Littman 45`s now from China?

I don`t believe it.......Check out item 7626464556. Pick up only from

Shanghai?, I`ll just get my hat.........

I wonder how long that will be on before ebay pulls it? I hope someone doesn't fall for it...

 

 

William

Dean, check his feedback, really fishy 10 positives; ALL FROM FOLKS WITH ZERO RATINGS! I dont think I have ever seem something so hucksterish since I have been on Ebay for the last decade!

click on the sellers completed auctions, they are monkey poop ????????

Not only are the feedback from people with zero feedback, the buyers all joined on the same day, plus the items ended on the same day the feedvack was left. Go figure.

And the 10 "different" buyers just happened to leave their feedbacks on mostly consecutive minutes from 20:25 to 20:33. Except two posted on 20:33. And their ids are similar random sequences of characters.

It seems that everything about the L45`s is weird at the moment.......either we have 'The Real Deal' that doesn`t sell, or the 'Littman Copy, only Cheaper', that does, but with an inaccurate finder that allows only focusing with a groundglass, to a mysterious 'Rare Earth' lens that boasts adjustable 'Bokeh'! The current fake listing from China only puts the icing on the cake. Are we to see Chinese knockoffs of a Littman?

A patent is simply meaningless.....especially when it comes to the modification of a Polaroid. I guess any claim made that it`s a 'New' product or a 'New' invention, is also misleading.

What would be involved in having all Littman listings removed from ebay on the basis that the

claims of it being a 'new' camera are false ?

Another malicious trick from the individual who started this thread and the rest of such threads by him and his palsy as fulfillment of threats of defamation as a means of solicitation.

 

Photo.net terms of use policy:No Soliciting

You agree not to use the Site, other than the Classifieds section of the Site, to advertise products or services or to solicit anyone to buy or sell products or services.

 

Allowing a buisness to admittedly instigate the public and use this website as a base for the purpose of solicitation and admitedly using defamation as the means to achieve it is an unfair business practice .

 

 

If someone in china has resorted to malicious actions spoofing our product, then that is their problem.

 

But Jones resorts to similar malicious action on this website week after week engaging in ensuing solicitation and using defamation as a means to achieve it.

 

My product sells well thru my website and if it doesn't sell on the auction site it is because this website allows Jones and co conspirators to start threads as to impede such sales.

 

Every time I post an auction him of the 3 or 4 people who walk with him start a thread on this website telling people not to buy my product.

 

This thread is yet another attempt to defamate and interfere.

 

I am fully dedicated and concentrating on my work but have had to divert a lot of time to deal with these malicious attacks.

 

These people work as a tag team; one pushes you / the other one makes you trip and then they tell everyone you are clumsy.

 

When confronted with the facts this person shrugs his shoulders and insists he is a hobbyist to deflect responsibility but then he tells us that his REAL job is being the manager of the large format department at a camera store.

 

If you walk into a camera store and the manager tells you that you wouldn't be able to notice the difference between a vintage lens and a current Apo corrected one( as he posted on this website) you would know this person is not qualified to make differentiations as he admits he doesn't SEE them.

 

Polaroid to most signifies a means to verify exposure

but if this person would show you two different pictures of lens shutter apertures showing 1/3- 1/2 stop error as he posted on this website and tell "There is no problem". you would again know this person cant SEE vital differentiation.

 

At least 5 people have sold used "conversions "and have confirmed that when using the 127 mm lens the parallax lines do not correspond. Several people have even assured this is the case on this website but this person CANT SEE the differentiation either.

 

After the first discussions when he told everyone in photo. net that in his opinion a patent should be respected .... what followed was an interest by the public to learn the tech issues and I was forced to divert almost 3 full years of my life to engage this person and others who were acting as a team insisting they were trying to stop me or at least keep me busy. that when one was done over here the other one would take over somewhere else and so forth.

 

 

I am busy with my work/ and that was the case then yet thought that if I was impeded from making sales by assurances of there being no difference I had no choice but to respond.

 

What I got in return was insults abuse and everyone who dared confirm the tech was labeled as a Littman spy.

