I spent a lot of time doing that at the time.
Originally Posted by Xmas
BTW, Polaroid had lots of 'dodgy' patents that I reviewed. One I still remember related to batteries and referred to the active material as magnesium dioxide whereas, of course, it's manganese dioxide. It tells you the patent examiner had no idea of what he was looking at.
Other Polaroid patents were of the form: 'we've patented a white wagon - now we want a patent for a red wagon' and then a follow up patent asking to patent a 'red wagon with a white stripe'. In other words, offering no real innovation (and to my mind, obvious to one skilled in the arts).
Yes, the US Patent system is (and has been for sometime) broken and doesn't attempt to evaluate patents other than looking for prior art. It leaves it to the courts to resolve things and they don't always get it right. We badly need patent reform because there are now far too many patent trolls.
BTW, did you work for Polaroid?
no I did not work for Polariod or have any involvement in any way.
I merely read some if the litigation.
Kodak were lucky that the judge assessing the damages only awarded a fraction of the claim. I was well impressed with the quality of the judgement.
But one of the patents involved the automatic or manual
ejection of a print not as you say instant photography.
One did / does not need to be technical to see that it was wilful to ignore that?
Did you work for Kodak?
I confess I liked my Kodak camera and kept it until this year only giving it to a friend as a museum display...
Originally Posted by Xmas
In fact, one DOES need a technical understanding of the patent as well as the prior art. You cannot simple take the claims of a patent as 'fact' and (as Gilbert & Sullivan said) 'things are seldom as they seem'. As I said earlier, the patent examiner simply looks for published prior art, not technical validity
I worked on the Kodak Instant System for 7 years and read hundreds of Polaroid patents.
At this point, we must agree to disagree and move on.
I had the EK100 instant camera and liked it better than Polaroid SX instant picture film. The SX had to have a mirror in the light path because the picture appeared on the front. It would have been laterally reversed without the mirror. Kodaks film image appeared on the back of the film and so was correct, right to left. For reasons of a compact profile the EK100 had 2 mirrors in the light path. But the design of the film would have allowed for a stright press camera type setup. It would have been neat to have a folder with a 101mm f4.5 Anastar lens and a Kodakmatic shutter mounted in front of this film. Expensive but neat.
I have a special soft spot for that camera because at the time, 1985, my first wife was fighting cancer and the very last picture I have of her, sitting in a easy chair with a big smile on her face, was taken with that camera. She died 5 days later. Soon after I sent the print out to make regular film copies for the family and as insurnance in case the original faded. The technology was fairly new and I wasn't sure of it's keeping qualities. In the 29 years since the camera is now long gone, probably went to a charity store when I could no longer buy film.
The closest I get to instant film now is exposing photographic paper as a negative in 4X5 holders. I can nick out, expose a couple of 4x5 DDS's, run back to the apartment, close the bathroom door, turn on the safelight, pour the chems, and hold a wet paper negative in my hand inside of 10 min. Hang the negs to dry, it's RC paper, and then contact print in a couple of hours or stash the negs for later. Not 'instant' but cheap and still fairly quick. (Yes, I've seen the 'New 55' Kickstarter project but that is way too rich for my pocketbook)
PS; Yeah, I also know you can contact print wet paper negs but I'm just not in that much of a hurry.
Sorry about your wife; I'm glad you got a great picture of her. The dark keeping properties of the early Kodak films were pretty good, but sometimes you got a little dirty smudge on the print borders around the image, I've got lots of images from that time that are in very good shape. The later films used metalized dyes with very good light fade properties, even when the prints were still damp. The Instax films use improved metalized dyes.
Originally Posted by pen s
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)