PDA

View Full Version : Shen-Hao 7x17



e
2-Nov-2005, 22:42
Hi All,
For those interested, the new 7x17 Shen-Hao camera is up on their website (www.shen-hao.com) with some limited specs and a couple of photos. It is pretty interesting, appearing somewhat based on the Phillips design w/rear focus knob. Too bad it is close to 4 grand but if anyone is interested I can put an order in for you. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com.

Kerry L. Thalmann
3-Nov-2005, 00:09
Emile,

The camera looks interesting. They seem to have "borrowed" design elements from both Phillips and Ebony. So, have they raised the price again? Also, any idea how much it weighs?

Thanks,
Kerry

Daniel Grenier
3-Nov-2005, 06:05
I don't know about the rest of you guys but this blatant design rip off on Shen Hao's part bothers me to no end. First, they riped off Ebony, now its Philips. Who's next? Wisner ? Lotus? Canham?

This is all too common in China: Spend nothing on R&D, rip off a good design, take the money and run. There's no way I will buy anything from Shen Hao - ever.

Roger Richards
3-Nov-2005, 06:07
I feel exactly the same as Daniel does. Dick Phillips has spent a lot of time and sweat perfecting his designs and these guys just come along and steal his ideas. I will never buy or recommend Shen-Hao because of this.

robert_4927
3-Nov-2005, 07:11
That's about a thousand more than the earlier projected price. What happened?

e
3-Nov-2005, 07:53
I spoke to Dick Phillips last week about the problem of copy-catting others designs, his in particular. He didn't seem too happy about it but seemed accepting of it as a fact of life. Last year I had my copywrited music stolen in it's exact form in Nepal. My CD's are all over that area of the world and I don't get a dime. Guaranteed it will always happen when there is a good thing out there. But I don't think Dick plans to make 7x17's anymore so at least the design will continue. If you don't think this kind of thing happens here just talk to some musicians who deal with record companies or authors and their publishing houses. The price for the 7x17 is $3700- and by the time you pay for shipping and customs and and misc bank expenses it will probably come to at least 4 grand. The world ain't perfect but at least there are people still making ULF....

scott_6029
3-Nov-2005, 10:45
I for one am glad that there are options in ULF>

Nobody has copied the Boxster? Buy a miata? A 380Z? A BMW Z4? The Audi TT? None are a Porsche, neither is a Shen Hao a Phillips. Is a Porsche Cayenne a VW Touraeg? Look similar...drive COMPLETELY differently. When the market supply cannot meet demand at a price point.....the market fills the gap. Shen Hao built a 7 x 17 because no one else can supply one new in a reasonable timeframe at that price point. Did they perhaps borrow some elements of other designs, with some twists of their own? Looks like it. Condemn it? Then we might as well condem just about everything we purchase.

Hmmm, what if I want to take a picture of a scene just like, or similar to an Ansel Adams scene? And perhaps sell it? Let's not go there.

I was looking for a 7 x 17 recently (used, hard to find). New, next to impossible, unless you want to wait 12 months to more than a year. I got lucky and got one of Phillips last 7 x 17's. It is outstanding, fantastic, can't say enough good things about it. But, the only other option was used (uncertain as to availability), or the Shen Hao....or wait 12 months to 18 months....

If I could not have gotten the Phillips, would I have been happy with the Shen Hao? My guess is, YES, because I could actually enjoy making 7 x 17's today, not a year or two from now.

At least someone will be providing options for ULF into the future....

Roger Richards
3-Nov-2005, 11:19
In my book there is a big difference between being inspired by a unique design and blatantly reverse-engineering a product to produce a direct copy without any permission, compensation or acknowledgement to the original creator. One can look at any number of similar items, sports cars included, and see many similarities. Manufacturers see some element of a competitors prodcut that they like, and produce their own version that is different enough that it adds diversity to the market. That's fine. But this rubs me raw. Everyone is free to make up their own minds on this. Just expressing my personal opinion. I have a Phillips 8x10 and do know that it would be very difficult to duplicate what Dick has done, quality-wise. Let Shen-Hao do their thing. I totally agree that it is great that someone is producing cameras for the ULF market. But It's not WHAT they have done that seems wrong; it's HOW it has been done. Because this is how things are does not mean that it is right.