 

I came to this website and confronted the tech issues and another issue was the camera cam which Jones first assured it did not require any attention and then proceeded to admit otherwise when we were able to show cams which he crudely grounded with a grinding wheel and were not re finished when it is widely agreed that the surface of a cam must be smooth.

 

when looking thru any rangefinder ; the axis relating to distance forms a triangle composed of the points where the axis meets the subject; the primary mirror and the secondary following mirror.

 

When I announced that when I started I had only considered this triangulation as a basis for calculations he used that as another means of mockery to be used as defamation. Again he could not SEE the obvious.

 

Then when I discovered that a fourth angle present not optical in nature but that its interrelationship with the triangle would form a quadrangulation which permitted me to streamline performance, then again he used this as yet another chance to resort to defamation and mockery. these are yet another 2 instances that show this person cant SEE .

 

Novelty is not obvious but certain things must be obvious to those skilled in the art .

 

I have had to endure 3 years of abuse to the most prominent opinions in the business and we should all ignore the words of the most talented and belittle their work and choices to embrace the contradictions of those who have proven they cant see difference in those things which are obviously different to all, then that person can not be allowed to admittedly prevent me from my work by using these threads to interfere with my sales and then insist my product doesn't sell.

 

These people are using their membership to this website for solicitation purposes and by their own admission defamation as ameans to achieve it.

 

They discredit films and their qualities and when the product doesn't sell they accuse the manufacturer of leaving them in the lurch.

 

Claiming experience and credentials they insist you could not tell the difference between the best and latest to that made 60 years ago.

 

 

This has cost millions to lens manufacturers and everyone will have to carry the burden those who insist they would like you to have choices are taking those choices away when they engage in the activities that lead to films being discontinued lens choices presented as all being equal or no different also takes your choices away.

 

We lost many sales to these false and unfair assurances.

 

 

Whatever the case may be on any given issue public forums forbid solicitation by businesses in the hopes that users may reach their own conclusions .

 

When a business abuses the forums offering free advice in exchange for votes those who feel invited are there with little concern to what the issues may be as it has been admitted in each instance in one form or another.

 

 

I appreciate the Moderators attention to the statistics of fake feedback in a fake auction but the statistic here is that this thread is yet another instance of defamation as a means of solicitation.

 

 

 

When I tried to complete the research on a concept lens by involving the public "these usual " who cant see or insist they need bifocals to even see went on to again

engage in defamation and mockery to impede its development.

 

The point is information is made available as it becomes available and whenever I have available time left from doing my work and having to cope with these malicious interferences

Depth of field is a result of optical performance + iris intervention

in traditional lenses there are 2 interacting scales that affect depth of field

first the summation of the glass components

and how that behaves in regards to dof independently of an iris

and then a second scale pertaining to the intervention of the iris.

 

 

 

A diagram showing the DOF/ depth of field scale of traditional lenses would look like a triangle considering the width of its base as the depth of field a lens yields wide open while focused on infinity and the top corner of the triangle would represent the depth of field the lens yields when focused at its minimum distance.

this would apply to both optics and iris to different degrees but in the same manner as in traditional lens design both glass and iris scales behave similarly with shallower

dof up close and which improves the farther you focus and the more you stop down the iris.

 

When we changed 1 variable by compressing the depth of field in the optical design to make the lens act as a selective focus lens ; the dof scale of the lens itself was inversed somewhat ( emphasis on "Somewhat" because of the natural tendency of optics to be sharper when focused on far away objects than those which are close, therefore our compensatory modification to traditional design results in a partial inversal of such scale yielding a seamless bifocal effect ) resulting in a lens which yields more depth of field at the center and more depth of field

at closer distances when wide open( more than expected from traditional designs by comparison .

 

after which the dof of the lens in the edges or background remains

softer than traditional lenses

while the center is sharper . not representing the lens is sharper overall than traditional designs but by selectiveness always sharper than the background and if stopped down you can have f 16/ f22 even f 45 resolution at the subject while maintaining differentiation with the background.

 

On the other hand the scale pertaining to the iris cannot be inversed and is constant on all lenses because if you stop down any iris

you get more depth of field.

 

The difference expected between the zenithar and traditional lenses is that in the Zenithar the optical dof scale and the iris scale work against each other and the final diagram looks like an hourglass composed of two opposing triangles.

