william_littman

The US distributor for Copal recommends

C.R.I.S.

250 North 54 Street

Chandler, AZ 85226

ph: (480) 940-1103

I believe Mr. Schwartz is correct, in saying that if something is part of the public domain then that should be " obvious" to all and believing that he was so personally involved in having made it and having insisted it was his idea I thought If he wanted to proceed he could have sent me photocopies of the originals as to at least be able to determine some consideration as to whether something was done and when. My reservations came as a results of the responses which I received instead and when patent was issued and he said prior art had been submitted I felt justified that my position was more than justified, subsequent things which he stated as " to get him to sue me" made it even harder to believe.

In any event as I have told Schwartz many times after patent issue on this website I didn't object to submission after issue and assume the expense of getting these matters straightened out, I offered to do so last week again. while I can be upset because of the events I don't believe that would be my right to hold that against him on a deadline of issue/ grant something which threatens me. I invite him to submit whatever materials he may have and so this can be resolved once and for all. I am averse to litigation because in the end what matters would be whether it happened or not and I did what I could to determine if it was true. temper tantrums and defiance should not be a limitation as to if he made something and has the right then we might not decide to spend time together but its not my choice who made what before me and I don't believe its his choice to refrain from submitting it, he that he had invented the fiber optic back and Mr. Harris said " prove it".

And then when these matters have been online for as long as they have and nobody has been able to" prove it" then I believe we are indeed going around in circles. whatever agreement or disagreement may exist between personalities has nothing to do with this issue, I asked do you have it? he said he had tons of it but then only presented a picture of the front of an old camera and I believe we have gone around for too long. it helps me very little to have a patent everybody insults as silly and if I didn't have what he claimed to have done previously I could still make my camera.

In any event I hope he will send me whatever he believes would be applicable. he believed that insulting me to get him to sue me was what was required but I say that if he had what he represented then he would not have needed a suit because he had the evidence at no cost. I need proof and I hope he sends it.

When what I got instead was threats that he could use the publicity and then admits again that that was the intention all along I feel more than justified but lets get past pointing fingers and if the intention to achieve resolution existed and apparently exists today then I want to see it.

In any event PN can remain a place for photography and you didnt need tsunami because I said/ keep saying that all it takes is a stamp.

I thought the hobbyists would keep talking, but I have a question for Jones.

you said there was no modification done to my finder in Aggie camera,nor did you find any difference in the 150mm camera you repaired and which I made .if that is the case does it cover parallax for the lens you installed in her camera? and if so would that be an infringement? remember I was saying that not all claims must be present simultaneously on all cameras.

I am not a circus buffoon and have many sets of cams like the ones you posted. I will give a set to my attorney and send one to Mr. Mottershead who says I'm the last person he would trust and then he can announce that there is a difference. thank you W

I respect Mr Mottersheds opinion because it is his right to have an opinion and he has stated that he admits to have no understanding of the legal issues and I am not an expert either

thank you.

Mr Mottershead: I understand your position as a website owner and respect your opinion as well.

I felt one thing was the legal issue and another that competitors dispute my work as it has been disputed as being refuse.

I will not discuss these issues further

I received the responses to the comments that Mr Scwartz has made about me and my product from the person who bought it in auction and received it directly from his client:

Dear C.L.D M

>here is the followup questionaire , the photographer here in NYC will

>received the same questions in reference to comments made By the person That

>made the camera You bought in auction and then Traded for a Littman I will

>post your comments using your initials and wont reveal your name unless

>required.

>

>

> I would like you to give your educated opinion/ response to such comments;

>please if you post your response please do so under each comment.

>

>

>

>I ask you to be as objective as possible

>

>

>

>" the lack of parallax correction can be easily compensated for" (meaning

>could you utilize such camera and obtain the images you get with a Littman

>after verifying the differences in parallax performance)?

I'm not interested in "easily compensated for". I require accurate

framing and focus. My L45S III allows me to frame very tightly even at

close range. I was very surprised to discover how accurate the parallax

compensation is on the Littman. The viewfinder framing on the other

camera was simply not in the same league.

>Did you find the focus to be equally effective?

