Polaroid 110b to 4x5 graflok conversion-any instructions available?

[william_littman]

Mr. Heller Harris:

You Are so Right. a few days before that auction in @003 Schwarz and Jones decided to Join Forces and When I Asked Schwarz to sub,it Prior Art To us or our Attorneys because the Application was still pending he represented needed patent application number because he dint kbow me and couldnt stop what he was doing just because. I gave it to him after a couple of days even though I learned the It could have kept confidential until patent issue.

 

He represented otherwise. in Any event his response was to tell me to stay away from him because " he could use the publicity" otherwise he would do this starting of threads which he co started With Jones who had put it differently Jones said " he would leave it up to the public to decide" if I considered my Patent rights.

 

When he started the threads without inviting me he went on to narrate what terrible person I was because I had given him MY Photographer AKA instead of my legal name for a couple of days because everyone knows me by that name but 6 months later he represented that he couldn't do anything about the prior art because he had not my name which he referred to as " fake" and no application #. He then represented to PN to have submitted all the prior art to me. but soon after he represented that it was not his duty because he stated that it was My duty and not his to report my findings to the USPTO and not his, as you will read the only findings I had were of sneaky tactics and connivance.

 

He has from April to September to submit it and a patent application # Then it turns out that he admits that he did know who I was because SKG Grimes had told him about my product a couple of years earlier and as per his admission so did a client of mine for whom he made a conversion after the client spoke about my Product Schwartz knew that everybody was aware that I had patent applications and with the # in hand he could have done something, instead what he chose to do is misrepresent my actions as a justification as to be able to " use the publicity" Well I all sorry all but the publicity these people gave me to hype theirs is Not what was required.

Mr. Heller Harris is so correct and since these people started the threads in 2003 I have had numerous assertions that he had/ would had has will submit the prior art etc etc etc .

Instead of a simple business like thing as Mr. Heller suggests what Pn got assurances that none of my patents would ever issue, that they were all invalid, that all my claims were ludicrous, trivial untrue and or obvious / not required.

 

I have examined his products and confident that it is otherwise. I admit that under such abusive assurances I doubted but then found out that he was quoting excerpts from letters from attorneys stating that such attorney had allowed him to post determinations that my patents were invalid, well let me say that only the USPTO or a court can determine that and no attorney would allow him to post such thing and waive attorney client privilege.

 

Mr. Schwartz went on to publish private emails containing data pertaining to patent applications pending as a means to discredit my Ip and later found out the IP was patented as I had stated, he also went on to discredit me and the value of my product and then proceed to tell all to send him the business instead on the same threads where he allegedly was trying to as ask a question about the patents,

 

There was no question asked they knew the answer Jones was told by a participant as to why he had started 2 threads with links to his own thread as to cause double harm.

 

Thru leverages and threats of discredit they cornered me, The senior editor of PNwrote in an email to me that these people" had drawn me into a negotiation". and I say that they use the fulfillment of threats to discredit made earlier to gain ground at my expense. when I learned this was not the way coupled with the ability to read several contradictions in their statements I realized It was not my place because I had no prior art, still don't.

 

In any event when Mr. Schwartz was given the patent application # he proceeded to tell me that he was the real inventor of the Polaroid fiber optic back and That Marty Forsher had stolen it from him and that he was tired that others had absconded his ideas. "His Idea"

 

I any event if you read what he wrote yesterday it appears that he says that it wasn't that he invented it or his idea but it is now that someone walked in to his job with it being ready.

 

And there tons of such contradictions and when that is shown then it leads to everybody has done everything since ever and public domain and jubilee of all.

 

If he had/ has proof of prior art he is entitled to just that. and to make assurances in public for all to proceed based on a prior art which does not... because otherwise he would have submitted it instead of keep telling everyone else to.

 

He claimed to be experienced in patent law as he told all of PN and therefore he should know that fulfilling threats to discredit to aggrandize himself at my expense is not part of patent law.

 

The reason that the actual auction where the camera was sold was shown as well because it shows from the very start the multifaceted

connivance to raise value of their position , on sales they... as shown. in regards to the value of products... and in regards to the Prior art they started all this by presenting a picture of the front of a camera. not the back which was / is not prior art and they tried to represent mislead the public it was.