 

The convergence of these 2 scales at focus point is what allows for extreme selectiveness.

 

Again this which is readily demonstrable and has proven to be the case was misused by these people as to belittle my research and impede my progress.

 

These people don't seem to understand very much. It is not your fault, it is not my fault. I cannot afford the time for this until they leave me no choice .The losses and damages losses which stem from these interferences are by now in the millions of dollars .

 

I have a duty to my clients and dedicate my time to them these interferences impede me from doing my work , these ensuing and malicious interferences hurt my clients to whom I apologize . eventualy these instances will face legal action but completing My work , my research and my duty to clients come first.

 

They did the same when I introduced my design models. It is sad that there are those who are willing to resort to this type of behaviour and sadder to see there are those who care to participate.

 

By what this person has admitted in his posts in this website regarding the tech issues that regard differentiation is that he was/ is not qualified by his own admission to be entitled to have

interfered with my bisness of make assurances about my product which are proven false by his own admissions .

 

 

This website is encouraged to abide by its non solicitation policies.

Just PURE and clear GIBBERISH!

 

Remember that:

 

Lens to front DOF limit

 

Df = s - 1/(1/f-(1-C/a)/d) where

 

Df = s - sf ; C = Circle of confusion

a = aperture diameter ; s = distance to subject

 

 

The only way to make the DOF negative, is to make s, the distance to subject a negative number. Simple HS algebra...

 

This is correct in my statement that if this is done, then the subject MUST be BEHIND the photographer, as the reference axis is taken at the film plane.

 

We have a scientific breaktrough here! Take note.

 

Naturally, the clients are getting rid of these cameras, because of these facts. The camera produces consistenlty blurry results since it gets INVARIABLY aimed THE OTHER WAY all the time. This is the normal operation for this lens.

 

This is the effect of INVERTED DOF. Do we have someone here that does not what they are talking about?

 

Would you buy a camera from someone like that?

As all can see the admition of intention as to the motive for these people starting these threads ranges from" impedeing all my sales/ all my auctions " to telling people not to buy my product.

 

What is somewhat inversed is the scale by the intervention of modified optics which allow the lens to focus differently than expected and as a result the lens acts as if a seamless bifocal .

 

he can not even see or understand that which he insits that he requires to see.

 

Perhaps if Mr Bhatal would care to be honest instead of ommiting the facts to promote himself at my expense he would have told you tat the so called pink....... camera rangefinder doesnt work.

 

The Zeiss as well as any of the finders on the 180/190/250 types had

a angefinder and parallax cam in the form of a groove stamped into metal which aoffers no chance for adjustment.

 

This is so much the case that when the 180/ 195 was produced they had to shim the lenses as no infinity adjustment was provided for and then to get the lens to work with the standard cam they had to dial the rear element of the camera lens to allow the cam to be within range.

 

Then the rear element was shelaked into place. this yielded a quality less desireable than what the lens could do.

 

this i was told repeatedly directly from the source.

 

The finder intended for a 114mm lens did not work satisfactory manner unless this was done even on the 114mm lens.

 

This guy takes a 127mm lens/ moves the finder to the side and based on something which doesnt work dares use that as a means to ridicule my research and impede my sales.

 

We will get a chance to confirm the performace of his camera in court eventualy

but Many who tried making pack fim cameras by using the 127 ysarex on the 250s type know this was always an issue.

 

HOw convenient of an ommision when he proposed such beauty as an alternative to my cammera mocking MY products name and insisting you should not buy it.

 

Regarding my lens design it is still under development and not offered for sale.and if some choose to engage in impeding viable options to promote themselves by offering non working choices then again they are taking viable choices away.

 

Perhaps people should visit their opticians more frequently instead of admitedly engaging in copyright ofenses, mockery, defamation and admited interferance and sabotage.

 

 

 

Everything works to some degree.

My camera is NOT FOR SALE.

 

My camera is NOT COVERED BY ANY PATENT.

 

The RF works fine. Have not had a soft photograph. The RF link works fine, maybe more accurate than the circular cam of other RF's that have inherent error due to torsion of the RF coupling shaft and slippage of the screw that holds the cam! Not a good way to hold that cam!

