shows both conversions existing simultaneously as clearly shown , both from front and back,it was taken in summer of 2000 and the original prototype of the Littman was made this way when I took a 110a pack film camera and cut the back to accommodate the 4x5 back.
    http://www.polaroid-oem.com/pdf/oem.pdf

    I believe its page 79.

    Such catalog was submitted with the first patent application, and as I said to you as well in a link by Email early on. as the polaroid 900 parts were used to achieve this both by myself and you and your coleague as no other way exists, I trusted that after you had published offers with these conveniences and described them in detail it wasnt that actual product alone but as I said, the publication of how to acheive this .my words arent just words but photos as well if that doesnt mean anything to you then the opposite would have to be true as well.,in any event I have the willingness to leave the past behind.


    Thanks for your words It is my intention to work with you guys, without stress, Its such a small business and I have made so few cameras at such a great effort, that I haven't had any time for anything else, we have both rushed at times, and I want , and I hope that we can learn from this and move on to a better tomorrow.



    I truly mean it

    all best W
     
  58. I have converted a mint condition Polaroid 95a to use 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Polapan 3000 film, using the frame from a Polaroid 250. It works perfectly, light tight, focal plane adjusted, and 100% reliable. It even has as finished and clean a look as most pros can make. I am going to sell it on E-bay and there isn't a damn thing Littman can do about it.
    007ow0-17264184.jpg
     
  59. First of all this discussion was declared as closed by the person who started the thread, As I responded to Mr. Wolffe's email today, 3x4 pack film conversions have been around for over 30 years and I have never objected to a 3x4 pack film conversion per se , and the subject was covered in this discussion.

    This discussion was considered closed last year, thank you.
     
  60. Hello, I have followed/read most of the most readable entries to this thread, so I am aware of the passion on both sides. I have been a camera bahser for many years in a very small way. Mostly by adapting Ocilloscope cameras from 70mm to 4x5 macro capable units for my own use. I am now working in large format exclusivly dur to deteriorating vision. The Polaroid to 4x5 conversions facinate me and are attractive due to the compact storage and use with a grafmatic. So then...who actually make these items (besides G.E.L)? Please contact me privatly at:

    vjbedo@academicplanet.com

    (281)787-0317

    Regards,

    Drew Bedo
     
  61. i've been reading through various posts, as well as this thread, and one question has
    popped up in my head. after looking at the littman conversions and reading the articles on
    them, it seems as they're being marketed as "littman" brand cameras. i haven't seen
    anywhere (in any posts or websites), any reference to the "polaroid" brand, which these
    camera's retain and are based off of. the polaroid brand is a registered trademark, and
    from my understanding, marketing these cameras as "littman 45 single" brand cameras is
    a violation of polaroids registered trademark, as they have exclusive rights. using products
    branded as polaroid, under a different name, for profit, seems as trademark infringement.

    it seems more accurate that the item be marketed as the "littman 45 single conversion"
    which would include parts and labor not branded by other companies. i think the
    discussion would be more practicle, as it seems that a SERVICE is being offered (the
    conversion of the cameras) rather than the manufaturing of a product. if parts are actually
    being manufatured for the conversions, then those parts would be what entails the littman
    45 single, and not the polaroid bodies which themselves are patented and trademarked.
     
  62. When the Polaroid corporation learned of our product they granted us the standing of POLAROID OEM MANUFACTURER.
    we undertook this project close cooperation with Polaroid as they were enthusiastic as surprised at what we had to offer as much as were my peers.
    to infringe on a trademark you have to " use it"/ we don't. none of the Polaroid OEM manufacturers call their products to be Polaroid

    We use certain parts and it is disclosed in the public domain that these parts are made by Polaroid. we use other parts from other companies and we use our own parts.
    As per the policies of PN and the clarification offered by its senior editor we have the right to expect no further interference .
     
  63. Modifying cameras will be done when we are all dead and just dust. A Patent doesnt erase past history of experimenters who learned from old photo magazines. The sprirt of 4H club with photography 1/2 century was cheerfull, and not sour grapes. Would a recent patent of using Briggs on a homemade go cart today erase the existance of all homemade go carts? Folks ARE going to experiment and modify old cameras and tools that cost little to make other tools. The entire world is not rich. This has been going on many thousands of years.
     