 

The bottom line remains that if prior art had been presented I still had my 3000 camera and they had a camera which I can prove with no effort that it was of lesser value.

 

They did all they could to misrepresent that which forced me to have to show otherwise or have to close.

 

Mr. Heller is absolutely right and the only question is if PN should allow people to mislead the public based on classiest considerations into admitted instigations of this sort which in the end are damaging to those who come here with their trust as to what is the best product. Mr. Schwarz openly determines that my camera cannot be better/ self destructing time bomb and that I have deceived the large format community by representing that my camera is better, let me just say that I can prove otherwise any day any where and so is the belief of most. he went on to tell everybody in PN to change their email settings because I was an internet thug who would break into their email folders. a few days later I start getting requests from clients for phone contact and sales plunged. when all these allegations were proven false Mr. Schwartz then proceeded to change his ebay user Id. He wanted publicity, he should have done what Heller suggests it was his right. he chose to resort to conjuring instead.

 

 

You can imagine the shock to have someone say that and then when this was all presented to Pn and he had a chance to explain why he had responded in such a way he replied by stating " that he did so and we should understand because he was tired that others had absconded his ideas. "His Idea"

 

After Jones and Schwartz invalidated the opinions of the best press and started using these interferances as to invalidate the opinions of my clients look at the amazing turn of events.

 

Aggie who is a Journalist and a great photographer and a magazine publisher is told to shush by Jones and co. and it turns out that the store clerk is now writting articles for magazines as a result of this terror like tactics and those who are qualified to use the products best or write about them have been ambushed.

 

 

I believe we have had enough of Mr Schwartz dirt shoveling .

 

 

[william_littman]

And Mr. Petronio who has cooperated with them from the start has admitted the intention was that such discredit would show up where it causes the most damage. offering confirmation that is the most delightful thing so you have Schwarz threatening this was done for publicity purposes as leverage and sales Jones saying he would leave it to the public as leverage and sales and Petronio confirming it all.

 

I just looked at the word terrorist;: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

 

Please stop at once and for all

[camera_conjurer]

I don't know what any of this has to do with the original question. But legally, Mr. Littman

is

the one who has to be honest enough to tell the USPTO the truth, not me or anyone else.

But

his head is screwed on backwards, like some bizarre Dr. Seuss character. ( He tried to ruin

the auction for one of my cameras by bidding $1250 for it and to his surprise he was

outbid.

The camera sold for $1275. ) Overturning a patent is an expensive and drawn out

process

which favors the inventor. It would take years. If he were to sue me, however, the odds of

winning would be in my favor. But he isn't going to sue anyone. The question I have is

this.

Can I sue him for all of his interference WITHOUT overturning his patent ? If any of you

guys

need proof of my prior art, have a look at this for the umpteenth time:<div></div>

[william_littman]

I guess literary aggrandizement of something artistic yes but Prior art as regarding a patent matter NO!

 

a picture taken not showing the matters at hand does not constitute proof of what was done, when it was done, how it was done as for someone to establish what it is that it would prove.

 

The only thing that image proves to me is that he wasn't born yesterday and that he is holding a Polaroid 4x5 holder, which after he said he invented the 35mm Polaroid back I am not going to waive my patents or consider that what he is saying will amount to all of my claims when he kept contradicting himself as to what was done and when.

 

three years ago he said it was 25 years ago and the clock is still 25 years then it was his idea and then it was everybody's idea.

 

I know what my duty is and he has proven that I have requested the prior art in a timely manner and he has admitted to what his response and course of action taken as admitted.

 

Mr. Schwartz came here to do this to raise support by using tactics which can be verified by all and as far as I am concerned he can do whatever he wished but I see that his only participations in PN are as a closer for Jones instigation because They believe I couldn't get jurisdiction on Jones and so hey have him start the instigation and then they bring in the closer Mr. Schwartz.

 

When I see that Mr. Schwartz claiming invention has been the least active in the sales that convinces me that he is the most concerned because I feel he has misrepresented the extent of the alleged prior art if any and therefore went on to assure all to disregard all my patent claims when I don't feel he could substantiate one or a few while stating my camera was a self destructing time bomb and soliciting business for himself.