 

As everyone can see, my camera does not have synergy, and does not have a lens with reversed DOF.

"Everything works to some degree." That statement is worth repeating, even if everything before it is not worth reading.

Wow!...what was that all about?

Perhaps the camera would be better off manufactured in China? At least they don`t attempt to disguise the facts with rhetoric.

The fact is, the Polaroid 110B is a great design, even though it`s fourty five years old. It cannot be regarded as 'NEW' because it simply is not.

The rangefinder fitted, (when adjusted correctly) is precise and trouble free.

Mr Littman did NOT design the finder, did NOT design the camera body, did NOT design the Horseman 4x5 back, nor the Polaroid designed pack film holder that acts as the mounting for the back and above all was NOT the first to develop the 4x5 conversion.

To say it`s a 'NEW' camera is more than a slight overstatement.

I have never 'instructed' anyone not to buy, only offered a cheaper alternative.

The camera is basically a very good one, its downside being the 'Ogre' that may come attached. Apparently, the Chinese see the joke also.

"My camera is not for sale"

 

What you are selling the viability of your efforts versus mine and the compensation which you admittedly expect is that people will not buy my product as a result

 

"My camera is NOT COVERED BY ANY PATENT."

 

Sir let me assure you that when I find it is the right time you will find out that your camera is covered by my patents.

 

At least one person has publicly admitted to making such a camera following your public inducement and instructions in this website.

 

Your camera may not be for sale but you admittedly utilized it as a means to impede ours.

 

 

 

My lens is not yet for sale and as soon as you started a thread to impede the progress of the research people stopped participating in the study.

 

Any representation made on the lens are expectancies based on research and tests. when it is offered for sale we expect to know the final parameters yet as a result of your interference many viable participants in the study were discouraged from participating in the evaluation.

 

My lens is not yet for sale and may not be as a result of your defamation and if we manage to overcome the costs generated by your disruption the lens will cost more than was expected to as a result of costs incurred thanks to you.

 

Let me make something clear once and for all. If my products are offered for sale they are not offered to you. your insistance that you would not buy them matches my instance that I have no intention of selling them to those who waste their life hindering the project by these sabotages.

 

those who have been discouraged by your attacks have their choices taken away when businesses and hatemongers are allowed to use this website for solicitation and attempts to impede my sales and then festivities to celebrate that my product doesn't sell.

 

Not only has anyone who dared prefer my product openly on this website had to endure all kinds of invalidation and abuse but upset that another website chooses to enforce their non solicitation policies and reserve the discussions for legitimate users only; Mr. Di Goliardi accused APUG of being " catholic" for honoring the policies for everyone in the same manner and keep his website destined to users rather than businesses posing as users for the purpose of solicitation thru the furthering of hate...

 

He then went on to say that it was as a result of my advertising there.

 

let me tell you something

Sean Ross is not for sale . and I applaud his commitment to keep his website free from the claws of business.

I believe Catholics are great people and on the other hand I have no interest in dealing with those who would soon resort to religious, racial .classist discriminations while finding that technical ones are non important.

 

Not only do we specify it is used and only on the basis that we utilize some new parts and some old parts to make a camera which is not a re manufacture as it does not meet its original specifications, it is not a re furbishment either and considering that some are now 5-6 years old those are considered as having been used after modification and therefore are used Littmans as opposed to those which are newly completed .

 

I do not expect nor accept your business and by the policies of this website I have the right to expect that you stop using the threads to impede mine.

Frankly Mr. Littman I read about two lines out of your entire diatribe and did not read the rest of it. My brain was getting dirty.

 

I got an employee that when confronted with an negative issue that they were involved in, begins to "explain" things to me. Now the only reason that this employee is still employed is because their value to me far, far outweighs their bull. When they start up with their "explanation" I tune them out.

 

Mr Littman reminds me of this employee, the only problem is that his vebosity of speech far out weighs any perceived value he hopes to impart upon the photographic community at large.

 

"Me thinks thou dost protest too much"

When people call me and ask me to repair a Littman camera, is that MY fault? (Please don't

ask me, I won't.)<p>Did you ever think that maybe your TOTAL lack of knowledge of camera

repair, the iffy quality of your cameras and the false claims you make are the source of your

problems?<p>You're an amateur compared to me, you disrespectful little ....<p>Oh, and

long live China!

