• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Polaroid to Sue Fujifilm

I never knew that Polaroid held a patent on square prints with white border...

Maybe Fujifilm should put two notches on the border so it's different from a Polaroid.
 
A joke... a company that shits themselves on royalties sues another company just for that.
 
... and for only $3M per year. That's barely lunch money!
 
Maybe Fuji can hand over all their Pack Film machinery as a settlement.
 
Yes, exactly what we need right now! Pointless arguments in a very debilitated industry.
Even people nowadays call instax cameras Polaroids, it seems like a very petty discussion to me from Polaroid tbh.
 
If the image has a wide bottom, it is patented for the pod which contains the developer. Of course, this is true for all instant which must have a pod. I would think that these patents had expired.

PE
 
To be fair, the patent has long expired. And you can't patent something like the look of a border. What they're attempting to sue over is trademark and trade dress infringement, which has a considerably longer life than a patent.

In any case, it might be hard for them to claim damages which are necessary in trademark cases, since Polaroid probably owes a lot of their recent success to Fuji. That, and didn't the Impossible Project just buy Polaroid? Apparently they didn't think it was trademark infringement a year ago when they were making film for Polaroids under their own brand. Or were they paying royalties for that? In any case, I'm sure Fuji isn't too worried about it.
 
This is not a look, but rather a necessity of building an integral film pack. The pod has to go somewhere, and Polaroid has a plethora of those patents. If any is still active, then they may try to use it. IDK.

PE
 
The necessity of the pod creates the resulting look, and if the Trademark Office gave it a trademark, Polaroid can sue--whether or not they will be successful remains to be seen. For trademarks to be valid they have to be closely associated with the purchase of the product (at least according to the trademark attorneys that I've spoken with).
 
Photo Engineer said:
This is not a look, but rather a necessity of building an integral film pack. The pod has to go somewhere, and Polaroid has a plethora of those patents. If any is still active, then they may try to use it. IDK.

PE
Click to expand...
I was still working on the Kodak Instant Product when the Polaroid patent dispute heated up. I don't remember us being worried about the use of a pod (after all, the peel-apart product had used pods for years). The major item I remember us being worried about was the use of crowned rollers to control DLT thickness.
 
how can a company that doesn't exist anymore sue another company?
when polaroid went bankrupt did citi retain their patents ?
i know the i have bought batteries that last about 15 minutes that have a polaroid name on them
they were alkaline .. and real junk, eveready ( with the cat running through the 9 ) or RayOvac would have been
a better choice .... still, i should have bought the gold and black ones made by chdgrunt, they were much classier !

its like burger chef suing macdonwalds because they invented the happpy meeal
 
First, Poloroid does exist as a company, just not the company we think of as Polaroid. The assets, including trademarks and IP, we bought by Tom Peters. He's now out of the picture (after a stint in jail), but the brand (and company) live on. The brand is seemingly licensed to any and all types of crap electronic goods.

As I read the article referenced by the OP, the infringement suit is based on the square within a square look, not the underlying technology of the chemicals or the way they are stored within the white border.

However, I clearly remember producing square prints with a white border in the mid-60s from 620 film. Maybe, if Polaroid wins, I'll sue Polaroid. Of course, I remember seeing "square within a square" prints in my parents photo box. Those were taken in the 50s so maybe they'll sue me.
 
mgb74
thanks for the info !
i remember peters owned it ( citi, right ? ) and i remember he bankrupted them,
i wasn't aware that he was the guy who still owned them and licensed the name on all the batteries
( i knew better to buy anything else labled polaroid ! ) i shouldnt' have bought.
when i was enlarging 6x6 images on square paper i guess you could have sued me too
 
I think it is very doubtful that a trademark for a "square within a square" will be upheld. You can get a trademark or patent, but that doesn't mean it will hold up to scrutiny.
 
BAC1967 said:
Maybe Fuji can hand over all their Pack Film machinery as a settlement.
Click to expand...

Fuji destroyed the pack film machinery. Those people who went from Europe to Japan to convince Fuji to restart production or to sell the machinery discovered that it no longer existed.


jim10219 said:
To be fair, the patent has long expired. And you can't patent something like the look of a border. ...
Click to expand...

Didn't Apple patent the trashcan image?
 

Yup, Impossible Project bought Polaroid, and yup they owe all of their success to Fujfilm for resurrecting instant cameras/film.

This is going to destroy a lot of goodwill towards Impossible Project / Polaroid
 
Ste_S said:
Yup, Impossible Project bought Polaroid, and yup they owe all of their success to Fujfilm for resurrecting instant cameras/film.
...
Click to expand...

I see it the other way around: Dr. Land and Polaroid created the first instant film, the first pack film, and the first integral film. This created the market that Fuji entered. True, Fuji kept instant film alive until Impossible/Polaroid Originals revived the old Polaroid process (somewhat less than perfectly, but from a Polaroid plant and equipment). The market was always there for instant film, Impossible/Polaroid Originals owe Fuji nothing.
 
It is not a square within a square! It is a square within a rectangle or variations thereof.

PE
 
Ste_S said:
Yup, Impossible Project bought Polaroid, and yup they owe all of their success to Fujfilm for resurrecting instant cameras/film.
This is going to destroy a lot of goodwill towards Impossible Project / Polaroid
Click to expand...
I agree, this is very stupid of them and counterproductive in the current state of the industry.
 
jnanian said:
how can a company that doesn't exist anymore sue another company?
when polaroid went bankrupt did citi retain their patents ?
Click to expand...
This is a new entity with Impossible as core. And this legal cause is not about patents.
 
AgX said:
This is a new entity with Impossible as core. And this legal cause is not about patents.
Click to expand...

It is about attorneys making money.
 
I rather see it as an Impossible thing: taking but not giving.
 
i guess business is business ?
its not the first time from what i remember
that fuji has taken ... didn't kodak sue them decades ago
for something similar ?
it would be much better if there was a worldwide image making materials conglomerate
then it wouldn't be impossible for them all to get along
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register