• 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

Photo Engineer said:
It is not a square within a square! It is a square within a rectangle or variations thereof.

PE
Click to expand...
Which has been pretty much the standard approach to matting photos for exhibits for the better part of a century. Fuji should challenge the trademark (which I'm sure they've done or will do). Much ado about nothing in my mind.
 
A patent will not reach 30 years. Furthermore there are (depending on legal system) several covers of intellectual property other than a patent. Some give even much shorter protection than a patent, others may give infinite protection.
 
generally their are three types of "Intellectual Property" (I have the term as it is inteneded to muddy waters.

patents - which last for about 20 years and give the inventor the right to controlhow makes the Invention.
Copyright - which allows an author to control who can make copies of his or her work.
Trademark, which was originally a consumer protection law. if Fred declared a trademark for "Freds Plows" then anyone who sold a plow with freds name could be sured for "Passing off" their plows as being the same as freds

Needless to say the actuall case law had made those distinctions a minefield.
 
Polaroid.. ahem Impossible is a garbage company that makes garbage products. The only way they can make money is by overcharging and suing prosperous companies.

Will definitely not buy their products now, not that I was ever interested.
 
Sirius Glass said:
It is about attorneys making money.
Click to expand...
May I point out that attorneys don't file law suits unless a client hires them to do so, So if anyone is out for the money in any legal action, it must be the client first and foremost. I don't know about where you live but in my state if a lawyer works in any other way he can be disbarred and sent to jail. But that is not what people want to hear......Regards!
 
There are more.
 
So, effectively, Polaroid (aka Impossible) are patent trolls. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks they're parasites.
 
Last edited:
1kgcoffee said:
Polaroid.. ahem Impossible is a garbage company that makes garbage products. The only way they can make money is by overcharging and suing prosperous companies.

Will definitely not buy their products now, not that I was ever interested.
Click to expand...
yep.
 
nusproizvodjac said:
I think that a patent is ''good'' for about 30 years...
Click to expand...

Without going into some of the subtleties, a patent is good for 20 years. Until a few years ago US patents were good for 17 years, and in most other countries it was 20 years.
 
alanrockwood said:
Without going into some of the subtleties, a patent is good for 20 years. Until a few years ago US patents were good for 17 years, and in most other countries it was 20 years.
Click to expand...
An interest bit of trivia, but the issue at hand is trademarks/trade dress not patents.
 

Anon Ymous said:
So, effectively, Polaroid (aka Impossible) are patent trolls. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks they're parasites.
Click to expand...

From Gulliver's Travels: [https://www.shmoop.com/gullivers-travels/part-4-chapter-5-summary.html]
  • The Master Horse is confused about law: how can laws be bad? How can laws ruin men, when they are designed to save them?
  • Gulliver explains about lawyers, who, he says, are trained from babyhood to defend anything, especially lies, so they have no sense of justice.
  • What's more, judges often prefer to agree with what appears obviously untrue, so people with right on their side may only win if they pretend that right is wrong.
  • Gulliver talks about precedent: anything that has been done before may legally be done again.
  • Lawyers like to split hairs and talk about irrelevant details to distract from the simple facts of all their cases.
  • They have their own private way of speaking, which excludes ordinary people from either understanding or making laws.
  • People in power can decide to convict others accused of crimes against the state because they have influence over the judges.
  • The Master Horse comments that it's a shame that they spend so much time training lawyers to be lawyers and not teaching them to be knowledgeable and wise.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/swift/jonathan/s97g/chapter32.html
[cemter]
Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift
Chapter V.
[/center]

I said, “there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For example, if my neighbour has a mind to my cow, he has a lawyer to prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now, in this case, I, who am the right owner, lie under two great disadvantages: first, my lawyer, being practised almost from his cradle in defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for justice, which is an unnatural office he always attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill-will. The second disadvantage is, that my lawyer must proceed with great caution, or else he will be reprimanded by the judges, and abhorred by his brethren, as one that would lessen the practice of the law. And therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is, to gain over my adversary’s lawyer with a double fee, who will then betray his client by insinuating that he hath justice on his side. The second way is for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary: and this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the favour of the bench. Now your honour is to know, that these judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their nature or their office.

“It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice, and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of directing accordingly.

“In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary has to my cow; but whether the said cow were red or black; her horns long or short; whether the field I graze her in be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what diseases she is subject to, and the like; after which they consult precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten, twenty, or thirty years, come to an issue.