Same case as with viewfinder framing. With the Littman I am able to

shoot even with the lens wide open and can easily select my plane of

focus with a precision and ease that is accurate and repeatable. This is

important to me as I greatly enlarge my color negatives and I did not

want to sacrifice any sharpness whatsoever by going with a handheld

camera over my tripod mounted view camera. This level of performance was

not possible with the other camera.

>what is your opinion of the camera comparing it as a practical tool and not

>considering presentation or appearance but strictly performance,

This other camera is basically a Polaroid 110B with a Graflok back and

groundglass frame taken from a Speed Graphic or the like. The back is

attached to the Polaroid body by means of a flat steel plate.

Consequently a lot of heavy metal is added to the original camera without

removing any superfluous parts that were no longer needed when going from

the old Polaroid format to 4X5". In other words, this camera weighs a

ton and is very heavy to handhold comfortably. Also the Speed Graphic

back is large and awkward as attached to this camera, making this

contraption seem overbuilt and strange to handle.

The Littman is totally different as William is not really taking a 110B

and converting it to 4X5. He is only using the parts from the Polaroid

that he needs to create his camera. So the resulting camera is lighter

and easier to handle. It is basic, simple, nothing superfluous. Nothing

gets in the way. Very nice.

>" Littman cameras will self destruct because they are built by someone who

>doesn't have the slightest idea of what he is doing"

This seems like a personal attack so I do not think it deserves a

response as such. Littman's cameras are very straight forward and

precise where they need to be. I have not encountered any apparent

weaknesses. It seems the most delicate parts of this camera, and of any

Polaroid Pathfinder style camera, are the front struts that support the

lensboard, but they seem sturdy enough to me and only require a modicum

of consideration. No problem at all. The camera is solid and William

supports his product better than most camera makers.

>" Littman has deceived the large format community" ( meaning that my camera

>was better)

Littman makes some strong claims about the accuracy of his camera.

Honestly I was absolutely surprised when I first experienced how sharp

and accurate my negatives turned out with my L45S III. I was duly

impressed and I was not able to achieve that level of accuracy with the

other camera.

>" the only reason people believe Littman cameras are better is because they

>are so expensive"

Believe me, I wish I could've found another camera like it for less

money. They are very expensive. About what I paid for my ARCA-SWISS,

but half the price of a Canon 1Ds MkII. But I was not looking for a

Polaroid conversion. I was looking for a handholdable 4X5" rangefinder

camera with accurate focus and framing like my Leica M that would

complement the work I do with my 4X5 view camera. I tried using a

Technika (another pricey camera) but it's a beast to use handheld. The

Littman was the obvious choice for my needs.

> Do you feel I am ruining the original cameras and not improving them as

>this person has assured PN with the words" he is ruining them, not improving

>them. "

If your goal is to not ruin the original camera then do not modify them

at all. This other camera completely ruins the integrity of the Polaroid

110B by adding heavy steel parts that may add a functionality but does so

in a poorly conceived manner. That is not the case with the Littman

camera. I use mine everyday. For me it is that practical. These other

cameras I would not use at all, except maybe to play around with

sometimes. Just my opinion.

C.L.D.M"

I dont need any more of your Johnny come lately turn old garbage into new garbage insults and nobody needs your leverage tactics.

I also respectfuly disagree with Mr Scwartz comments and ask him

to respect the policies of this server .

thank you

I thought People were trying to represent That Jones wanted to stop!

Well Mr. Jones . If you say" The 127 cam is just SITTING there to show the identical

profile.We can certainly see that you cant tell the difference between something which is black and something which is white. If after all the request for some fairness you still insist that you cant tell the difference in profiles between those 2 cams let me remind you that you have shown they are different, and I have both right here and certain as have been for 4 years that they are entirely different ,but not by looking at it with the naked eye, much less in a photograph

Unless you bother to verify evidence it is just something which you are holding in your hand but proves nothing if you refuse the responsibility to give it the required attention .

Your 127mm cam and my 150mm cam are different and first in an obvious way which you refused to see and then they are different in the same manner as two contact lenses would be different in a photograph if the prescription was not that different. Well Mr. Jones as I said every photographer who has a recent camera with a 150mm lens has that cam and their cameras work unless broken.

