Quote Originally Posted by John Shriver View Post
No, the lawsuits by Berkey et. al. were brought on anti-trust grounds. Remember that Kodachrome isn't sold with processing included in the US due to anti-trust suits, there was a consent decree in 1955. It was claimed that Kodak was trying to monopolize film processing by bundling processing with Kodachrome.

There were anti-trust lawsuits about the C-41 process, by large labs who were blindsided by the change from C-22 to C-41. Due to the higher temperatures and shorter times, the labs had to buy new equipment. Again, it was argued that Kodak was changing the developing process just to torture independent processing labs, forcing them to make large capital purchases. Kodak was really just trying to make better film, and the matching processing.

Remember that at the time, Kodak really was the largest processor of color film in the US. (They were just a bit player in B&W.)

Remember also that Kodak did lose a patent lawsuit with Polaroid. There's good arguments that the case was lost due to the judge ignoring the technical arguments. Basically, the judge felt "Polaroid invented instant photography, so ipso facto Kodak is violating their patents, even if they have not violated any claims." Patent lawsuits are often handled abysmally by the courts, it's really a complete gamble to participate in one. (This is one of the reasons US Patent law is such a mess, and Patent Trolls are such a problem.)

(I don't know if Kodak had lost the Polaroid patent case when they decided to punt on further uses of CD-6.)

So, at any rate, Kodak was intimidated by the anti-trust lawsuits, probably particularly the C-41 one, and chickened out on using CD-6 in RA-4 and E-6. A shame.

Thank you. This answer makes sense and helps me understand what was going on that precipitated litigious action.