Converting a polaroid 110b to 4x5

[william_littman]

I have no wish to control the free exchange of information however because until yesterday the information which was being exchanged was false, and that damaged the value of my product,I will not bother privat individuals"students only" making their own camera as long as it isnt sold or used profesionaly and in exchange I expect that I will not have to

divert any time or have to file lawsuits and incur expenses as result of misinformation stemming from this thread as has happened before when buisnesses have tried tojustify infringement because of false statements on photo.net about what my patent does and does not protect. for example carina Cisneros stated that my patent only protects the Polaroid 110B that is false.it is only fair that I dont have to be diverted because someone prefers not to pay for what they wish to enjoy.

[will_groff]

Fair is in that perfect world we're all looking for....

Chill Will, I for one would love to have your camera conversion, as I suspect many would, but just can't afford it.

[paul webber]

Hey guys, My experience with converting a Polaroid 110 A (I bought it for a 30 bucks on E-bay, however the camera had no lens).

I wanted to know if it was possible to use the camera with no back holder.Just to cut some metal parts to accomodate the film holder alone.The format is a truly 4x5 (more millimeter or millimeter less).I cut just an old 4x5 Fidelity film holder , eliminated the metal wall that separeted the films and I inserted a glass to check the focussing .I use a Fujinon W 150 mm 5.6 bought for 120 $.The camera can accept the rear cell but not the front one , of course (I don't mind it)I like to use it on Hyperfocal distance with a flash .It works great! I'm still looking for a short cable release (no longer than 20/25 cm) because I want to make a hole to put inside the button release and to use it like the Lihnof handle....... The rest of the money I have spent on a trip to China and India. Fortunateley I have some bread to eat and more important the teeth to bite it! Ciao Luca (from Venice)

[paul webber]

.....I forgot to say that someone told me time ago it was not possible to use the rangefinder with a converted 110 A .

It is not true ! It still possible .Just using more brain......and it works (the camera and the brain...both of them- till now....hi!hi!)

 

Peter if you want e.mail me I can help you .

cheers

Luca

[adrian_morgan]

be careful Luca - Mr Littman will send a cease and desist team of lawyers around if you were to add a 4x5 back to a polaroid and then offer it for sale!

 

Oh - what - he doesn't send lawyers around? is that because he is scared his patent isn't worth the paper (or bandwidth) it is printed on?

[will_groff]

For what it's worth. Apparently, the Polaroid 900 model has the same rangefinder/viewfinder as the 110b.

[camera_conjurer]

Mr. Litman has been waving his patent in the faces of we Polaroidiots, for about a year. Even before it was issued.

 

<p>In the first claim in his patent he claims to be the first to modify old Polaroid cameras to 4x5.

 

<p>He isn't. Others have been making 4x5 modified Polaroid cameras for many years.

 

<p>That would make Mr. Litmans patent invalid.

 

<p>Nothing any of us said, or any of the evidence we produced would get him to leave us alone. I have never heard ONE WORD from his attorney.

 

<p>This is an excerpt from a letter from my attorney to me dated October 17th 2003 ( WILLIAM LITMAN's real name, as it appears on the patent, is Guillermo E. Litman ):

 

<p>"Dear Noah;

 

<p>Re: Guillermo E. Litman, U.S. Patent No. 6,608,971 Coupled Rangefinder/Parallax 4x5 Camera. .

 

<p>..we have determined that the above identified patent is invalid because the invention was practiced at least more than one year prior to the filing of the Provisional Application date

of March 12, 2001....Mr. Litman's last email to you dated October 8, 2003, indicates that he will not be asserting his patent against you. In the event that you should hear from Mr.

Litman again, please let me know immediately..."

 

<p>What my attorney wrote means, in this case, is that ANYONE can do ANYTHING to the Polaroid cameras in question and anything the patent holder, ( Mr Liman ), does to stop

them from doing so will not hold up in court.

 

<p> Also, the first claim of this patent being invalid means that NOT ONE of the other claims in the patent is valid, and NO OTHER PATENT can be based on or refer to this patent

if it's overturned..

 

<p>And that's that about that.