“It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand, and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three hundred miles off.

“In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state, the method is much more short and commendable: the judge first sends to sound the disposition of those in power, after which he can easily hang or save a criminal, strictly preserving all due forms of law.”

Here my master interposing, said, “it was a pity, that creatures endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers, by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and knowledge.” In answer to which I assured his honour, “that in all points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession.”​
 
We ain't even pulled the plug yet and we're already fighting over the corpse.

Oh well, when packfilm died I packed it in for instant.
 

Trademarks are not time limited, AFAIK. As long as you are actively using them you will not loose it. The registration may need periodic renewal, with associated fees, though.

BTW, the term 'intellectual property' is relatively new. There is no such thing as 'intellectual property', there are government granted/backed monopoly rights, which are supposed to balance the interests of the public with those of the creators. It has gotten completely out of hand.
 
Trademarks generally last indefinitely as long as enforced. This actually makes sense as few of us would want fly-by-night manufacturers selling "Leica" cameras or "Kodak" films or "Guinness" ale, etc. It becomes a little more murky in cases like this where the original company has gone out of business and the trademark is just an asset being sold to the highest bidder. In addition, the previous trademark owner has, as far as I can tell, not made any effort to enforce this trademark against Fuji. In the US, a trademark not actively enforced is lost. For example, Bayer no longer owns the trademarks for aspirin or heroin.
 
Anon Ymous said:
So, effectively, Polaroid (aka Impossible) are patent trolls. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks they're parasites.
Click to expand...
so people seek protection for a patent, copyright or trademark
and then go to court when someone infringes on that patent, copyright or trademark ...
are trolls ??

i wonder if a photographer who sues someone for publishing work without consent or
if someone invents something like the seal inside a bottle cap, the design of a drinking straw
or the invention of cotton candy and someone else comes along and makes $$ off of their ideas
is the owner of the designs of these things a patent troll to if they seek damages for infringement ?

was kodak a troll when in the last IDK 10 years for suing apple and others for infringing on their digital image ( cell phone ) patents ??
 
Last edited:
jnanian said:
was kodak a patent troll when they sued fuji years ago for infinging on the their instant image patent?
Click to expand...
I don't remember any Kodak suit against Fuji for instant prints. In fact, Kodak traded the Kodak Instant Print technology to Fuji in exchange for some color dye couplers. That's the technology Fuji uses in it's Instax product.
 
Prof_Pixel said:
I don't remember any Kodak suit against Fuji for instant prints. In fact, Kodak traded the Kodak Instant Print technology to Fuji in exchange for some color dye couplers. That's the technology Fuji uses in it's Instax product.
Click to expand...

huh
maybe i got it wrong, i remember PE saying that IDK in the 80s or 90s fuji was involved in some sort of patent infringement
law suit with kodak ?
maybe i got the players wrong .. OOPS sorry about that
 
Last edited:
There WERE law suits - both ways - between Kodak and Fujifim over digital camera patents around 2012
 
Kodak and Fuji were involved in "something" regarding film but it was settled before a law suit was used.

PE
 
jnanian said:
so people seek protection for a patent, copyright or trademark
and then go to court when someone infringes on that patent, copyright or trademark ...
are trolls ??
Click to expand...
No. There are numerous cases where someone invested a lot of money, had a great idea etc etc and deserves to be protected. In this case though, there seems to be nothing involving innovation, intellectual property and the like. It seems to me that Polaroid just want to make some easy money without actually selling anything. Sorry, no sympathy for them.
 
Photo Engineer said:
Kodak and Fuji were involved in "something" regarding film but it was settled before a law suit was used.

PE
Click to expand...

ahh

thanks !!
i will update my post then ...


sorry i have no idea why someone who OWNS the intellectual property shouldn't be able to recoup
losses from people who .. tried to steal it from them.

its like suggesting heirs of inventors shouldn't be able to reep the benefits of their ancestors
or whoever owns the beatles catalog shouldn't be able to sue for copyright infringement because
they expended no energy inventing or writing/composing.
 
Last edited:
Wallendo said:
Bayer no longer owns the trademarks for aspirin or heroin.
Click to expand...

that is actually an outside case. The Asprin Trademark was seized by the US government as an Enemy asset in connection with WWII. Basically the same sort of action that resulted in Ansco (GAF) losing their connection to Agfa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register