Clayton Tume
3-Nov-2005, 12:24
Have to agree with Scott on this one.......reverse engineering has been going on forever. Talk to any big manufacturer out there they'll tell you their first sales of a new product line are bought by their competitors. That's a fact whether you agree with it or not.

Then they strip them and find out the secrets and try and do something similar or better if they think there is something to be gained. If the product has patents attached they try and re engineer around it.

Sorry guys.....this is a fact of life.........US and European companies have always done it. The main problem with the Aisans is blantant rip off of interlectual property........that's illegal, copying isn't.

Field cameras have design elements similar with each other, so who copied who and does it matter?

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2005, 12:30
The Shen-Haos I've seen don't make any improvements over the originals they copy. They simply use cheaper labor and materials, while cutting corners on craftsmanship, without having to pay very much for the R&D. Since the 7x17 doesn't use that much more material or labor than a 8x10, they are clearly exploiting the market by charging less than the originals but still jacking up the price to make more of a margin.

Go ahead and buy one if you like. But when Ebony, Phillips, Linhof, Arca-Swiss, and Canham are gone, don't complain.

Kerry L. Thalmann
3-Nov-2005, 12:56
I was VERY outspoken of my opinion concerning the cloning of the Toho FC-45X by Shen Hao (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503015.html#566981). In that case the SR45 II didn't just borrow "unique design elements" of the Toho, it was a blatant copy of the entire camera. Shen Hao has since copied another Toho design (the Toho FC-Mini), but made a minor change that actually makes the camera far less usable. In the effort to differentiate their "design" they ended up breaking one of it's most useful features. That's what happens when you blindly copy something without really understanding the design trade-offs that went into the original design.

While the new Shen Hao FCL717-A obviously "borrows" design elements extensively from Dick Phillips cameras, it's not an exact clone (like the SR45 II). I'm not as familiar with the Phillips cameras as I am the Toho, but to me, the front standard on the Shen Hao looks significantly different than the the front standards on the Phillips cameras. In fact, to me it looks a LOT more like an Ebony front standard. Of course, the materials used by Phillips and the quality of construction will also set his cameras apart from any imitator.

I'm a big supporter of intellectual property rights. That's why we have patents - to protect the time and money invested in bringing unique new ideas to market. Blatant copying stifles innovation and in the long run that hurts us all - not just people who own the IP.

So, is the new Shen Hao 7x17 violating any Phillips patents? Even if it isn't, does it violate the spirit of IP protection? If it borrows features and implementation details from more than one design (in this case, Phillips and Ebony) it's not technically a clone of either (like the SR45 II). So, does it "rip-off" both designs, or is it a new design that incorportates the best features of both? Does every camera designer have to re-invent the wheel, or is it OK to copy bits and peices from previous designs and put them together to make a new design that borrows heavily from all the designs that came before it. When is it blatant copying and when is it advancing the industry by combining pre-exisiting design elements in a unique way. In other words, exactly how much copying (leveraging) is permissable and how much isn't? For me, I'm definitely offended by the total blatant copying of the Toho. There is absolutely NOTHING unique about the SR45 II clone. It is a feature-for-feature, millimeter-per-millimeter blatant copy of the original in every way, shape and form. The 7x17 Shen Hao is still a copy, but it borrows from multiple designs. Does this make it less offensive than the cloning of the Toho, or should I be every bit as outraged? I'm playing devil's advocate here. At this point, I'm not making any judgements, just trying to stimulate discussion.