You started / instigated the threads in PN to Prove I am a blunthead but you have shown that dealing with you and your associates in this matter has a degree of difficulty which exceeds any normal persons ability to comprehend , which Mr. Seward has referred to as "This circus must cause you so much stress and take up so much time" and he is right it is a circus of admitted saboteurs .

Mr Jones then comes back again and states" He says there is no difference" I did say that about the cam you presented on top to show " there was no difference" and youdo not understand these matters as to have disputed them at all. period. you can patent two methods of achieving something and utilize the chosen one over the other. I ground many cams in the research and found that it was an imperfect way because you cannot get two identical ones if you wanted to, you could but neither of us has the money for that kind of equipment and grinding per se is an unmeasureable method of modification unless you use the kinds of equipment used in lens grinding.

I have your cam and its surface has the textutre as if ground with an 80 grit sandpaper, does not have either a smooth curvature and the grooves made by the grinding are themselves bumps, Mr Schwartz had insisted that applying aditional pressure to a follower mirror tension spring would create a groove in the cam if excessive and excess is what I am trying to insist is not required, but the surface of your cam being that it is initself a pivoting file will eat up the tip of the follower mirror and has already done so even if minimally on a camera that could be said to have less than a few hrs of use.

In any event you have no right to force me into this and you had no right to start threads to discredit me and in the end while you hoped to get me commited as prommised so you could retain the podium her we find ourselves after one of your clients invited you in defiance and you proceeded to solicit/ offer your products and introduce mine without consent.

As it turns out there are no secret formulas or Trade secrets involved here but an obvious demonstration that none of this should have ever occured.

In these parts of the world people do not respond well when they see that "some" have ambushed the podium by these tactics.

Mr Seward says"there is no harm in letting us chatter on " which means you retain the podium and " You have to let someone have the last wordor it will go on forever."

When I was told this would stop I understood that my concern was that merchants have engaged in all sorts of inducement at my expense that is what i believed would stop it is not only a matter of fairness and what was prommised but there is a statute which I have made reference to which instructs as what the behaviour regarding inducement is supposed to be.

I thank you all , It appears that I am trying to be difficult but it is not difficult but impossible to endure this any longer.

Mr benni has verified as has everyone else that this subject was active well before Mr Jones& co.

decided to instigate tsunami in 2003 ..... and it is not a matter of bringing it up or not it is a matter that all solicitation under any premmise must cease and all the tsunamis posted as admitted instigation/ interferance must be removed.

as i said there are now 3 threads started by these people discussing conversions if such is legal and does not constitute inducement then it should be able to proceed .

I believe we have addressed these issues and hope that what is permissible gets to happen and that has to be known by merchants beforehand and not by disrupting the public but by learning themselves before making public assurances.

Exactly: On October 13th 2003 after insisting that the past had been addressed Mr. Jones told all of Pn as a spokesman for the group in question that the patents should be respected and that the thread should remain as to patrol self regulation and when I see that self regulation is not the case he told me to address it.

I have never been a nut and I am not a nut, we have just witnessed that this person comes here to discredit my camera with a picture of a botched cam he didn't even bother to verify and his supporters tell you I'm nuts. Jones hopes to compete by discrediting me at any expense

or introduces my IP and calls it his and tells everyone to help themselves and then there are the admittances of interference.

Guys please give it a rest If you brought these matters in front of PN then do as you say and prommised and nothing else.

Mr Scwartz

Unless you have a patent you have no right to stop me or keep me busy this is a right to work state.and you have admitted to have lied about the submission of prior art , and admitted to have started rumors that I would brake into peoples computers and its one thing after the other coupled with admissions of intention to cause harm so I suggest that you stop because people know that what you are doing is a bad thing. and nobody appreciates it nor wants it to continue further and it is illegal

and depressing to everyone. in the end when something doesnt benefit you you say the cameras are " old garbage "and when you wish to again promote yourself at my expense they become "classic cameras" and that is the long and the short of it but nobody is buying it any longer.

two wrongs dont make a right and you have tried to present that I was a bad person and you were caught red handed , right here showing that this has been the modus operandi from day 1 for all who cooperated in the " we are trying to stop him"

Mr Scwartz

Unless you have a patent you have no right to stop me or keep me busy this is a right to work state.and you have admitted to have lied about the submission of prior art , and admitted to have started rumors that I would brake into peoples computers and its one thing after the other coupled with admissions of intention to cause harm so I suggest that you stop because people know that what you are doing is a bad thing. and nobody appreciates it nor wants it to continue further and it is illegal

and depressing to everyone.

