Shen-Hao 7x17

[John_4185]

Dan Smith jj, there is a big difference in using designs that are out of patent protection and in using ideas as compared to using a copyrighted expression of an idea(the original photographic work).

Yes there is a difference Dan. If I have erred in this regard, please show me.

However I was speaking in particular to the post that Michael Kadillak made which espoused wide open opportunism regardess of consideratiions of intellectual property. We have to take the man at his word. His statement clearly permitted theft, as we know it. Please re-read it and if I'm in error, please show me.

[Marc]

Kerry and jj in particular,

If the Toho and the Phillips cameras are protected by patents, then there is an issue. Otherwise, I am afraid they are fair game. No patent (or an expired patent), no protection. That is what IP is about. Case in point is e.g. the Tessar lens, which is used to great effect in numerous lens designs.

How many people are complaining about the Wista being a (inferior) copy of the early Linhofs? Or the fact that Ebony is using Linhof's lensboard design. Or the fact that Ford was using Daimler's and Diesel's IC engines.

Yes, it is annoying that someone copies a particular feature of a camera or even runs an almost identical copy. But unless someone shows the patent number and the fact that they are valid where I would buy the camera, tough.

Just my 2p.

[sanking]

"However I was speaking in particular to the post that Michael Kadillak made which espoused wide open opportunism regardess of consideratiions of intellectual property. We have to take the man at his word. His statement clearly permitted theft, as we know it. Please re-read it and if I'm in error, please show me."

You have mis-represented what Michael Kadillak said. He made it very clear that if a person has intellecutal property rights that are subject to protection he/she should take steps to patent those rights, or protect them in other ways. This attitude does not espouse theft, as you suggest, but encourages people with designs and ideas to protect them. If you do that you may not be protected in some parts of the world from patent infringements, but you will be protected in the USA. Assuming you can pay attorneys to protect you of course. It is not theft to adopt designs and concepts that are not patentable or that can not be protected in other ways.

[Michael Jones]

View cameras have evolved over the last century. As materials and methods change, so do the cameras. Notwithstanding the blatant theft of the Toho camera design, even that design has some roots in the Galvin and Gowland cameras from 25 years ago. How about the Littman? He says it’s patented, but it sure looks like a Polaroid with gg back. I don’t condone theft of intellectual property or design, but true originality is a scarce commodity in camera design and photography. Incremental improvement and evolution, not revolution, is the norm.

mike

[John_4185]

Sandy King You have mis-represented what Michael Kadillak said. He made it very clear that if a person has intellecutal property rights that are subject to protection he/she should take steps to patent those rights, or protect them in other ways. This attitude does not espouse theft, as you suggest, but encourages people with designs and ideas to protect them.

Thank you for the nudge in the right direction, Sandy.

It remains that the Chinese copy without regard to patents and copyrights and I believe that Michael's statement, as made here in a stand-alone paragraph, still supports such theft. If he were to make an expicit disclamier, then the matter would be settled.

[clay harmon]

One more thought here.

If you feel that someone on the opposite side of business transaction is not playing fair in some way with others - maybe doing something that while legal still may not feel quite 'right' - you should exercise your prerogative as a free agent to NOT enter into the transaction just to save a few bucks.

First, it feels like the ethical thing to do. Why do anything to encourage or enable bad behavior?

And second, as a practical matter, if someone is so cavalier about 'borrowing' ideas from a third party (for example) why would you expect this business to treat you fairly and ethically in some other sort of dispute or misunderstanding that might arise? Say a warranty issue or something like that? There is an old proverb that says something along the lines of 'If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.'

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Marc - Case in point is e.g. the Tessar lens, which is used to great effect in numerous lens designs.

I addressed this above. Patents, by design have a finite lifetime. The Tessar is the most copied design in the history of photography - but none of those copies were brought to matket until the original Zeiss patent expired 85 years ago.

Marc - How many people are complaining about the Wista being a (inferior) copy of the early Linhofs? Or the fact that Ebony is using Linhof's lensboard design. Or the fact that Ford was using Daimler's and Diesel's IC engines.

Again, why would you expect people to complain about patents that expired decades ago? The original owners of those patents were protected for the lifetime of those patents, which gave them a fair chance to recover their investment of time and capital. That's how patents are supposed to work.

One thing that clouds this particular issue is that the whole concept of IP protection is new to the Chinese culture. Until a 1984, there was no such thing as patent protection in China. In terms if IP protection, the Chinese still lag behind most other industrialized nations. In addition to the issue of when ,there is alo the issue of where a particular patent was granted. For example, if a design was patented in the US or Japan, but not China, it may not be illegal for a company in China to copy that design and sell those copies to the domestic market - however, if they try to sell infringing products in the markets where the original designer holds a patent, they will be barred from doing so. As the global market has expanded, protecting IP has also gotten more complicated.

Kerry

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Clay - If you feel that someone on the opposite side of business transaction is not playing fair in some way with others - maybe doing something that while legal still may not feel quite 'right' - you should exercise your prerogative as a free agent to NOT enter into the transaction just to save a few bucks.

Bingo! I couldn't agree more. To me, this issue goes above and beyond the letter of the law. It comes down to personal ethics. For example, I would NEVER buy one of the Shen Hao Toho clones just to save a few bucks - regardless if it infringes any patents or not. I chose to support the originator of the design. By supporting Toho, I am hopeful that they will continue to innovate and bring new products to market. I also believe, as the originator of this unique design, they deserve my support and my money when I am buying a camera they designed - even if it costs a couple hundred dollars more. Given the way Shen Hao bungled their copy of the Toho FC-Mini, I don't expect them to provide any significant innovations in the area of ultralight monorail field cameras anytime soon. Also, it doesn't hurt that the Toho has a significantly superior build quality than the Shen Hao copy. Even those who have no issue buying a blatant copy, might consider they are also sacrificing quality to save a few bucks.

While I haven't completely ruled out ever buying any Shen Hao products, their blatant copying of the Toho designs is a big turn-off for me. I'm willing to forgive a bad decision if a company changes their ways and improves their business practices. For example, both Bagder Graphic and Robert White briefly carried the Chinese-made Toho clone. Both soon dropped these products. I continue to buy from both and recommend them to others. They made a mistake (IMHO), but saw the error and corrected it. I hope Shen Hao does the same.

Kerry

[Struan Gray]

I can see where Micheal is coming from. A couple of times I have looked into patenting things I have discovered in my lab, only to be told by the patent agents that defending any such patents would be too costly to make it worthwhile. I live with the fact that my ideas are in commercial products without reimbursing me. That's the law and there are arguments both sides: look at how corporate America is extending copyright every time they see their back catalogue revenue threatened - I believe strongly that patents and copyrights should run out and not be permanent.

But. As a consumer I get to choose who to support with my money, and Shen Hao are getting less and less likely to see any of it every time they do another ripoff. It may be legal, but pissing on people like Dick Phillips and the staff at Toyo is no way to win my cash. The stupid thing is that they could be raking in the money making conservative tried-and-tested models for a reasonable price, just as they were doing in 4x5.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

The stupid thing is that they could be raking in the money making conservative tried-and-tested models for a reasonable price, just as they were doing in 4x5.

Yep, if they would have just introduced a $2700 7x17 version of their 5x12 model they would probably have a run away best seller. Their costs would have been lower- as it would have shared most of the HW with their 5x12 model. And they would have avoided all this controversy - and that is a camera that I personally would have been interested in buying.

Kerry