Well, it is reasonable to use white light to expose the green (magenta) layer. A fogging bath can be used as well such as the E6 reversal bath. So there are quite a few ways to do the final process. And, this leads me to the next answer. It is illegal to give false or misleading statements, but at the time the patent was written, the K-14 process was over 5 years from release and E6 (in the companion patent) and the color papers were several years from release. Look at the date on the patents for confirmation.
AFAIK, CD-6 was never tried or seriously considered for C-41. It was not active enough and did not give dyes with the proper hues. Generally, you want broader dyes for negative films, and narrower dyes for films being viewed by the human eye. This goes to polarity of the developing agent, and the activity of the developing agent.
And, this brings me to the next item. Ever hear of typograpical errors? I have several of my own patents with re-releases correcting typos or correcting outright errors in transcription. In fact, why are the 6 MSDS sheets in error? Or are they? Is Kodak doing something with the developers? IDK. I have been out of this loop for nearly 20 years! But the data is conflicting in nature.
Now to the last question above, I think.... It is possible to "develop" a generic Kodachrome process using B&W film. I have discussed it elsewhere. I suggest a tricolor camera or 3 exposures (R/G/B - Wr 98/99/70) on B&W film sheets.
You process each sheet to yield a positive, but the second developer should be your respective C/M/Y developers for the respective R/G/B exposures. When mounted in register, this should give you a faux Kodachrome or ersatz Kodachrome that can give you an idea of where you are in the process. Once there to your satisfaction, you can then dash off a test roll of Kodachrome. You will probably be in the ball park. Color balance will be off and density will be off, but it will be recognizable. One person here has done it and has posted their result. It was not bad all things considered.
There always is such a "but". Or a proviso as the ones quoted.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Which makes it very hard to do something illegal, like giving false information, in a patent. Doesn't mean that they contain correct information.
It's all about business, making money. About protecting your ideas, your investment, your market opportunities.
Taking my comment out of context is rather a low blow.
Originally Posted by Q.G.
I said that typos can take place and the patent was filed while work was still going on leaving room for changes. You can see that in the fact that the final film used the new hardener instead of the old one and allows for a higher process temperature without a prehardening step.
Ethical business practices, a course we were required to take at Kodak upon joining the company, gave us a good view of just the thing you infer always happens.
As it is, I wrote that patent personally from the lab notebooks and data of the individuals who worked with us. I was in the lab and worked with the technicians. However, since it was over 30 years ago, I don't remember the details and no work was done on Kodachrome since the early 80s.
Therefore it is easy for you to be an armchair critic and beat up on patents, but I would say that the phrase that is more operation is this one....
The patent must be sufficiently clear that it can be replicated by one skilled in the art. I am and therefore I could replicate it from the ground up!
No. I can't.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
One other thing first: not a blow, not an 'attack', not 'beating up', or anything. Far from it.
I do not doubt for one second that you and your coworkers wrote the patent true to your conscience.
It is just a recognition of why patents exist. And of what patents are.
And it is not to share science that patents exist; scientific periodicals exist for that.
Patents are business tools. A patent's reason for being really is to prevent competitors from doing stuff you do not want them to do.
And as far as being correct goes: why, look (again) at what you write above! The patent text does not (!) describe the actual 'embodiment of the invention'.
So even though "the patent must be sufficiently clear that it can be replicated by one skilled in the art", someone who is couldn't recreate the product from it anymore than i could.
Unethical? Why would it be?
A patent describes a new concept. It does not have to tell all the practical details, as long as it makes clear what the new idea is.
Someone skilled in the art will have to be able to replicate the research and possibly hard work that turns that idea into something that works. It does not have to spell out the exact way you, the inventor, have turned the concept into a usable product.
And being ways to protect investment, and not contributions to scientific discours, noone expects a patent to be a user manual, or a step by step guide.
Being vague, not providing an how-to guide, not letting the competitor know how to turn an idea into a product, is not the same as deceiving.