Mr Scwartz

Unless you have a patent you have no right to stop me or keep me busy this is a right to work state.and you have admitted to have lied about the submission of prior art , and admitted to have started rumors that I would brake into peoples computers and its one thing after the other coupled with admissions of intention to cause harm so I suggest that you stop because people know that what you are doing is a bad thing. and nobody appreciates it nor wants it to continue further and it is illegal

and depressing to everyone.

Thanks again for the compliments.

and please Recycle

Mr. Jones I am sorry I have never installed two cams on a camera simultaneously obviously someone else did and you are representing that my work is the result of a third party shoddy repairmsnship.

There is no difference and if there were you wouldn't see it.

I have the camera with the cam you ground with a sharpening stone which looks like volcanic lava and proves you have no clue.

I have the best photographers in the world on assignment with 150mm cameras and someone with a grinding wheel is not going to fly.

the surface of a cam is to be like a mirror but yours is as smooth as sandpaper.(but still patented) the burden of proof is yours. as you have admitted to " grinding it" thank you that is precisely what we have but if it works or not is not an issue . the issue I whether you modified it. such modification if well made would work. there are three modifications present in the cam of Aggie camera and thank you for reminding us it is the work you did to the cam

All of my customers who have a 150mm camera none of them have a ground cam as is not as accurate but still protected by a claim for this application so thank you.

You have no idea what subtlety is and admitted you ground that cam while my cameras work and have a smooth face cam smooth as a mirror and while the grinding modification is patented my alternative one was implemented because it is superior and proved that to this day you have no idea but you keep disputing my IP save yourself the embarrassment

you are holding a camera that someone wanted to use for dual purpose and you thought it was my 150mm cam and thanks god because now nobody gets to see it and you get no instructions.

The people who are famous and shooting with the cameras today will laugh at you tomorrow because their cameras work perfectly unless they are in need of repair and because you hold someone's mistake in your hand you thought to embarrass me and again all you are able to do is fiddle but my patience is over. you wont see any of my patents with a cam sitting on top of another if I wanted to protect it I would have so you are a fool.

But at least you didn't get to give it away and that is a great thing if you give away your shoddy cam instead it will still be my ip. I knew it could be ground and guess what it is patented if I chose to implement it. so you don't have to tell me it is possible but at this point. retarded. Grounded yourself.

I made a camera with a cam like that for a German photographer in Ny who insisted against my recommendation to have a camera focus between 3-5 ft for close-ups otherwise I have never done that and in any event thank god you are out of luck.and if that is the one and you did not inform yourself as to why and presented it to discredit, but that is what you do.

Your trick didn't work.

This is another instance that proves these people are so prepared to discredit they don't even examine or verify the evidence before presenting it. I have held Aggie cameras for months and many Jones cameras but I only presented an image to prove aggie wasn't lying otherwise I have no need to prove Jones wrong because all I have to do is email all my 150mm customers tomorrow and ask how their camera is doing and then save that and then when I see you in court I can show that your idiotic defiance has again impelled you into this pathetic farce of presenting something without any responsibility as to verification. I see why you needed instructions , well you wont get them from me. sorry All Best W

(d one battle )use phonetics

when you have endorsed that people cause harm as to end the thread and you have no idea why I would be upset then I have to assume i am to expect it.

I do hope it ends. there are 2 current threads where hobbysts are discussing the subject and no merchants I hope this website will forbid merchants and manufacturers from participating in threads altogether .

you said the thread it should end by reminding people that otherwise they should make sure to cause deliberate harm so it would appear in searches but then came back with the invitation to go on. which means that what you hope will die is that which you admit that you wish to harm.

There is no way that a handful of admitted people with an ax to grind and hopeful competitors will have further effect on the market

when we have seen how that effect was achieved .Otherwise the market would have to be as spiteful as these few and of no interest

words are just words and if not then its murmur, what a well intended bunch! you should start a consumer product magazine

I want to thank Mr. Jones for his attacks on my product for years as today I got an email from a client saying that my camera appeared to be built with parts from old cameras??? I say that is obvious from the pictures in my site. yes that is obvious, what is also obvious is that the product is a combination on new and old parts.