WILLIAM , your thoughts are totally bizzare.<BR><BR>Dean Jones brings up this oddball fake Ebay auction using your products name, and you attack him. <BR><BR>Would you attack a person who says to the police your house is on fire, then imply to the police that the informer started the fire too?<BR><BR>What type of juice do you guzzle today to become such a horses behind? You are abit of a goofball to complain when a person points out your camera is being sold on a fake auction. What jackassery goes thru you mind for such attack?<BR><BR>I pointed out the fake weird feedback.<BR><BR>Using 4x5 film on Polaroids is ancient history, your patent is like Al Gore being the father of the internet, a stretch, an insult to those who tinkered long before the ill flatus claims came. <BR><BR>The Chinese could wring out all the fat in your product, but China is a minefield for a zillion clone knockoffs. Your design then would be lost. <BR><BR>You get free publicity on this thread, and seem to go into a bitter old hoot mode, instead of being a salesman. Folks want to buy a product that they feel good about, from folks they like, not some bitter sourpuss whiner. <BR><BR>You should drink something more cheerfull, and less sour for breakfast. <BR><BR>If you went out today and patented the lenscap, would you spend more energy on whining about your lens cap patent , or actually spend some energy selling your hopefully better cap?<BR><BR>

My camera weighs in at 1.5lbs. Other cameras similar to mine come in, after a diet, at 3lbs...

 

Both above contain the same lens, which is for sale in the market to anyone.

 

The RF linkage of my camera is my IP. The film back of my camera is my IP.

 

My camera is not covered by any patent. The current "patent claim" as stated does not include my modification.

 

My camera is not for sale. The copies, of which at least one states that were made from my modification, corroborate my prior art and IP. We do not need a kangaroo court to explain this. It is self evident.

 

Thank you.

You can rework a Ferrari completely -- and it will still be a Ferrari. A Yugo will still be a Yugo. A million miles or 50, it's the RIGHT of an owner to do as he or she pleases. It's called the RIGHT of REPAIR and continues indefinitely. .

 

Repaired is also called USED. Using interchangeable used camera parts and other parts such as the Graflok ﾖ 60 years and going strong ﾖ to modify an existing camera is technically running a Camera repair shop, not a factory. Itﾒs similar to rebuilding (technically repairing) Bentley disc brakes. They will never be new again.

 

A duplicate car from scratch is a reconstruction ﾖ and may or may not be legal. Ferrari hasn't gone bankrupt and they might sue you. It might be legal to build a complete Polaroid replica except for film choice. But it wouldnﾒt be novel ﾖ and Polaroid could then protect its trademark.

 

Polaroid rangefinder/viewfinders are used camera parts, even with new works. Polaroid sold parallax compensating viewfinders including the 900, which is robbed to make a 110A into a 110B. Nothing novel there. You can't patent a thing that someone else invented and sold ﾖ and use their parts, external design and and those of others, then call it new.

 

You can obscure that you're patenting a used camera. You can paint it, recover it and chop it up, and make it more useful, but itﾒs still a used Polaroid.

 

The film size argument is inane. If you have a old camera and canﾒt get film for it, the OBVIOUS modification is either one size up or one down. Film pack, roll or sheet film is a customerﾒs choice, for decades. The ONLY OBVIOUS sheet film choice is 4x5 because it's the only sheet size available that will work.

 

The coverage of the Ysaryx or other lenses is not new. It will still be an Ysaryx. The cover and distance to the film plane and other settings are a matter of physics and optics, something measured, not invented. The builders grind cams because the Pola wasn't designed for interchangeable lenses as was the Graphic.

 

Triangulation for distance, using variables, is more than 2200 years old.

 

There's a lot thatﾒs appealing and useful about old technology. Most of the people here like it, but it is old technology. Some do this with more skill and inventiveness than others. The best donﾒt call a Polaroid weird names. I like the idea though of naming one after my dog.

I tend to shy away from anyone selling a camera with a price so high that they must think they are going to re-coup all the R&D costs with just one sale.