Did you, any of your co-workers, or the company feel compelled to withdraw the patent and file an updated patent text?
Were the two Leo's dishonest/unethical when they mentioned "certain modifications", or that the patented idea was by no means limited to the embodiment they described in the patent text? Or were they (of Kodak's patent attorney) just clever businessmen?
I think the latter.
You may be confusing trade secrets with patents. Actually, what was described in the patent will work with Kodachrome film. So, having settled that, we now get to differences. It may be that the speed is higher or lower, grain is worse, or whatever. It will work. As for updating, this is not necessary, but has been done. I have several pages of updates just for my patents. Some were only updated in England, France or Germany due to misprints or errors in translation.
The bottom line is that the patent as described must work as described. It does. There are no caveats.
However, if we changed K-14 from that date onward, it would take one skilled in the art to modify it to match current production. And, it would take no modification of the patent to take this into account due to law and wording. So, to one skilled in the art, this is a user manual and a step by step guide to the status and modus operandi of K-14 in 1970, several years before release, and observation of results in this process of current production would tell me where I had gone wrong.
This is why I believe that you have misunderstood the situation.
I spent 1 year in the Kodak patent department and was asked to get a law degree and move to that dept. permanently. During that year, I believe I wrote about 100 or so patents under the guidance of the attorneys who were my mentors. I turned the offer down, and moved on, but I learned a lot about how to write, understand and interpret patents. I also learned a lot about the law involved.
So, I'll ask another question... Actually 2. How many patents have you written? and... How many patents do you hold? Or maybe a 3rd.... Are you a patent attorney?
You see, I have spent a lot of time just researching patents for background references and language, studying them in detail so that I can develop the language of the new "art". I wrote patents, but I was not allowed to write claims. These were the province of attorneys trained in their writing.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ron I just want to thank you for all the info you provide. I read your post often and they are always filled with great info!
Plus as a dedicated Kodachrome and Kodak user I enjoy the insight to the company that has provided me with most of my film for 30 years.
Last I would love an E-6 version of Kodachrome I hope Kodak is working on this but I will not hold my breath.
Again Thanks! Jim
A patent should describe the best known practice at the filing date - nothing more or less. The patent owner then may proceed with the development and may keep the improvements as a trade secret, or a competitor may work out a substantial improvement over the first patent and file this on his own - which then may cause troubles for the original owner as he can't use these improvements, while the competitor also couldn't use his own new patent except for blocking the owner of the older one. But the general public profits from patents in the way that the knowledge is disclosed - if only scientists and scientific writers would have a closer look also in these sources and not only in peer-reviewed publications which may be quite vague in the field of photographic technology!
I am sure that someone skilled in the art will be capable to re-build a Kodachrome-type film from the specific patents and the general knowledge in photographic technology, to obtain an even improved product, to ensure a certain compatibility to K-14, within a reasonably short time (Konishiroku and Fujifilm engineered their first color reversal films from the original Kodachrome patents), but would this make sense in the commercial aspect? The burden of Kodachrome appears to have been not the excellent film quality, but the complexity of processing and the need of dedicated labs.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Rather patronizing, don't you think?
I'll drop this, after letting you know that i know my way round patents pretty well, yes. Know too why they exist, how they are used. Don't you worry!
I think Heinz summarizes the position very well and does it without appearing to be patronizing.
You might have a point here. However, a patent is, under legal theory, a "teaching" document. To be valid a patent must be "enabling" which means that to be valid a patent must teach enough about the invention to enable someone skilled in the art to reproduce the invention. If a patent is deliberately misleading or incomplete then it can be challanged and the courts may rule that it is "unenforceable."
Originally Posted by Q.G.
Furthermore, a patent is supposed to also teach the best way to do the invention described in the patent. There have, in fact, been patents that have been declared unenforceable because they did not teach the best way to do the invention. Of course, this would mean the best way to do the invention as understood by the inventors at the time of the writing of the patent.