william_littman

Mr. Schwartz please on march 28th 2005 you stated that " there are rumors"

 

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, there are rumors that Mr. Litman has broken into other peoples email folders. I would take this VERY seriously. If you've had dealings with Mr. Litman, CHANGE YOUR PASSWORD FREQUENTLY.

 

He's gone beyond the realm of being a spoiled man child to being a dangerous internet thug..mar 23, 2005; 12:25 a.m.

 

Today you finally admit"Well, SOMEONE deleted emails from you and your friends from my inbox!

Guillermo,"Sunday, August 28, 2005 4:35 PM.

 

 

 

That means that it was you who started the rumor and now every time you misplace your keys you will think I stole them as you accused me of absconding your ideas and the other day said that the first time you saw such conversion was when someone walked into your job with a crude version.

 

 

 

I lied? please stop the denial and lets move on. this is very serious.

 

I can prove that i am not in any shape or for proficeint in digital tech as to do such thing but you have proven you started the rumor and we need no further

You have so far and as admitted not presented any prior art to me.

as you are doing this in the so called" public domain" I invite you to stop .If you dont have the prior art to send me now. much less was the case in 2003.much less prior art to substantiate that all my claims were invalid , there is no prior art nor was there until so eatablished You cant expect anyone to believe otherwise because it does not constitute prior art unless so determined . I asked for prior art you said you didnt send it you could have. if you chose not to while saying you did give it a rest.And if you brought your case here then do as you say or you have demonstrated it was never the intention. and thank you for your advise confirming that you are still insisting I destroy the cameras but I have received a questinaire today as a followup to the original review of the camera which my client received directly from your client and evaluated himself but in the interest of all fairness i believed that a review with a better lens only would have been subjective so I had someone who makes a living and most succesful receive a questionatre with some of the things you had said about my product.

 

He has left on a trip but would gladly confirm such comments were his

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

" 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)?

No I could not..it will be too complicated to have to think where I really have to frame

The picture...not very practical..

 

 

what is your opinion of the camera comparing it as a practical tool and

not considering presentation or appearance but strictly performance,

Not very practical compare to the littman

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

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

Anyone that says this, never used a littman

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

camera was better)

To my opinion there nothing that perform as well as a littman

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

they are so expensive"

That is not true..i would love to find something as good for cheaper

I am not a millionaire.. But the littman is worth the cost..

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. "

No they are much better after littman works on them

This person has also questioned in PN whether each new version of my

camera could be better? and has dismissed it as fabrication and as you

have experienced all the stages since 2001 what is your response to

that.

I really love the new improvement littman did on the focussing range finder it is

now much more precise and so much easier to see and faster to focus..

 

--albanchrist

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not intend to post it as I felt the nonsense would have stopped by now and i told Alban not to post his responses to avoid further and knowing that all previous preference had been dismissed or rated as " impossible"

 

Give it a rest please.

Great! I will expect my patents to be respected as prommised , I welcome any submmision of prior art to me or copies of it to be considered even after patent has been issued and i wish everyone the best

thank you W

The whole scenario is that you insisted in october 13 of 2003 that previous behaviour had been adressed.

 

I kept telling you that I had IP pending and you stated it was a farce and to you it was jump the gun or use one but later you said that a patent should be respected and if you felt that wasn't the case then why put PN thru all this and not do what you wanted .

 

The point is you have never stopped anything, never intended as you have shown after representing otherwise to all.

 

If you act like this where you hope to drum up business and after patent was issued and you willingly insist for example to the whole world as this week that the adapter for the 4 designs camera was your idea then you cant expect anyone to believe that you would have been more compliant earlier, then everyone understands.

 

I sent you communication explaining that a certain finder modification was my Ip before Patent was issued and you went on to post it on your site as your own and in that climate and defiance that I found myself under from all corners at a time where such activities landed me in the hospital and I lost almost 45 ponds and don't want to make alarmist representations so I will leave it at extreme health risk, then in September of 03 I had another such dance and ever since.

 

I believe it is time to move on because you never stopped anything.

 

 

And if you told all of PN in 2003 that all past behaviour had been adressed then people will take your word .

 

You have shown thruout 3,5 years that according to you this so called defiance allows for a permanent back and forth and I have already explained that I was inexperienced in Patent law then and you refuse to accept it as of now while you insist that a patent should be respected.

