Is the Littman 45 Single now legal or ludicrous?

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.

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?

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!)

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.

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?

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

<i>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; </i><p>

 

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...;-)

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)?

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.

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

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?

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?

I am all for hearing both sides of a story and have asked Mr Litman to join this thread.

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?.

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

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

 

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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

<i>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.</i><p>

 

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...:-)<p>

 

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....:-)<p>

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 <b>exact</b> conversion, not a different one.<p>

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?...:-)