It is interesting that in the history of large format camera design, there are many examples of this copying of features as the large format camera has evolved over the last 150+ years. For example, some of the feaures employed by Deardorff were previously implemented by Gandolfi, and likely on other British folding cameras before Gandolfi. Ironically, the entire Deardorff design was blatantly copied in the Rajah/Prinzdorff cameras. In that case, while they may have copied the design, the quality of the materirls and workmanship was so far inferior that people will still galdly pay 5x as much for a genuine Deardorf as they will for one of the inferior copies. In these cases, I doubt there was any patent infringement. Patents typically have a life span of 17 - 25 years (depending on the type of patent, when it was granted and in which countires). It's likely that any Deardorff patents would have expired prior to the copying of the design by Rajah/Prinzdorff.

I have no idea if Dick Phillips has any patents on his unique camera designs. If he does, I have no idea what they cover and when they expire. So, perhaps Shen Hao isn't violating any Phillips patents, but they are certainly copying elements of Dick Phillips innovative designs. Even if that isn't illegal, is it a good thing or a bad thing? Given the differences in materials, the copy will always be inferior to the original (in this case). So, most people would prefer to own a genuine Phillips. But what happens if there aren't enough genuine Phillips cameras to go around. If Dick Phillips is selling every camera he can make, does having a less expensive, inferior (but still usable) copy of his cameras on the market really hurt his business? Does it matter that he has said he won't be making any more ULF cameras? Even if it doesn't directly hurt his business, should She Hao have to pay him a roylaty for every camera they sell based on his designs? What if he had planned to sell his business to someone else and enjoy a much deserved retirement? Doesn't the existence of a lower priced Phillips copy diminish the value of his business should he wish to sell it, or pass it down to his children?

I really have no horse in this race. I'm asking these questions to try to see what other people think. I'm not a camera maker, but if I was, I'd be pretty upset if I worked hard and spent a lot of money to design and manufacture a very unique camera only to have it blatantly copied by someone else who then turns around and competes with me for sales. The copying of the Toho FC-45X is one such example. Until it was cloned, there really wasn't anything remotely like the Toho on the market. With their innovative, ultralight design, they carved out a very specific market niche for their unique product - and then someone comes along and clones it. Now, there is a second, less expensive option that has the EXACT same features occupying that niche - but with a lower price. I truly belive that every SR45 II that is sold costs Toho an FC-45X sale, and that deeply impacts their bottom line. To me, that's just not fair and should not be condoned.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm just asking the questions and am curious to see what other think on this topic.

Kerry

Dean Tomasula
3-Nov-2005, 13:15
I'm really not interested in starting a war on this topic like last time, so this is my one and only post on this subject (no matter how much you beg).

Kerry makes some good points. As we all know (but some of us don't want to acknowledge) there is only so much that can be done with a view camera in terms of design. Ever wonder why they all look similar?

Anyway, just one correction to Kerry's post. The SR45-IIA is made by Seagull, not Shen-Hao. They just market it for Seagull, as they do some of Seagull's lenses.

Michael Kadillak
3-Nov-2005, 13:33
If these designs were properly patented and the Chinese or whomever to copy them, then the holder of the original patent needs to fill out the infringment forms to prevent these products from being imported.

However if they were not protected by a patent (as I suspect is the case here), then these designs are free domain and it should not concern to anyone looking at these facts objectively.

Case in point. Wisner has patented all of his technical field gearing mechanisms and last I checked, you have not seen these designs hijacked in the last five plus years. These people are not stupid and they are not going to invest in tooling to make a product that is at risk of not being able to meet its sales targets when the decision to build was made and the investment money was spent. The fact that they are using Chinese labor is not the issue here as the cameras are coming from China.

Personally, I am a global consumer and if these cameras were produced on the moon by aliens I could care less as long as the produced sharp images and the price was acceptable. Nothing else really matters. The lesson here is that if you do not protect your ingenuity in the global marketplace and set aside money to defend what is rightfully your intellectual property then you are at risk. I feel bad for Mr. Phillips and the Ebony company if these are the products that are being copied, but it is a cruel world out there.

Many can whine and compain all they want, but price is a highly motivating parameter. Will this drive domestic camera makers out of business? If they have a quality product and reputation the answer is no. But some makers will go out of business because the competition for a product within a niche market will be fierce, particularly if Shen Hao can deliver in short order. I see this as a good thing for all of us long term.