 

You keep asking the public if a kit offering components as to infringe would constitute infringement and when you have been given countless answers to one degree of exactitude or another you yet insist in defying me to disclose tech advice while you have already told all it would be worthless. you say today that my word is of no value so far do you really expect anyone to believe it wasnt worse when nobody was watching?

 

It is prior art or nothing. I communicated That I had patent application pending and should have had to deal with you no further.

 

I thought that if you guys felt entitled to forum for grievance s you stated then you should not have aggrandized and misrepresented the events because If you insist that I contacted a few people and told them I had Ip Pending then if they had it or knew of it with certainty to constitute prior art then I should have gotten it or gotten compliance.

then in those threads you all proceeded to tell people to intefere with my purchases in front of the whole world while claiming unfair buisness practices than you told people that what they would get is me and then proceeded to offer and discuss/ accept sales on a forum which was allegedly destined to resolve unfair buisness practices while we have learned this week that both the intersted parties and a few specific participants admit that such presentation was done so it would end where it would hurt the most and in the presence of such conspiracy as of today and admitted it was the goal as of the start , people can see that when such was the original intention and insitance that past behaviour has been adressed then I say that meant that any future behaviour after october 2003 would have to be to respect the patents.

 

My legions have no place in a website where those who came here as a team insisted thru their spokesman that a patent should be respected.

 

Otherwise If you guys brought the subject matter here why expect anyone to believe that if this back and forth has occurred after patent issue it was any better before the threads .

 

the defiance which occurred previous to the threads has been admitted by all. in 2003 you told all that the future would be compliance I expected that.

 

If you don't believe I can expect you do as you tell everyone publicly you cant expect anyone to believe that you had intention to proceed differently when you brought the subject matter here and after it was addressed you all issued a statement after emailing me that you were deliberating and that was the decision you all came to.

 

Thank You

 

Mr Jones insited whan he told all that my patents should be respected

 

"It appears that problems arising from past behaviour have been addressed and at this stage 10. 13 03"

And as it turns out all the IP I represented to them was determined to be my IP and issued as Patents

the question which remains is whether their behaiviour since then will stop

thank you

No this is the Tsunami you admitted to start in 2003.

then insited we would get compliance and not defiance

when you insist that instead of compliance further Tsunami is required I say that all that was required was submision of prior art as have others.

MR. Jones has shown that he had no intention of respecting my patents when we find ourselves here 3 years later and states that what is documented as my invention is actually his idea.

 

When I first contacted him to say I had patent pending he replied it was a farce and would resort to leaving it up to the public. If these people have fulfilled their threats and after 3.5 years cannot provide me with prior art then all they had to do is comply because Schwartz insists to be knowledgeable in these matters and if he felt that he could substantiate his prior art in a lawsuit he would have proceeded full force while ignoring me because he would have had no risk.

 

Instead they used banana peels to misrepresent the fact that they were informed of the patent pending which would have made any such offer an infringement retroactive when patent is issued even if no damages could be collected for those it would have been an infringement if so found. enough for injunction,

 

In any event I can prove now that all they had to do is either submit prior art or comply and that they resorted to a series of maneuvers to attack me from all corners of the globe as he offers to do again.

 

Compliance and not defiance was expected either prior art was submitted or they could have proceeded if they felt that had no risk as my patents were groundless. Instead they chose to start the threads by insisting that the prior art was submitted and all the misrepresentations about the knowledge of who I was etc etc.

 

In the same manner that Mr. Schwartz knows that prior art is not something that after you represent to have must submit or not blame the requestor he must know that Before you accuse someone of braking into your computer you must have proof and that he offered such allegation coupled with assurances of the self destruction of my product and after patent issue admits here that as a result of his threads a client contacted him to say that he was in need of service and to which Schwartz suggested that he get a refund instead he cannot come here and tell me that the rules stated in the cover of My patent amount to interference when they all gathered in connivance to try to impede my rights, He had the patent application # and could have done so lawfully.

 

You say to have had a much better opportunity that I did because Marty Forshers was really hot and Lf photography was the hottest 25 years ago, therefore if you had the contacts with Newton and avedon then your product would have flourished , if not equally at least we wouldn't be looking at a picture of you and the front of a camera because in this day and age they can establish carbon copy or whatever method to determine that something is thousands of years old. That your product is a mystery until my stupid incompetence shows up is the biggest mystery after all you are qualified and I am a fraud.