 

As far as Littman goes I don't like his marketing, his secretness, or his attitude towards others who have been doing the same thing for years. Mr Littman you want better? Then make better and welcome the competition.

Mr Chapman Im sorry but these generalities are misleading.

(You can't patent a thing that someone else invented and sold ?)

you can patent an improvement to an existing product. it is the law period .end of story. it was found that my improvements show utility in every regard. the examinations of my patents was conducted in a thorough manner and not 1 but over 5 years where anyone could have objected. the fact is there is no possible objection.

 

and regarding parts you can not protect the purchase and sale of used parts as being contributory patent infringement

provided the seller and buyer do not know they are to be used specifically for the use covered by a patented claim

 

When the 35mm Polaroid back Patent was still active you could not take a used pack film holder you owned and a used piece of fiber optics and make yourself a fiber optic back. the right of re pair of an owner ceases where a patented claim begins.you keep making reference that claiming a new use would require that a carburetor be used as a vacuum cleaner when the fact is that all that is required is that utility is present in the use in excess of the original utility .

(You can obscure that you're patenting a used camera.?) I am not patenting a used camera and nothing is being obscured . hwt has been patented are only the improvements to existing products . Polaroid made the pack film holder when Forsher invented the 35mm fiber optic back it still used a Polaroid holder but Polaroid and no one else was entitled to make such back without license from the patent holder. I guess they could have said they own the holder patent and making the 35 mm fiber optic back is just the obvious choice or their right of repair after all. not the case at all. in the same manner my use of the holder as a spacer falls under the same category. my use of the original cameras to make a coupled rangefinder parallax LF camera falls under the same category.

(You can paint it, recover it and chop it up, and make it more useful, but it?s still a used Polaroid. ) No in my case I use an old Polaroid in part in my way to making

a streamlined equipment who's utility is different and greatly exceeds not only the utility for hand held use of any Polaroid ever made but of any large format camera ever made in what refers to responsiveness. If the LF camera considered to be the most responsive in a category in history does not represent novelty to you. it does in what refers to patentability. it is not still an old Polaroid it includes many old Polaroids and if I were to call it a Polaroid that would not change it is the first and only coupled rangefinder parallax camera

 

I'm sorry to disagree with your generalities but I have just invented a method by which digital photography can now permit a user to achieve perfect sharpness from 1 foot from the lens all the way to infinity and beyond (which also makes it interesting for astronomy)using a lens which is 1.2 in aperture without using any iris intervention.

 

When this is patented someone like you will come out and say that is obvious because they got tired of having to deal with the iris and low light issues or couldn't find

the lens they needed any longer so the natural and obvious thing was to do what I did and besides you have the right of repair because you owned the camera etc etc sorry it doesn't work that way at all..

 

The fact is that if what you say is true then millions of cameras would have turned up qualifying as prior art when the case is not even one has qualified as prior art yet.

 

 

(The builders grind cams because the Pola wasn't designed for interchangeable lenses as was the Graphic) the builders first said that grinding cams was not required

the builders then showed inability to grind the cams properly as well as total lack of obviousness proven by statements made in postings

 

. when I am presented with a properly ground cam implemented prior to my patent applications and because the Polaroid's were not designed for the use as you admit and I designed the modifications required for such use which those you call builders went on to insist were not required as they insisted in 2003 and onward then it is convenient that they claim otherwise now but it doesn't work that way.

(Triangulation for distance, using variables, is more than 2200 years old. ) exactly. yet when I announced I was using that as a tool ALL of these people went ballistic and proceeded to make fun of it.

 

Triangulation is 2200 years old but quadrangulation is novel. thank you.

 

(Repaired is also called USED) re pair means to again pair together as was before. the fact that people who do repairs may venture to make improvements such improvements are not governed by the ownership or tenancy of personal property in the event that such improvements are patented as improvements to existing products.

 

Most patents are based on earlier patents and relate to improvements on existing patent or existing products.

 

(You can rework a Ferrari completely -- and it will still be a Ferrari.) sure if you re- work it

 

The fact is that when a company working under license by Polaroid went on to reproduce one of their pack film models they did not call it a Polaroid because you cannot represent that what you are selling is something made by the original maker unless you are only adding an attachment or accessory to it.An owner user modifying something for his own use can call the product whatever he chooses but after some degrees of modification as mine require that it is described as including the use of Old Polaroid's or based on old Polaroid's but what comes out can not be sold as if it were a Polaroid. If all I did was slap a back on it then yes I would be allowed to call it a Polaroid.