[william_littman]

==================================================

1. An interface for adapting a 31/4.times.41/4 format photographic system to a 4.times.5 camera back, comprising:

 

a frame having four walls defining two substantially parallel open planar sides, one side is adapted to be mounted onto the 31/4.times.41/4 format photographic system the other side is adapted to be mounted onto the 4.times.5 camera back, wherein the distance between the two open planar sides is at least 3/8 inch.

================================================

 

I hold the word of a patent attorney to a high standard his lawyer refers to "the invention " and in doing so is not saying anything inappropriate and that could be true if he has examined the proof and he believes it is sufficient

However a determination by a patent attorney , even the best of them , not always results in a patent being issued or a claim invalidated/ it is the USPTO who " DETERMINES". Schwartz knows that , and being the one who would benefit if that were the case when making statements about a patent he wishes to harm in a net forum

he should not use what is nothing else than an outright lie, what his attorney states is not inappropriate but Schwartz translation of why the attorney is saying is extremely serious to go straight out and make false statements.

 

Just keep this in mind, that if you can access this forum so can the Patent Office

Mr. Schwartz had proof he would have submitted it to the USPTO , that he has resorted to discrediting the patent for the length of time he refers to instead of doing so, is not the way to proceed for someone claiming to be experienced in these matters.

 

Where is the word " Polaroid mentioned anywhere in that claim? (Nowhere )therefore what Mr. Schwartz states is entirely false, Schwartz then goes on to pose as the self appointed spokesman for the USPTO by stating that what his lawyer has determined means that because the first claim in my patent

Im claiming what I have proven to you here I'm not claiming in that claim then my patent is invalid and that all al therefore are assured to divide the loot and that I will be powerless .

 

If you do not see the word Polaroid included anywhere in the claim . then he cannot state that I'm claiming "Polaroid" in that claim and as a result my patent will be invalidated.

 

If he had/ has proof he can present it to the USPTO nothing has been determined until the USPTO and regarding Mr. Schwartz credibility , just read what he writes and then try to find the word Polaroid in the claim.

 

I do not dispute that proof may exist but his constant misrepresentations have not made things easy, If he had an excerpt from his attorney , he should have only presented that, which doesn't say the same thing as Schwartz but after Schwartz spoke I am clear that nothing has been determined that is definitive.

 

Mt Schwartz had emailed early on that I should stay away because he could use the publicity, as a result he has instigated photo.net and made offers to sell in forums he co-started as threatened to gain publicity.

 

On the other side I made something a few years ago and contacted a few people and it blossomed without having to discredit anyone to achieve that , when I learned that he insisted to have made a portion of the invention earlier I asked him to submit proof to me or my attorney and he did not, he then chose photo.net as a valid place as to deal with patent issues and that is where these matters littered the forums

 

To deal with business complaints between businesses there are places like courts, lawyers and finally the law.

 

Coming here to do so instead is both unethical and inappropriate and to then use the bandwidth to make inaccurate statements is not acceptable by any means.

 

I'm no attorney but tomorrow I will find out what this amounts to,

 

an actual piece of hard evidence would have to infringe on the actual claim and than be "determined" that it was made prior.

 

 

 

I find it to be in really poor taste, that considering that thousands of products are patented every year including modifications to existing products , yet you seldom have to read that someone who claims to have a prior right resorts to these tactics

 

I believe that disagreements between businesses have always existed and there are proper avenues for that including a letter to the USPTO and a 37c stamp

 

If he had done that a year ago this matter would have been settled , and about

what he has stated here I will seek advise , but You do not have to be a lawyer to

understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that what " he" wrote is just not the case.

 

is time to stop littering photo.net with misrepresentations,Mr. Schwartz received word yesterday from photo.net that "they are sick of this matter"

 

The public has an interest in something and The name of my product is used to promote others simultaneously with an attempt to hinder a right , Mr. Schwartz should consider determining what constitutes a " conflict of interest" . .

 

 

on a different note I would like to wish you all a happy Easter.

[camera_conjurer]

Mr. Litman has been waving his patent in the faces of we Polaroidiots, for about a year. Even before it was issued.

 

<p>In the first claim in his patent he claims to be the first to modify old Polaroid cameras to 4x5.

 

<p>He isn't. Others have been making 4x5 modified Polaroid cameras for many years.

 

<p>That would make Mr. Litmans patent invalid.

