DR5 getting published?

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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'.

Dr5's DMax for Scala 160 is 3.21 which is not very different from what Adox gets using its reversal toolkit. And for the original Scala 200 film, Dr5's DMax is 3.05. Where is it getting into absolute DMax territory?!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

More than likely, and if I were they, I'd be trying to sell the process to another lab. If it involves not-practical-for-hobbiest equipment, then this is the only way it would be carried on. Or they're trying to simply find a buyer for their equipment and client list...presumably they'd take over the lease, buy their building...operate in place. I'd consider offering it if it could be done in a Jobo ATL, but I'm guessing it involves re-exposure and though you can do this with our ATL3, it's impractical for volume work.

Personally I think the B&W chromes are really neat, but 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. OTOH, that hasn't stopped me from shooting E100 as much as I can.... I just don't know. It's one of those really cool processes that you'd like to see stick around, but it's not like I'm going to give up on 510-Pyro because I can get a chrome.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

There are four B&W films available today that are designed for reversal processing - Fomapan R, Scala 50, Scala 160 and Orwo UN54. Each of these films come with either a kit or an official formula so that you can get the best results from the films without pain. So if you want to explore B&W slides beyond Fomanpan R, you have some options. You can reverse the regular B&W films too, but some trial and error is almost always needed to get decent results as might be evident from some recent threads on reversal processing.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

You can print slides. Yes, there are challenges/limitations and certainly more work is needed, but it is doable. The recent video by Lina Bessanova shows a print of one of her slides.

 

[alanrockwood]

I just started reading this thread and haven't gone all the way through it yet. However, I noticed there was some question about whether the people who own the Dr5 process now want to patent the process (which by the way, would make it publicly known.)

I'm not a patent lawyer, or even any kind of lawyer, but I do know that this gets into a very tricky and controversial aspect of patent law, specifically the question of whether you can patent a trade secret. It goes to the question of whether the invention was in public use for a certain period of time before the patent was applied for. Note: this does not mean that the invention was publicly disclosed prior to applying for a patent, but only whether the invention was used before outside of a certain time window prior to patenting.

Here is a link that discusses this question.

https://www.vklaw.com/ImagineThatIPLawBlog/best-of-both-worlds-can-you-have

It discusses a lot of court cases, and it puts the question in the context of whether Coca Cola could now apply for a patent on its secret formula, which has been under trade secret for over a hundred years. The answer suggested by the author is "no" because the invention has been publicly used for a period of time that exceeds the allowable amount of time.

I suspect that the Dr5 process, would not be patentable for the same reason, i.e. it has been publicly used for too long to allow it to be patented.

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

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.

How this is interpreted in specific cases can be complicated. Where I used to work we had to be careful to avoid the possibility of invalidating a patent application under that doctrine. This is something that our patent lawyers and patent agents were careful to explain to us. For example, if we developed a medical laboratory test that we intended to patent we had to be careful to not offer it as an orderable test before the patents were applied for. When I say "orderable test" I don't mean that the method would be disclosed, but only that the invention would have been publicly used before the patent application was submitted. In this case, the public use would be that a doctor would have ordered the test for a patient, and parenthetically, our company would have been paid for running the test. (There were some grace periods involved, that that would not be relevant for something that had been in use for years, such as the Dr5 process.)

 

[AgX]

The sentence you quoted already in itself is nonsense.

A invention "publicly used or sold" is NOT "kept secret".

 

[AgX]

Furthermore, if one finds difficulties in getting a subject patended in one country, one still can apply for in another country that forms a major market- or production-location.

 

[alanrockwood]

The sentence you quoted already in itself is nonsense.

A invention "publicly used or sold" is NOT "kept secret".

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.

Really, I'm not making this up, and anyone contemplating patenting in the US should try to understand the principle. Otherwise they may spend a lot of money in the process and come up empty-handed.

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Has Dr5 stated anywhere that he wants to patent his reversal process? AFAIK he wants some journal publications from his work but unfortunately it hasn't materialized so far.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Here's Dr5 giving his reasons for not yet making his process public.

Thanks for the link. He seems to be claiming a lack of industry recognition which is a little odd.

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

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. Ironically, it would not prevent person B from patenting the same invention, provided that person B came by the invention legally. (Stealing a trade secret would not be an example of coming by the invention legally.)

An often-cited case in the US relevant to this discussion is Egbert v. Lippmann (1884). That is not the only case relevant to this area of US patent law.

As I noted in one of my posts, my comments on this topic are within the context of US patent law. I know less about patent law in Germany or other countries, although I do know that the US has been somewhat of an outlier when it comes to patent law compared to other countries, and also that the US is gradually becoming more similar to other countries in certain aspects of patent law.

I am not entirely naive when it comes to patents. I received a number of training sessions on patents and patent law from my former employer, as well as having received many tutorial discussions on patent law from several patent lawyers during the course of obtaining several of my patents. For example, they explained to me about the Egbert v. Lippmann case mentioned above.

Did you read (or at least skim) the article I linked to?

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

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?

It was never clear to me if he ever stated he'd publish or was this a journalist in search of a story which was never fact. Did he then change his mind or was he only ever simply considering it and then decided not to because the world doesn't appreciate him enough?

Has this been yet another long thread about nothing at all?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

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.

This is very surprising, as it deviates grossly from legislation over here. I think I really have to dive into the US matter to understand this legal deviation.

 

[grat]

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.

And to demonstrate how crazy patents are in the US, ideally, have it filed by an attorney familiar with the Western District court in Texas. *sigh*

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In a nutshell is it as simple and straightforward as Tom states in terms of his reasons?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/dr5-getting-published.178237/page-4#post-2393412

 

[foc]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/dr5-getting-published.178237/page-4#post-2393412

" 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.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Any dirtbag with half a brain can reversal process b&w film, its not alchemy.

 

[Lachlan Young]

" 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.

It sounds a lot like this is what happened. I have a suspicion that it went before some proper experts with reversal processing knowledge who identified scientific shortcomings in the process - it could be as simple as it not being well optimised to produce a good effective Dmax, but rather aiming to produce absolute Dmax at all costs. Or it could be simply not original enough. 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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Well.. Wood says "30 yrs ago I came up with something unique and important to photography.. like a flower, new things come from the seeds."