 

The photographers you mentioned tested my cameras and I went out of my way to inquire about you, please give me a break because this is annoying to all.

 

Their assistants own my cameras as . from Avedons camp I have at least 3 assistants who are owners of my product and from Newton's camp I have 1.

 

I have confirmation that Helmut once had a 4 designs pack film conversion from one of his assistants long ago but all the most famous photographers who were hotter then would have jumped on the opportunity if such existed and you had the contacts as you state.

 

So please give it a rest If it existed and went nowhere is because the alleged opportunity was as still perceived by those who insist to prefer a speed graphic Or not as effective as my product as is still the case .

 

I was completely ignorant of patent law when I applied for my patents and did not expect any such interferences but Schwartz insist that he knew the process and if to this date Prior art has not surfaced then I was more than justified 3.5 years ago because with all this noise we are still looking at a picture of him and it got really old.

 

If they fulfill further threats to show their cooperation in defiance instead of compliance goes back to before the threads any further they will further prove they have agreed to cooperate as saboteurs.

 

Mr. Jones can see that everybody understands that he never had any intention to respect my patents as he represented and nobody obligated his to say that therefore as when the first one was issued he replied That he was surprised yet if he didn't feel like he should have said that why did he tell everyone to, he could have kept up his defiance in the marketplace and whatever he wanted to do anyway but he did differently and subsequently he resorted to all sort of sinuous maneuvers and that considering that

he hoped to obtain sales and the public was watching imagine what it was like when I first contacted him and I myself had no understanding of patents all I knew is that if prior art didn't exist you could file and application after a dedicated search. I did it I spoke to everyone related and did a search for publications etc etc.

 

I cant type as well when im under this " minions of us kind of tactics" they were the same from day one

and it is time to move on.

 

Thank you

One of the the auctions # where Jones bid on Schwartz auction was 2924747034

and a recent one of the Auctions where Schwartz bid on Jones auctions below:

 

Item Start End Price Title High Bidder Seller

3876263486 Feb-21-05 Feb-28-05 01:40:23 US $600.00 Polaroid J66 converted to 6x17 same vintage as 110B bluth-ent (*) razzledog

 

 

 

 

Only actual bids (not automatic bids generated up to a bidder's maximum) are shown. Automatic bids may be placed days or hours before a listing ends. Learn more about bidding.

User ID Bid Amount Date of bid

 

bluth-ent ( 620) US $600.00 Feb-27-05 21:49:29 PST

 

 

 

bluth-ent ( 620) US $600.00 Feb-24-05 22:57:54 PST

 

 

linrahr ( 5 ) US $550.00 Feb-24-05 13:28:59 PST

 

 

linrahr ( 5 ) US $500.00 Feb-24-05 13:28:33 PST

 

 

linrahr ( 5 ) US $400.00 Feb-24-05 13:28:12 PST

 

 

linrahr ( 5 ) US $350.00 Feb-24-05 13:27:43 PST

 

 

ronold1964 ( 5 ) US $290.00 Feb-24-05 12:47:55 PST

 

 

ronold1964 ( 5 ) US $211.00 Feb-24-05 12:34:30 PST

 

 

caxea ( 76) US $100.00 Feb-23-05 00:36:54 PST

 

 

hiro01335 ( 87) US $85.00 Feb-24-05 08:13:19 PST

 

 

noahgoodeal ( 230) US $80.08 Feb-23-05 08:11:37 PST

 

 

dataroach ( 44) US $43.00 Feb-22-05 14:04:11 PST

 

 

bellowsdraw ( 278) US $35.00 Feb-22-05 16:30:51 PST

 

 

mvhhr ( 77) US $33.00 Feb-22-05 07:47:08 PST

 

 

mvhhr ( 77) US $28.00 Feb-22-05 07:46:54 PST

 

 

rolleiflex55 ( 296) US $25.99 Feb-21-05 15:26:24 PST

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

while it is an unrelated product it shows the cooperation has remained unchanged since it began. I believe respect is something else and does not require a gun.Mr. Schwartz believes differently after he has given a detailed account that since the early days those claiming invention are worthy of no respect, I also believe that showing up here with the admitted purpose of inciting litigation as he just stated representing that such photo amounts to prior art and proceed to make determinations for all is again no respect. The pricing considerations placed on my product as overpriced are hardly merited from someone who resorts to publicly inflating the price of his product thru such bidding.I understand that he has shaken a lot of hands in his life but do not apreciate that he has shaken PN so many times with alarmist statements like assuring that I would brake into peoples computers therefore I respect Nr Schwartz understanding of respect but I don't believe fear is a required factor of respect but to the contrary and on which not I wish Mr. Schwartz well and clearly ask that he don't resort to further of the same

I thank God for a lot of things and for the patience to endure your defiance and insults this long.