 

<p>Nothing any of us said, or any of the evidence we produced would get him to leave us alone. I have never heard ONE WORD from his attorney.

 

<p>This is an excerpt from a letter from my attorney to me dated October 17th 2003 ( WILLIAM LITMAN's real name, as it appears on the patent, is Guillermo E. Litman ):

 

<p>"Dear Noah;

 

<p>Re: Guillermo E. Litman, U.S. Patent No. 6,608,971 Coupled Rangefinder/Parallax 4x5 Camera. .

 

<p>..we have determined that the above identified patent is invalid because the invention was practiced at least more than one year prior to the filing of the Provisional Application date

of March 12, 2001....Mr. Litman's last email to you dated October 8, 2003, indicates that he will not be asserting his patent against you. In the event that you should hear from Mr.

Litman again, please let me know immediately..."

 

<p>What my attorney wrote means, in this case, is that ANYONE can do ANYTHING to the Polaroid cameras in question and anything the patent holder, ( Mr Litman ), does to stop

them from doing so will not hold up in court.

 

<p> Also, the first claim of this patent being invalid means that NOT ONE of the other claims in the patent is valid, and NO OTHER PATENT can be based on or refer to this patent

if it's overturned..

 

<p>And that's that about that.

[camera_conjurer]

By the way, peter hoang, I'd be only too happy to help you construct you camera.

[william_littman]

See! there you go! , Mr. Schwartz "CAN" use the publicity.

Discredit first and then offer a service, and whats up with posting the same thing twice?

[camera_conjurer]

peter hoangs original question on this thread was about home building a camera. People have been building their own cameras ( by modifying other cameras ), for longer than people have

been turning old cars into hot rods.

 

<p>Americans have the right to do that.

 

<p>Mr. Litman seems to feel that I haven't supplied him with proper evidence of prior art in the proper manner after his initial emails. That's his opinion. My having to

provide evidence to the USPTO would only be necessary if I were to institute a patent reexamination procedure at my expense. He was supplied with evidence of prior art he chose

to ignore before his patent was issued and chose to proceed with it anyway.

 

<p>I have no dog in this fight. Why should I have to pay for a patent reexamination procedure for something in the public domain ?

 

<p>All I'm saying is that this modification was in the public domain long before Mr. Litman did it and there's plenty of proof.

 

<p>He approached me in an adversarial manner, and no one outside of Mr. Litman has questioned my character.

 

<p>No web site has reprimanded me.

 

<p>I have no patent or patent pending regarding this or anything remotely like it..

 

<p>I'm not even taking on any new business for the time being, ( except for you, peter.)

 

<p> ( I have been short with a few customers when I thought they were shills for Mr. Litman, but I paid by losing the sale! )

 

<p>So for crying out loud. Make your cameras and leave everyone else alone. IT'S AN OLD IDEA.

[camera_conjurer]

By the way. peter, you supply me with the lens ( check with me about which lens first ) and the back you want and I'll supply a camera body and my labor for free if you come visit my shop.

[william_littman]

I believe we have gone arround in circles for too long,

Mr Schwartz can submit the prior art he reffers to to the right place \if that is his wish.

 

i will take Mr Schwartz advise and make my cameras

Cheers W

[camera_conjurer]

Gone around in circles? Tell me about it! I feel like a one legged weiner dog !

 

<p>Mr. Litman, I supplied you with all the evidence of prior art that you needed to either rewrite your patent application or withdraw it before the patent was issued.

 

<p>You're 'the right place' for me to have sent any proof of prior art. Stop bee-essing the issue.

 

<p>Because you didn't follow the rules, you can't assert this patent or any patents based on it against anyone and have it stand up in court. Not me, not the e@ay people, not peter

hoang or anyone else.

 

<p>You took my advice about making your cameras. That's great. But I also 'advised' you to leave everyone else alone. Perhaps I should have written the sentence the other way

around.

 

<p>Please leave everyone else alone.

[brian_kennedy]

Well, that thread certainly went south. As one of the moderators here on the forum, I'd appreciate it if the participants would <B>please refrain from posting further comments (we'll just delete them)</B>. I think everyone has said quite enough and there's no reason to preserve most of this stuff in the LF Forum archive, anyway.

<P>

Thanks, and let's keep it civil!