So thank you nice way to justify why the patent respect you promised was disregarded .

Another email I got was a request for phone contact for a sale, I got another one yesterday.

So I'm telling all anyone requiring phone contact in lieu of email should abstain from contacting me. I expect my customers to trust me

The email "risk" comment was admitted to be started by a participant and on that note such matter has been addressed.

Thank you.

I tell you what is unenforceable and that is expecting you to let go of your classiest considerations .

The patents are not limited to what is implemented in the product

What you say is false and malicious and damaging because if it is included in the patent and disclosed in it as well then the evidence was submitted .

taking an existing product and creating further invention is not considered obvious and is clearly patentable that is why they have a category known as improvement to an existing product.

but in any event if that annoys you then remember that is only 5% of my patents, you wish to re write the way things are and doesn't surprise me when you say you will have a temper tantrum unless you get your way so any obstacle must be eliminated and that is what you are doing. but it wont fly.. curious that you were the one to have the last word on the scanning thread and the first to response when that is brought up.

Unfortunately then I thought you were the earl of white linens and so you appeared to be independent but now I know you admitted to have an ax to grind and have taken sides with someone from your part of the world on this matter so anything you say can be expected as

partisanship and expressed motives. thank you.

You are speaking of things which you have no knowledge of and Just as these people chose to discredit me to aggrandize themselves look where we are now , Ladies and Gentlemen Kai is now

THE PATENT OFFICE congratulations on your self promotion , I hope you get paid.

Mr griffin

If the patent office examined the patent description and found it patentable then it is.

We know you have admitted resentment as amotive and that is about it.

We were done a long time ago and Mr. " the one battle" should not resort to these kinds of things. I know he has a long nose and wears glasses and sounds a lot like or wait" precisely" like someone who says someone did this to him and the other and then it turns out that someone is always himself. Mr the one battle has made 139 conversion related posts since then Wow

he joined a week after the scanning thread was closed to invite himself but if shill bidding sucks then posing as someone else to undermine patent credibility or product credibility is pathetic.

He should have stopped when he was ahead.

in any event the cam is modified and patented and not identical to a 127mm cam in ways which Mr. Jones cant see.... neither will any of you then. which is great, my cameras with a 150 work great. Parallax 110% correction is as !00% as it can be as stated in our site and known to all. the coupled parallax rangefinder camera is patented and

if a particular modification isn't present in a part then another one is. My cameras as always has known from day one are built with a combination of old and new parts and appearance may vary but current models are clearly better looking that what these people have presented but I have shown proof that as an utilitarian tool my product excels and as they hoped to present a similarity as based on appearance it backfired when they also admitted it was the best way. nobody will get my camera for what they sell theirs and I will get theirs if people keep up with this nonsense.the 4x5 conversion is patented as proved and the one battle just ended . yes Mr Seward we are done unfortunately on an unpleasant note as a result of unsavory and malicoius rigging Pn deserves better I hope that will be the case ...

Notice to PN and the photographic community:

I will have no further confrontation from these people nor further dealings with them of any sort , they have wasted enough time for everyone but when people believe time is money and I Have Patents that they end up insisting most merited because they yield the best choice which they have interfered with It is my right and the decency of all to put an end to this abuse unjustifyable and admitedly intentional

Thank you and I would have liked to have met you all under different circumstances and doubt that what has occurred can easily be forgotten but I will hope that the future is the best it can be, I will try to make the best of It and I hope the rest of you are able to do the same.

Cheers W

Mr Benni is entirely correct!

All modification required are present and if you state you cant see them is because you are looking for modifications one would use a shovel or gardening tool" size does matter" in LF the differences are minute and not necessarily visible to the naked eye but have to be established by measurements and relationships to other components.

Such admission by you confirms what I have insisted all along, as you expect invention to be possible only if its the invention of the wheel and all else is your IP because I have come to realize that you said for years that you owned no IP but the minute you touched my camera you felt Ip was not only possible but desirable./ the best/ proud to endorse and introduce/ recommend..... you are burying yourself unnecessarily.yousaid the best was a 4 designs conversion only to present the aparent external similarity as a discredit to my patents in the same way as you presented your product versus mine as having no difference when the structural configuration is entiiiiiirely different and you stated that was not that different?

