The problem is that 'Absolute Dmax' seems to be what DR5's Dmax claims are based off of, whereas Agfa's claimed Dmax for Scala is in line with a realistic 'Effective Dmax'.
HP5+ is one of the easiest films to reverse. Acros, TMax 400 and Adox CMS 20ii are more challenging.
Thanks for the tip. My experience of reversal black & white has been limited to Fomapan R as of now. I do however intend to do some more experimentation at some point.
I'd have a hard time justifying them when you can't really print them, few would ever see them, and you're more than likely going to be scanning them anyway.
Did you read the article I cited? A quote from it "...the courts have a long history of finding sold or publicly used inventions unpatentable even if the invention itself was kept secret." This is a doctrine under US patent law. I don't know if it applies to patents in other countries.A patent can be granted as long something as the subject is technical, is sufficient innovative, commercially applicable and not yet made public.
Reversal processing as such is no novelty, thus by having a reversal process offered nothing specific has been made public, only the final product, which as such does not reveal the subject.
I understand what the sentence means, at least in broad terms, and I gave an example of how this works from my own professional experience. More importantly the courts in the US understand how it works, though it can become sometimes be murky how or whether it applies in specific cases. The article I cited gives some more examples. I can only suggest that if you really want to understand how this works in US law then I suggest that you read the article. There are probably other articles that can be found as well.The sentence you quoted already in itself is nonsense.
A invention "publicly used or sold" is NOT "kept secret".
I'm not sure why dr5 needs to be published in a journal for it to be of interest, surely "Mr dr5" could simply put up the information on this site or another platform.
Thanks for the link. He seems to be claiming a lack of industry recognition which is a little odd.Here's Dr5 giving his reasons for not yet making his process public.
Alan, you seem to be still slow on the uptake. (Which typically is my part here at Apug...)
Let me give you two examples to show what I meant:
-) Someone invented the "hamdrive", a combination of hammer and screwdriver.
Here invention and final product are identical, moreover the invention is obvious to anyone.
The inventor already has marketed his product before applying for a patent. No patent office would grant such patent.
-) Someone invented a way to make a certain substance he markets before applying for a patent. Its molekular composition is identical to substances already on the market. The competitors all employ raffination, destillation etc. to make it. He found a way to synthesize it. Here invention and final product are split, the invention not even detectable by analysis.
These two examples show the two extremes of the range we are talking about. ,
In Germany the border between making public or not of an invention lies somewhere inbetween these extremes.
I need to join Facebook to see this and not joining is one of my sacred vows. In a nutshell is it as simple and straightforward as Tom states in terms of his reasons?Maybe Dr5 doesn't have a very high opinion of this forum.Here's Dr5 giving his reasons for not yet making his process public.
Generally speaking, under US patent law both examples you cited would be considered public use, which would preclude the inventor (let's call the inventor "person A") from patenting the invention after it had been used as a trade secret for some period of time.
You are right that the US is not the only place where someone can patent, but if they want patent protection in the US market they would need to get a US patent. In the case of Dr5 a non-US patent without also having a US patent would probably not be useful, given the fact that their business is in the US.
In a nutshell is it as simple and straightforward as Tom states in terms of his reasons?
" If the industry doesn't give a crap, then no, it may never be published."
To me, that sounds like the child who says "that's my football" and storms off with the ball because the match was not going their way.
My sense is that Wood's approach is using pre-existing building blocks (developer formulae etc) & assembling them, rather than innovating novel approaches to the formulae for higher performance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?