 

He has made many such threats, many many such threats. and when people of PN can verify that is the only thing he has done in PN is shovel dirt on me and my product and then bail to then return and represent that he will post promotional images of his services on " his " page as solicitation then I believe I have a clear understanding this was done for the purpose of sales and I do not believe anyone thinks this is the right way to get business .

 

I have offered all to consider any prior art submitted to me even after patent issue, I am no ogre and have no wish or intention to prevent anyone legitimately entitled to something to their rights, I believe in the right to work state but not in coercion .

 

In turn I believe that it is the duty of those who wish to have their rights considered to not resort to these types of partisan and damaging instigations when in reality it is very simple I have and will work towards what is fair thru proper channels and not be cornered by public leverage by instigation.

 

The original question was placed in September of 2003 in the way shown and for the purposes shown

and so as to make me appear questionable.

 

What the question was about whether or not prior art existed and what was its extent, and As Mr. Heller said that was all that was required. I can prove I acted as I should and that question has been answered. but we find ourseves here with the same merchants using the same tactics as day one hoping to gain support on what they insist is a just cause by using leverage and that just wont fly with anyone but a few who just couldn't care either way.

 

What needs to be overturned is this modus opreandi, nothing else will be overturned stop bluffing and I wish as does everyone else to move on.If a few feel justified by these people actions as in using a rag tag crowd as to instigate tha ambush of rights that also does not fly with anyone but the same few.

 

 

 

If Mr. Schwartz considers that trying to clear my name from allegations that I would brake into peoples email folders because I can prove his defamation caused such fear is interference then what he is saying is that all I had to do is let him use the shovel he keeps making reference to so he can bury me as threatened by the palsy , I believed I was entitled to something else and now I would like to move on with my life as I believe would everyone else. Thank you

 

 

 

[camera_conjurer]

You're just a liar. And an incompetant. And you're just using scare tactics to keep people

away.

[william_littman]

Regarding the allegation that I ruined an auction for his client Schwartz is refereeing to the same seller. I was the second highest bidder on the auction my client won and I bid 1250 because I needed the evidence and as usual it is my clients who have the hope the conversions will be a Littman 45 in some way who are willing to bid highest, so when I receive an email from the seller stating that he was offering a second chance to buy the camera at the same price I assumed my client decided not to buy and removed his bid so I proceeded to pay/ end of story but afterwards I went to the original auction which my client had won to find out his bid was still on and not withdrawn as I thought so I cancelled my payment as I was convinced that my bid had raised the price considerably and so it was not in any way a second chance to me to get a camera at such price. twice.

 

When I saw the original auction end and the highest bidder I saw it was a client and I asked if I could borrow it for review for patent issues and he replied no problem so when later I realized that my client

was buying the camera I went back to the auction to see the descriptions and the pictures used were the same on both auctions so I withdrew my bid for safety reasons first and when the seller emailed to insist he had three and was selling 2 I told him I didn't feel it was a second chance at all because it wasn't the same camera and not an auction as Schwartz states but a click on a link to an email sent to me as an offer I didn't even bother to verify as I read second chance/ same price and assumed it was the same.

 

So a week later the seller offered that camera again and the maximum people bid on it I think was 760 which interesting is the same price paid by the seller when he bought it. so I didn't ruin If anything I helped raise the price of it and when I consulted my client on the subject he confirmed that such curiosity had fueled the lack of consideration on cost.

 

When I received his comments I asked him why did he say that the camera was well described in the description of the auction when the comments he emailed to me indicated otherwise and he replied that was before he checked it and he would do that out of common courtesy for all as would I. and have done so.

 

 

I have been aware of how Mr Schwartz feels about me for a long time

[camera_conjurer]

It would be better for you if you realized I was right. It would be better for all of us. You're a

fraud, your patent is a fraud and you're an insult to hard working craftsman everywhere.

[william_littman]

I have been aware of how Mr. Schwartz feels about me for a long time

Thank you for your kind words but please note the following; I understand the way you feel and acknowledge it.