Are you a racist? what difference are you hoping to find before you land?

If the camera you were holding was a 4 designs conversion with identical measurements which it isn't in regards to any of the modifications. then that would mean that while it is such camera utilizing what such company has done to such cameras in the past and nothing else and for that format then that is prior art even though not patented and disclose in my patents.

But because I take the same camera and use the film cartridge as a spacer I am already not using their modification but mine, if to that I add a film back instead of a closed back then that is sufficiently different as well if then the whole thing is made into an indivisible unit and I could have used anything else as a spacer as patented you penalizing me because I used what was as you say the best way does not reflect badly on my but a compliment.

The cartridge I use is made by Polaroid and none else, the cartridge I use is not used as a filmholder but as a spacer and turned into an indivisible unit

Art is a subjective portrayal of reality , does not have to be either realistic nor factual to be valuable but Prior Art means proof / factual and verifiable documentation that something was made earlier .

I am not going to allow you to have me learn the entire patent act including punctuation and every precedent in history when you refuse to learn / have no clue of what prior art expected means while insisting you had it/ someone else's justified you and you didn't bother to verify it " as it doesn't exist" as a justification to start the threads to discredit my IP which you have determined is the best way but said it couldn't be anyone's IP but you say its your own.

Stop insulting yourself it is embarrassing

To make a long story short the company who you refer to could not turn their pack film conversion into a 4x5 by using the same film holder.and then they would be in the same boat as everyone else regarding other alternatives.

My camera which you are holding uses the pack film holder as a spacer but if you wanted to bury your business I have to tell you that the best way as you insist for conversion will not cost 4 times as much as the 4 designs conversion but less than your product and will be better as you stated. will allow it to remain a dual format camera but it isn't the best way. you came to the conclusion that the best way is that because you got to hold my camera and as difference has to be in inches or feet or wheels to you cant tell the difference between the 4 designs camera and my own which is huge in terms of measurements much less can you see infinitesimal differences in parts of internal components when you cant determine structural differences in a camera body. stop insulting yourself as you have admitted my current way is the best way and only reffered to as being someone elses way to raise doubts, well let me clear your doubts The best way is as you stated my way not anyone elses It is already available but just in case you did believe the best way was the 4 designs conversion and then upgrade it to 4x5 then that will be available to and I own that as well.

such conversion would not yield the results of a Littman 45 but at least no worse than your best unless you infringed on my patents regarding internal mods. and external mods not referring to conversion and would be much lighter portable and better balanced so you have gone to great lengths to waste everyone's time and cause them pain for nothing.

I can accept that you are just stubborn and we can move on or I remind you that the camera I hold which was Aggie is also a 150mm camera and that has modification present you told were not required which are noticeable visibly when they shouldn't because you didn't know how and they are incorrect but abundant .

It was never my intention to embarrass you and this is embarrassing to all and to PN that they have allowed a person such as yourself to do this to the LF community and their members.

The best way for you to save face at this point is to shut up, I was trying to help you not hurt you by asking you to stop this.

I am sure you have a lot of choices in life open to you and proving further that you have prevented PN members for years of having the best option by interfering and asking others to do so much in the same manner as someone Insisting to being in the possession of prior art and could have allowed all to have the choices all desire and chose to conceal it in defiance for spiteful reasons which everyone would clearly believe are not a remote possibility but profound and to then come here only on events to trash me and blame me while admitting that he is entirely responsible as to why those PN members who felt

unfairly prevented from proceeding .

Then this person comes here daring me with" it would be better for you and everyone" if you chose to believe me. I do believe him as does everyone that he has taken us for a long and unpleasant ride.

If you and this person don't believe that you have deceived and I don't have to accuse you or make a laundry list of who was deceived have admitted enough already and since it is proven by both your admissions I ask you to find some good taste. apologize to all and move on

I think that is what everyone wants. thank you

What you admitted to want is that you were out to get me.

I on the other hand do not want to get you and I hope that whatever it is that you do flourishes

thanks.have a good night