 

What I make has a different utility than what Polaroid made. I disclose that I use Polaroid parts in the process but I am not allowed to call it by its original brand on the basis that some of the parts I use were made by Polaroid.

 

The different utility is called coupled rangefinder parallax 4x5 camera and applies to 4x5 and everything larger meeting those requirements.

 

I have made many such camera prototypes which do not use any Polaroid parts.

 

Your hope that everything regarding patentability would be summarized as requiring to be so entirely different from everything else that everyone who hears about it would have to think it is novel is both false and unrealistic. that would limit the number of patents to a few dozen when there are more than 8 million in the US alone.

 

There are no more than 2- 300 categories of products and mine is rated as most responsive in history in a category. and you want to spell out a few deductions and insist it is obvious. no it isn't.

 

The best photographers in the world are not snobs as many here wish to present but people who have had to work really hard. many who saw my camera when I introduced it have tried everything they could get a hold of and have people on staff 34/7 scouting all resources for avenues to further their work

 

The people who got to review my camera include some of the most recognized connoisseurs on classic cameras and they were convinced my camera was absolutely novel. the publisher of the site cataloging the Polaroid cameras since they were introduced wrote exactly the same in 2001 when he was informed of our product.

 

(The coverage of the Ysaryx or other lenses is not new) of course it isn't and the properties of such coverage are not new either except to....

 

This whole reentrance if inapplicable and misleading generalities making reference to obviousness is meaningless and these people have made ensuing statements that prove otherwise .

 

I do not agree with these opinions furthermore I am convinced they are not applicablebut if there were no patents the rule here is that these threads are off limits to businesses for the purpose of solicitation.

 

If I am asked to welcome competition in the form of defamation as a means or hope that things will improve I prefer you dislike my marketing because I dislike theirs more as well as the prospect of having to do work for anyone who condones their behavior..

 

WE are way past patent validity discussion time Nikon and Pentax may make products which are not covered by patents and more PN users use their cameras many more may have questions regarding their products than any 4x5 yet they do not came here to start threads and they do not come here to solicit or advertise their products .

 

Failing to abide by that rule is unfair competition because the fact is these people insist their product sells while mine doesn't as a result of these interferences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr BHathal

a utility patent claim may not require or allow for diversity of back design or linkage or any tangible configuration differentiation as a means to circumvent the claim .that is self evident. except to you of course.

 

 

But Honestly I just dont care about that right now . what matters is that you are interfering with my buisness by telling people not to buy my product and resorting to all sorts of conivances to do so.

William,

 

I believe this thread, with all your incoherent ramblings, has done more to turn away potential buyers of your camera than anything else.

 

When I first saw your camera advertised several years ago (in View Camera Magazine, I believe, and possibly other places) I thought it was a good concept and that there might be a demand for such a product. The ad copy was brief and concise, and the illustrations of the product were very attractive; it sparked my interest and I even considered, however briefly, buying one at some point.

 

I even recall mentioning "the Littman 4x5 rangefinder camera" on this forum years ago, as a suggested solution to another poster's question about a handheld 4x5 cameras with focus capability; that thread started some interesting and lively discussion about the topic and your camera. Many were of the opinion then that your camera was really nothing more than a reworked polaroid with an exhorbitant price tag. Everything I've read about the camera since seems to support that belief. But, in spite of all this, I still had an interest in your product...you still had an interested potential buyer.

 

However, it seems that every time I read something you've written about your camera, either describing its many positive and innovative qualities, or in defense of the many perceived wrongs being done to you by others, I have been left with a distinctly bad impression...I am no longer interested in your product.

 

I really think you would be better off trying to market your Littman Camera in a more positive fashion. Selling a new product is all about creating a positive buzz and having people feel good about buying your product. You might consider hiring someone to handle PR for you, and, more importantly, swear off the temptation of posting such vitriolic rantings on these forums. Just a bit of constructive criticism.