 

Respect my patents and leave me alone. You came here telling all that you were an expert on legal /patent matters and told all to disregard all my patented claims and now at this point you ask for legal advice here I have no doubt in my mind as to the bluffing and I know what would be better for all and that is that you put and end to this abusive insults once and for all.

[william_littman]

Lets hope i can clarify this and in the hopes it will go away from a website where it doesnt belong to.

i acknowlege and understand that you feel resentful as to have done this but do not justify it nor care to deal with it further

i hope there is no further need for it because resentment is not prior art and that is all you and i should have had to discuss and did a long time ago.

[camera_conjurer]

The whole 'Guillermoroid' problem was brought to my attention by a photographer friend

of mine, I'm sorry, 'pahotogarpher' friend of mine while I was doing work for Steve Grimes,

( Rest in Peace ), when he showed me an article about it in 'Popular Photography'

magazine. I really couldn't believe my eyes. My friend had his own 4x5 Polaroid 110 that

he's had for twenty years. ( Make no mistake about it. The first Littman patent is simply

for converting ANY Polaroid roll film camera of this format to 4x5 by retarding the film

plane. ) If Guillermo didn't already know that these were commonly done, then he's a liar,

or has been dropped on his head as a child. So he lied to the USPTO, and has continued to

do so. To win a patent reexamination procedure, all the USPTO wants to see is previous

patents. You can't submit photos or actual documents or inventions that have no patent

numbers associated with them. Now if Guillermo were to sue ME for patent infringment,

and I were to deny infringing his patent, I could win with a sales slip from Willoghby's.

But he isn't going to do that. He may be crazy, but he's not stupid. And Guillermo is right

about one thing. Not enough people read these threads. I think the thing to do here, to

try to put a stop to this, once and for all, is for as many of you as possible is to write a

'letter to the editor' care of 'Popular Photography' magazine about this. The people at

Polaroid, who endorse this monstrosity, probably won't talk to you until there's bad

publicity. To that end I think the next step to take would be to contact your local town

newspaper. Your

local town paper would be the most likely to write an article about this mess. Einstein

once

said, " The difference between genius and insanity is that there are limits to genius! ", and

I

can't argue with that here. So if you want to do the best thing for large format

photography, I'm sorry 'pahotogarphery', and you're sick of reading this crap over and over

again, I think the best thing that can be done is write

the big(er) media outlets and get this story out there.

[william_littman]

What Mr. Schwartz should write to Polaroid is that he told me that Marty Forsher who invented the 35mm Polaroid back stole it from him. that he was a fraud. he then calls me a fraud and I take it as a compliment. what Mr. Schwartz should tell Polaroid is that he has been saying for the last 3 years that the Polaroid film holder which everyone uses in their Polaroid backs will self destruct and that he has transferred to a reference about my camera.

 

If you say your friend had priorart and that was before my patent was issued you could have sent me that, instead you sent threats, you still do. " it would be better for you...." the threat of endangerment is uncalled for. As I said earlier there is no risk to me if I had received prior art on a conversion to 4x5 then I would still have a better camera .

 

"It would be better for you" doesn't fly you aren't God to use this kind of force. what you just said is that before my patent first patent was issued you are disclosing that you had " something" you insist was prior art which you have never mentioned before but you insist that you didn't submit and you insist that would be my fault and let me say that nobody including yourself has been able to substantiate an iota of evidence of prior art despite my dedicated search for it. therefore I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that your prior art amounts mostly to this" it would be better for you" ...or else.

 

That is what people finally understand and it is a disgrace, you are entitled to something fine but don't rattle the entire planet when you say it was aphone call a way. when you say It would be better for you if you admitted I'm right that confirms the extent of what you have provided me with, nothing factual and tons of leverage.

Stop this at once you have taken PN for a nasty ride. which as per your admission was completely unnecessary as Mr. Heller has confirmed when he stated that all that was needed was the submission of prior art to me before my patent was issued, you had many months to do so .

 

I think we have all seen how Jones has gained press coverage by trashing established Journalists and you feel invited to do the same.

 

I hope you two will find better ways to gain publicity in the future

 

leave me alone. a lot of people have done things before you did everyone else plays by the rules and so can you.