And that thank my friends and family to forgive me for having had less time for them since .

When you first came thru with your threats your very first words were aimed at discrediting me raising doubts about my reputation"I have recently noticed that a certain member of the photograhic fraternity, supposedly well respected and known 09 12 03." and at the end of a long journey you use the same exact words"Mr. Littman, with all your apparent wealth of experience and supposed capability"

and many other such questions as to raise doubt.

 

You say that unless your coercion to force me to disclose technical info proves successful I should go away / shut up and then you have disclosed technical data about a product I was considering and if the IP was public domain because it was disclosed in the patents you still called it your own as to discredit me further, forcing me to introduce it. you have done the same with a lot of partial modifications which do not pertain to the format conversion itself.

 

After you have aggrandized yourself at my expense and proudly admit that as a result of your instigation you have managed to sprout further competitors who were PN members which in turn come here to announce their services then the admission is full circle.

 

I believe all PN members are equally important but certain that you feel to be the most Important and with the utmost authority since after you raised questions about my importance and later on coerced me with discredit into a negotiation you decreed a set of rules that you insisted all of PN should abide by as per" your opinion"I`m sure that any future action taken against ideas that do not infringe upon the rights of Mr Littman or his methods of attaining 4x5 or other formats would be met with disdain and result in appropriate action through this medium arising once again. It is for this reason that such a posting has such an active role in self regulation. My thanks to all and cheers!10 13 03" and as you "are important" and you say I am not I followed "your instructions" whenever you proceeded to give away what you said should be respected/ not yours while you pose as the owner of such IP.

 

You then used " the minions of us" as shields who reminded me that the linens were getting spoiled at the tea party to which I replied that I was under your instruction to address these matters. I did so in many occasions with precise tech data and your response was that the subject matter did not belong to the discussion you still pull out that card every time just as you presume to be a tough guy but I see that to do this you have to use the public as a shield / hide behind the banner of jubilees or the instigation you have fuelled in " the minions of us" while the little guy Unimportant me has taken you on by myself ,

afraid? not.

 

You believe you are so important as to decree rules that all of PN should follow and important enough to insist they do not apply to you, you believe to be so Important as to be the only merchant entitled to start threads offering your services in early 2003 but nobody attended so trashing me as you threatened proved a publicity you could use/ I felt differently. and as per your opinion" everybody can do things differently" but I also see that you have aggrandized yourself to have the authority to tell everyone what to do.

 

As per the rules you decreed your behavior is harassment, you assured all that you would not resort to this and you have betrayed their trust/ ask them with conviction to doubt me further unless I yield to your coercion.

 

And you reminding us that yet another person who is a member would show up here announce his services as if it were those of someone else and then you represent that he would later " ban" my rights you again prove that you have no reservation jumping the gun counting the chickens before they hatch as you have all along.

 

Listen tough guy , nothing will change with my patents nor is it ethical for you to make public determinations as have others . If any change would occur it would be announced by the proper authority. You must believe this is groundless because you refuse to land but that is about it.

the rest is defiance and instigation.

 

As far as contribution goes I tried to address tech matters in the past and you replied with insults and so I had to go on to purchase cameras to be able to prove that the modifications you and others insisted were not required were and that you would have had to implement them. In any event you told me to go away when I addressed tech matters as well. but you started it all for the very same reason.

 

You are the important person who said I have no qualifications as you have referred to everyone qualified who has preferred my product or appreciated my knowledge that in what refferes to the techinical stuff and those who need to kiss in public are believed to be looking for publicity. we know you are because otherwise after announcing you would email My IP while calling it yours you could have done so privately but no clearly these matters have landed here as a means of solicitation and coercion,Someone started a thread asking a related question recently and when he said to have contacted you the next thing that happened is he started a second thread as was your original modus operandi and that of others you have instigated.

Being that PN has a strict policy forbidding solicitation and you keep introducing products and invite others to do so as well with your instigation I invite you to respect the policies of this server .