  64. Mr. Flanigan has convinced everyone that those who aren't rich get his vote
    and those who are get belittled. My clients aren't rich and neither am I and in what refers to
    the so called 4H club Mr. Flanigan assured everyone that what happened there
    stating;
    "Kelly Flanigan , oct 04, 2003; 11:05 p.m.
    We hand cut 4x5" ortho films; and loaded them in old Polaroids; in 4H club 4
    decades ago"

    Translated into English /loaded film by opening camera in the dark and
    repeating same afterwards to remove. " no conversion present" and that was
    his " evidence" at a time when he was instigating to have my rights repelled.

    Mr. Flanigan is entitled to his resentment of rich people. but the " rich" is just an excuse by those who admit to never have had any better result by the use of better tools but waste peoples time breathing down everyone's neck telling them what to buy, what not to buy. that is downright rude and inconsiderate.




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

    This website offers freedom of expression to its members as per the first amendment but clearly excludes solicitation and the rallying of such causes by its members.

    The person who started this thread told all of you


    Dean Jones , oct 13, 2003; 06:05 a.m.
    As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure."It is my opinion that a legal Patent should be respected then he told all of you that "such a posting has such an active role in self regulation. My thanks to all and cheers!"

    Such postings have, had and remain as an admitted means of solicitation using defamation against our name to achieve it and as this site forbids to all its members we have the right to expect that this flip flop cease as stated by the person who started the thread and then declared it closed.

    Thank you.
     
  65. I think you're obfuscating the point that the people who are really disappointed are your customers.
    Here's an email I received last week. I get emails like this all the time:
    "I have a very nice 110B I'd like to have you convert using your lowprofile back. I bought a used littman, (on ebay) sight unseen, although it works well, its a poor design. I'd like a more refined camera. I understand if you only sell finished cameras, I got your ebay email. But if you would be interested in converting my camera, I'd like to hear a price. Or if I could trade in my camera toward the price of one of yours. Or I'll just keep an eye out on ebay. Thanks for all the photos on photonet, fun stuff."
    Look at my photos page if you want to see how to build a camera , you can see the LowProfile back I designed specifically for this application, as well as my latest way of mounting an interchangeable lens mount on the Polaroid 110B.
    Perhaps if you didn't glue things together out of plastic and cover them with cheap rubber, your customers wouldn't be dumping them like supermarket spinach ....
    I'd like to add that I'm not taking any camera orders at this time.
     
  66. Well I see on that post " that it works well" and I have had to read several times where you wrote on photo.net that you had resorted to this defamation first because you could " sure use the publicity" and then that you kept this going as long as you did to" stop me or at least keep me busy.

    I have made a dedicated effort to improve my product and have succeeded at great cost and effort despite these interferences

    the cameras which I sold on that site were the earliest prototypes and rental units and apparently they still work after 6 years , now if unscrupulous solicitation and interferences and defamation as a means of solicitation cease I will improve design even more.

    People admit to resort to these threads to prevent you from doing your work and then accuse you of not being able to do your work. great taste. this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years but this site forbids it and the thread has been declared closed by the person who started it.
     
  67. A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance, handling and costs issues of the Littman or Deans camera, or other folks Polaroid to 4x5 conversions, or Polaroid to roll film conversions, Wolf Industry, instead of useless bickering. The constant attacks add no value to making a camera selection, just add negativity. The anti-experimention attitude is abit really weird, since once old Polaroids were just useless junk/crap at pawn shops for a 2 bits or a dollar or two and usefull to the resourcefull experimenter. Trying to erase the past 1/2 century of Polaroid conversion history via attacks is wrong and insulting. Folks fiddled with Polaroid conversions long ago because the old cameras were worthless, like old AOL discs today, and back then a Speed Graphic with 127mm Ektar wasnt cheap. A vistor to these threads may just want USEFULL real info, like minimum focus distance, sequence of operation etc, flash sync,
     
  68. " A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance,
    > handling and costs issues of the Littman "
    They did and as you witnesses your own negativity last month when someone wanted to know just that

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



    When people wish to know the performance of my product and start a thread
    to ask about that to those who would know the people you instigate for show
    up and resort to unscrupulous and forbidden solicitation while invalidating
    their prefrences, insulting them.telling them that after reading the negativity you reffer to that has been refered to as " admitted instigation", How could they consider such a purchase"? as refering to the Littman or telling them they are trying to prevent them from making an expensive mistake.