[william_littman]

Mr. Schwartz you are still trying to discredit me with falsehoods and false hoods you say you new everything then that you needed to provide me in order to limit my claims yet you keep volunteering that you deliberately withheld information and you boast about it in the usual defiance. I firmly believe we are still talking about" it would be better for you leverage" but if you did have the evidence and chose to withhold it then you admit it was your wrongdoing and you have accused me wrongfully in a very damaging manner.

 

I ask this all stop and be removed. get a Life!

[camera_conjurer]

I'm not giving you the last word on this thread. I'll keep answering you until you pass out or

run out of drugs. You seem to have no concept of reality. You're a PITA like no one could

ever imagine. None of us ever bothered you and you had no business getting on this thread

in the first place. And talk about you calling us rabble! You're the biggest lying lowlife I've

ever come across. You sabotaged Dean's camera and photographed it, while your own work

is the shabbiest I've ever seen. You constantly interfere with our ebay auctions and lie and lie

and lie. No one here would ever bother you again if you would just shut up. But you won't

be reasoned with. Your going to paint yourself into a corner and ruin your collossal

invesment in ruining perfectly good cameras.

[razzledog]

Dear Sir, I rather object to being labelled a 'Store Clerk'. A more correct title might be 'Medium and Large Format Camera Manager'. Add to that, my experience with cameras goes back 50years next year. I also studied mechanical engineering and was the State award winner in 1970. So stick that where the sun don`t shine.

[camera_conjurer]

That's what he'd try to do with a screwdriver.

[william_littman]

Mr. Schwartz : you have just admitted that on top of all the prior Knowledge you had about my product you even saw an article in a magazine. that may not be prior art to you but while you admit to have laughed about it, try laughing when it is demonstrated that you cam to PN to represent that you couldn't very well stop what I was doing and submit prior art to me because you didn't know who I was but you now admit that there is a Magazine article which you had a chance to read long before we even spoke the first time, that article may have made reference to the patent pending but if not you had such ample reason to trust that I did have Patent application pending that if you chose to not submit prior art and you could have then your suffering is your fault and not mine.

 

When you say that none of you would have bothered me if I didn't show up here I remind you that the instigation you have both created remains published and is damaging to me .

 

As I said earlier If Jones is happy as announced that he will get to write a magazine article after stating that" Aggie unfortunate experience" has boosted sales and while In my opinion she is qualified to write a magazine article if only based on her talent as a photographer and you guys implied that if she would prefer my camera it would have to be out of wrongdoing I say you are preventing a legitimate opinion then you boast that there will be a Polaroid Tsunami because" you" will write the article instead then I say that you are out of your mind.

 

I tried to show that Aggie wasn't lying and as far as I am concerned and learned from experience you guys rally a few who want freebies and who don't care either way and present it to be the opinion of the whole planet. I think your article should be very fair and perhaps you will get to write an article on the value of products and how the market can be affected but note that to get to write such article both have gone to great lengths to question the word of the best trade related Journalists and then one of you states he will be writing an article that will result in Polaroid Tsunami..... every time you guys get together it is tsunami. And then Mr. Schwartz wrote the last time" that if a few magazine writers" prefer my camera it is no big deal but that people should drop whatever they are doing and write letter recommending that Photography hierarchy be re written because a few hear resent the way things stand before I got my hands on it. a lot of people know otherwise and as usual those who are soft-spoken and not abusive are represented as non existent by those who claim to be " many of us"

 

I don't see anything demeaning in store clerk and I don't see anything which would make a manager more qualified as a Journalist . I'm glad you prefer to be a manager and thank you for informing me.

 

Mr. Schwartz when you insist that you wont let me have the last word on this thread you show how you feel about coercion. everyone knows that the only way you stop is if there is a wall or they close the thread, unfortunately the last time resulted in a comment by you trashing the USPTO , the best photographers, my clients and anyone who compared both and that I would brake into peoples email folders. don't let the bed bugs bite?

 

Bluff no more as yours is a coercive position

[camera_conjurer]

I'm not trashing anyone but you.

[william_littman]

all that you needed to say is you you raise the price by shill bidding then you trash the established journalists and the best magazines and then you do all this and you admit you wont let someone have the last word on threads then it all set isnt it. Full circle great packaging !!