 

I know you feel to be the most important in PN but the little guy here feels important enough to have his rights respected .

 

Thank you.

 

 

Important? why should I have to be, we learn yet another pre requisite is needed .

 

I believe it may be you who has an issue with importance because when I said store clerk you felt that was demeaning , I once worked as a store clerk while in college and had lots of fun but you made sure to remind me that I am a little guy. I am so what 5.10 is not that little . I'm certainly not scared of you and we understand that you presented all this to PN to intimidate me into waiving my legal rights as you keep demonstrating, and as to your contribution if you believe that admittedly admitting mine is the best way then offering to give it away to make yourself popular amongst freebie lovers while making me look bad if I would rather introduce a product on my own timing and choice then you say I am unimportant. lets agree if it lets you sleep better . I don't need to be important, maybe I am maybe I am not but that is not a requirement in these matters but anyone who can read know that those who have the B to tell all that they should remember that the words of others are " just words" or so far " of no value" are the ones who seek importance at the expense of others. Stop it

 

As I said rigged from day one!

You don't seem to understand much at all!

 

 

a kit with components would be " contributory patent infringement/ indirect infringement.

 

 

 

By the way, you erupted Polaroid tsunami In September of 2003 flooding PN with your rigged presentations while telling all that the value of my word and product is just words or smoke and mirrors , and What I see is that you have gone to extensive connivances to rig the value of yours at my expense and the shill shill after you tell me to shut up while admitting that My ideas were the best way then apparently you believe such journalistic achievement is well merited / free of conflict of interest and well deserved.

 

I am glad to read you admit that you have recently "witnessed"

 

If we are drowning in murky wavy waters of your solicitation which have been shown to be destructive find the decency to pull the plug once and for all.don't you understand that whether you are entitled to build is one thing but I do not accept that you have questioned the value of my product using words like" overpriced" then I get to find out that you have rigged the price of what you sell and that of others while shushing everyone who would prefer my product with the aid of bullies and when I verify that you have tampered with discussions and for years making assurances as to the value of both products and when the extent or existence of prior art has been presented by you in a manner which resembles shill bidding as well

I believe it is time for you to realize that the defiance/ denial no longer flies.

 

By the way Scott , (Patrie)means republic. someone from (PN) named Scott requested my email address a few hours after you posted yet another misleading comment with your (SIC) logo earlier this month and requested printed matter on my products because supposedly his father was averse to the internet.... . I don't know if it was you but that isn't the point

 

It is very good when people realize that when someone said I would brake into their email folders they said so out of resentment and that will be very good for business.

 

Mr. Jones thank you for keep telling me to go away there is lots of " prior art" on that one

and what you did in PN as fulfillment of earlier threats and still do is interfere for the purpose of solicitation.

 

Before anything you might want to consider the concept of conflict of interest, this a website where people post opinions/ expect honest opinions you have gone to great length to show that you don't care either way and it is perfectly clear.

 

The next time you consider introducing a product you may consider that people in buisness have expenses and if consulting someone

before you proceed annoys you remember that everyone else can live with it.

 

It amazes me that after all you are still trying to have the last word while shushing me but that was your plan as admitted thruout, you have demonstrated it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

that isnt what that meant anyway.

 

but let me say that in the eyes of anyone normal there is no need for a jury to decide on whether the people who admitted to instigate these subjects into PN have done so for their own benefit while admitting that the outcome of any such discussion would have a pre determined answer. and that is then turned into a jubillee unless

a gun is fired. That is not the way things work anyway. the chips will fall where they may but people who trust these forums already have the answer, the so called instigation admitted that any outcome was rigged from day 1 as they have so have their supporters and whether anyone made anything previously does not require a firestorm

but a simple submission of prior art.

Thank you and best of luck

Allons enfants de la patrie Le jour de gloire est re venue!

After they assure you that your words are of no value they then tell you that you must reply by reading an answer from a cue card and unless you agree or you have a bigger gun and prepared to use it then you better butt off!

 

Someone tells you they have asked 3 times and you haven't answered and they still remind you I would say its a little pushy.

don't give me advice on manners.

 

Mr. Griffin Have you aggrandized your position by these actions? I see that you are now the one who believes to be holding the pan by the handle by putting me against a wall and hoping to have a direct effect on the outcome of these matters.

 

I will not be pressured further when it is clear the whole thing is rigged. thank you. Relax!

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

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.

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 !!

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

 

 

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