    The reason that people offering products and services are not allowed to here is demonstrated in the post on another thread which was made by Mr Brewer and while I have no clue as to who he is refering to his consideration that aplies to the point I am tryin to make is his comment that reads"and can't understand why a brother photographer(he participates on these forums) would do this."

    The answer to Mr Brewers question is" brother photographers who participate in the threads are not people posing as such in order to peddle products while daring to invalidate the educated opinions of those most proficient and in the end admitting that in their own personal experience the use of better tools never did make a difference, the results were still crap! but hey you should take their word that their camera is no different / no less . they guarantee that from their own personal experience and dont forget that the experiences by those considered most proficient are just smoke and mirrors.


    "Jonathan Brewer , dec 31, 2004; 03:23 p.m.
    The above exchanges focus on the neverending truth that there are always two sides to every story, I never dealt with Ron Wisner, but it seems to me from reading about these travails over the years that he is no con man, by the same token, it seems he needs the business end taken over by a business manager while he just makes cameras.
    When a deal doesn't go right, the bad taste in your mouth lingers way beyond the deal, which is what I hate about somebody taking my money and giving me less than what I expected.

    I negotiated with a gentleman to buy a polaroid 4x5 conversion, for a lot less than a Littman, we agreed on his price, I thought it was a great price, I repeatedly asked him about the condition of the camera that would be used in the conversion since I was not supplying him w/a camera, and I didn't really get a straight answer, going on the pictures of his previous conversions it looked as if he was a reputable guy that would supply me a camera in great condition.

    I sent him the agreed on price, I eventually got the camera, and the camera part of the conversion was dry and 'squeaky', the camera baseboard was ugly, the camera would 'hang up' halfway as you tried to close it, where you'd have to pull up on the struts to finish closure.

    The conversion works as the lens is in decent condition, but the camera is 'beat-up', the workmanship of the conversion is acceptable mechanically but cosmetically ugly, specifally he didn't countersink deep enough so he has screws sticking out where they shouldn't, the hinges that secure the back where they're fastened to the camera, look 'raggedy',..................so what I'm left with is a camera that technically works, but which I won't be able to sell, and even if I do, I'm still without an alternative but the Littman which I don't want to pay for.

    I didn't get what I expected, I wasn't told upfront what I would be getting, in terms of the cameras condition and I asked. I would've appreciated the use of a better camera in the conversion, and better workmanship in the conversion itself, and can't understand why a brother photographer(he participates on these forums) would do this.

    If you're thinking about buying a camera from him, INSIST on an accounting of the exact condition of the camera he will use in the conversion if he's supplying it."



    Whatever actual grievance this client may have does not interest me. what concerns me is his comment that he went such route felling that someone posing as a brother photographer used photo.net to solicit his buisness and if he feels misled he is correct and as far as Im concerned not about his actual performance complaint but about

    the misuse of photo.net for the purposes of solicitation by unscrupulous people who pose as fellow photographers to promote products and services.

    Recently I said Nikon would not show up on a thread discussing their product and someone responded" are you comparing yourself to Nikon? No there is no need to compare the rule of no solicitation exists because otherwise unscrupulous people selling stuff will try to convince you that Holga is equal to Hasselblad .



    This thread was started with malice as to create dissent as a means to promote products and services after having started another thread and presenting it here as if it was started or instigated by another as was reminded by


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Rich Silfver , oct 03, 2003; 12:48 p.m.
    Dean, what do you mean "after reading the following link"? Didn't you start and participate in that link?

    What's the purpose of opening up another one just to point back to your own link?

    The purpose was to use my reputation and standing as to gain publicity as these people threatened me they would, then discredit me and then tell you not to buy my product.

    Mr Flanigan please....

    " A vistor to this thread might really just want to know the performance,
    > handling and costs issues of the Littman "

    People who really want to know"the performance,
    > handling and costs issues of the Littman " want to know from profficient photographers, real users and not from unscrupulous solicitation telling them not to buy it while they plug their own.








     
  69. Thank goodness this thread is being archived, so potential customers can see what Kelly rightly referred to as bickering and negativity. Caveat emptor!
     

Share This Page