[kai_griffin]

So, on top of carpet-bombing forum threads with your white noise in an attempt to stifle discussion of your "pet" topic, William has also been found to have interfered with several EBay auctions. You're an active boy, William. Sound like business ethics aren't high on your list.

<p>

I see that I've given you a new word to use, too. Ever since I used the the term "self-aggrandising" (US: aggrandizing), you've used it several times in many of your posts in this thread, though it's not a term you've used previously. You are lucky that I have not patented the word, else I'd be forced to write a very, very long post siting a dozen different US Patent law references, admonishing you for daring to use "my" vocabulary, and issue vague legal threats about future use of it.

<p>

I think the bottom line is that if you can't take legal action - and I assume that you really can't - on this matter, then just go away. I assume that you can't take legal action, because otherwise you'd be doing that instead of wasting time continuing these endless posts/threats/tantrums. That pretty much says it all - if there really was any legitimacy to your claims, you'd hardly be messing around here in PN regularly like this... that's why I personally think the whole thing of yours is bogus. The fact that you go on and on and on here, yet never lift a finger to actually *do* anything, simply means that you know perfectly well that you *can't* do anything, and your threats against innocent forum posters is therefore hogwash.

[camera_conjurer]

A few things before I have to go, for now. I admit it. I am the guy who Marty Forscher

stole the fiber optic back for 35 mm cameras from. And the little strap that gives you two

exposures, too. ( But the jokes on him. I inherited all the portfolios of his work and

correspondence and such! ). I worked on Richard Avedon's shutters and Deardorff

cameras, and boy have I got stories! I bought the Symmar lens that Yousef Karsch used to

take his portraits from him and then sold it because I was a 20 year old idiot. I climbed up

the cables of the Williamsburg Bridge with Peter B. Kaplan. Dianne Keaton saw my work

and shook my hand. Nipsey Russell once nearly made me drop Helmut Newtons lens. I

met Roman Vishniak and I loved Simon Nathan and his finger-painted and glittered letters.

Henri Cartier Bresson shook my hand after I

restored thirteen 8x10 view cameras, ten of them Deardorffs that were burnt in a studio

fire, and I built Joel Meyerowitz' first 8x10 Deardorff out of a pile of sticks he brought in to

the shop on the Diamond Exchange. You can see him hugging it on the back cover of his

book, "Cape Light". I met Gina Lolabriggitta And Mary Ellen Mark. I never waited on line to

get into a nightclub in Manhattan. And

that was all before I was 25.

<p>All because of the level of my craftsmanship.<p>My father was a machinist from

1933 to 1945 in the Brookln Navy Yard. I USE HIS TOOLS EVERY DAY. His toolbox is on

my workbench in the downstairs machine shop, and NO ONE dares touch the Nicholson

files with the oil-darkened handles that he used. You want to see me lose my mind ? Use

my father's hand tools. I also inherited the tools and lathe of my mentor at PCRS, Buddy

Graves when he passed away three and a half years ago. In 1983 I moved to Rhode Island

and worked as a First Class Engineering Modelmaker at Hasbro toys before I met an aerial

cinematographer with a machine shop and quit Hasbro and have been living here in a little

paradise for over 20 years, building tools for RISD professors, luthiers, and counter

balanced kiln tables for glass artists. We can fabricate anything here, from a watch to a

blender to a customized

truck. And if you need a helicopter in the Boston area, let me know.<p>

I can only assure you that anything pertinent here, Littman has lied about, or hyper-

distorted. <p> I don't think one of us ever went out of our way to harass this guy.<p>I've

been through enough in this lifetime to want to deal with someone like this. I've paid

more than my share of dues, and I don't need this.<div></div>

[william_littman]

Mr Griffin we can respectfuly disagree but that is about it.

I congratulate MR Schwartz on his curriculum but must say I believe Forsher and add that I needed none of this either and they imported it to PN.

[kai_griffin]

Allow me to correct you: <b>YOU</b> "imported" it to PN. Stop twisting the truth, you truth-twister, you. As usual, all the phantoms, demons and protagonists of your rants (patents, USPTO, Dean, Noah, Aggie, conspiracy theories, "leverage", and other random paranoias of yours) hadn't made an appearance here until <i>after</i> you'd already dumped your off-topic spam into this thread. Then it was YOU who brought up all the old grudges you have, with the same old stories about Aggie and her camera. Later, you pretend that the thread was started in order to attack you and Aggie, hoping that nobody will notice that it was YOU who dredged it all up in the first place.<p>It's always the same pattern with you... and we're onto your little game now. Don't expect to come out of these threads looking better than you did going in if you keep on behaving this way. When you fall into a shallow hole, typically the best way out of it is to climb out and walk away, not to keep digging downwards until it's too deep to get out. You seem to be more obsessed with publicly damaging internet forum threads and Ebay auctions than in protecting your own business/image - indeed, if you spent all the time you've spent composing your massive tretises on this topic instead on pursuing legal action against those you think (and can prove) have wronged you, perhaps there'd be no issue for you to write about here. It's becoming increasingly evident that you have no legal basis for your claims in the first place, else surely you would have taken that track by now. As such, you seem to be nothing more than a pathological forum vandaliser - a.k.a.... a Troll. What a way to run (ruin?) a business!

[carsten_benni]

Mr Schwartz if you referred to the italian actress her name is not Gina Lolabriggitta but Gina

Lollobrigida. I know it is not so important but I could not resist...

[william_littman]

Why All the bitterness?

 

 

 

Everyone would choose to look better than worse but few would admit to someone that whatever the case would be they would not allow you to look better .

 

I was told recently I wouldn't be allowed to have the last word but I was told something else 3.5 years ago and that was when I was discussing business matters between businesses and what I was told by Mr. Jones that if I considered My Patent then he would use the public" and leave it up to them".

 

Then a year later Mr. Schwartz told me similarly to stay away from him because" he could use the publicity".

 

When they presented that to PN and as a team I was not invited and there was a clear admitted intention to cause harm and what has already been established is that 2 years after My patents have been issued and 2 years after Jones told you that in his opinion a patent should be respected he is encouraging all to make a specific modification which he insists is the results of his own thoughts, his IP and the best way. That coupled with everything else shows that he never had any intention to respect my patents, that having presented this case before PN was for the sole purpose of Solicitation and in regards to not being allowed to look better you are simply reiterating what Jones stated when he told all to remember that " 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"October 13 2003 605 AM. the other day he added that so far my input to PN is of no value, I think people can see there are pre set allegiances for demonstrated business cooperation such as artificially raising the value of products or affecting the value of the perception of a persons reputation as leverage. and the admissions that was all done

so it would appear in net searches

 

Then when he felt that this subject matter does belong in PN when it would serve his purpose he then found it to be appropriate subject matter and I regret Mr. Griffin that Mr. Jones has admitted in writing to have imported introduced these matters to PN."As it was I who instigated this discussion, I feel that I should have a word in closure" October 13 2003 605 AM.

so there you go stop twisting the facts.October 13 2003 605 AM.

 

I also learned 2 years ago that Mr. Jones believes he should have the last word and That Mr. Schwartz will not allow me to have the last word and that you admit you wont allow me to come out looking better than when I came in. so in the clear pretense of evidence that any allegation of freedom of expression by these people are " just words"

 

It is extremely valuable for the public to be able to see the admissions that these discussions are manipulated by those who admit they will not allow someone to either have the last word, that the value of your word should be disregarded or that the outcome of the discussion is already determined because it shows that This website is being hijacked by these people to artificially influence public opinion for financial gain

[kai_griffin]

So, are you going to sue 'em or not, William? If you think you have a case, just go for it. A million words written by yourself on PN isn't going to win you one ounce of satisfaction, so why don't you just go for what you really want, considering you're so convinced that you're right? This is what it boils down to: if you think you have a case, then just do it. Stop fart-arsing around writing endlessly on internet forums, rehashing old stories, trashing threads and all that playschool stuff. Just go out there and settle the thing once and for all. You are mysteriously silent on this, despite my bringing it up three times now. Is it that you indeed <i>have no case at all</i>? Obviously so.