Cheers!

Bill Laidley
3-Nov-2005, 13:43
"Sorry guys.....this is a fact of life.........US and European companies have always done it. The main problem with the Aisans is blantant rip off of interlectual property........that's illegal, copying isn't."

There is an interesting article on patents and intellectual property in a recent Economist magazine. It points out that the USA shortly after its founding totally ignored patents and intellectual property from other countries. Only once the USA had developed an industrial base did it start to respect the patents and intellectual property of other countries. And of course, at that point they had patents and intellectual property of their own that they wanted respected.

This wasn't just restricted to industrial patents and intellectual property - I have an elderly set of Charles Dickens works which announces on the title page that "These are the first authorized American editions of Dickens' works". American publishers had previously printed his works without authorization, and certainly without paying royalties.

Roger Richards
3-Nov-2005, 13:43
I see that there are two ways that this is being looked at here. The first is from the perspective of the innovator, the one who invests much of themselves and their capital to develop a unique product. The blatant copying of their product is damaging, frustrating and demoralizing. The second viewpoint is of that of the buyer who cares not how a product came about, just as long as it exists for them to purchase. I believe that, like Frank said, in our small LF world the innovators will pack up in disgust as the value of their business is whittled away by copycats with no sense of value except for the bottom line.

"As we all know (but some of us don't want to acknowledge) there is only so much that can be done with a view camera in terms of design."

Agreed! But Shen-Hao did not have to copy the work of others to provide a decent product. Even if they did feel that it was necessary to include features like the Phillips rear focusing mechanism then the decent thing to do would be to come to a business arrangement. That way of doing business, especially in our field, is what I feel is worthy of support.

John_4185
3-Nov-2005, 13:52
These people are not stupid and they are not going to invest in tooling to make a product that is at risk

If by these people you mean the Chinese, then I think that's an error.

Nick_3536
3-Nov-2005, 13:52
Phillips is making use of at least one Ansco patent. The one covering backs. The one everybody else is taking advantage of. Ebony clearly ripped off the Graflok back didn't they? Notice they call it an International back to get around the rights? So why is okay for them?

"Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants"

John_4185
3-Nov-2005, 13:55
Personally, I am a global consumer and if these cameras were produced on the moon by aliens I could care less as long as the produced sharp images and the price was acceptable.

In other words, it is not an ethical issue for you. Are you a lawyer or something that we can't oursource?

Kerry L. Thalmann
3-Nov-2005, 14:09
Phillips is making use of at least one Ansco patent. The one covering backs. The one everybody else is taking advantage of. Ebony clearly ripped off the Graflok back didn't they? Notice they call it an International back to get around the rights? So why is okay for them?

Because those patents are no longer valid. They expired decades ago. Patents have a finite lifespan (typically 17 - 25 years) designed to give the innovator sufficient time to recoup their investments and make a return on those investments. They are not intended to give an innovator a perpetual monolopy.

Kerry

Michael Kadillak
3-Nov-2005, 14:15
Everyone and anything can be outsourced. As a matter of fact, the domestic anhydrous fertilizer industry and thousands of American jobs have been lost and plants virtually shut down due to all time high natural gas costs and not wages. Fact is that American farmers can purchase this product at a fraction of the costs from international producers to offset the high diesel costs that they have no options with.

And no, I do not have an ethical problem with this situation at all. Look inside the homes of the American consumers and you find products produced in the global market place for global consumers. The sooner we stop thinking in a box the better we will be as future competitors in the game of success within this marketplace.

Cheers!

Michael Kadillak
3-Nov-2005, 14:25
"These People" I am making reference to are the entrepreunerial business owners that studied the camera business and made a decision to enter this market and produce these cameras.

John_4185
3-Nov-2005, 14:27
Mr. Kadillak, would it be okay with you if my friends in China copied your work for resale? You will not be compensated, but you can bathe in the bliss of participating in the Global Economy, outside the box, of course.

Kerry L. Thalmann
3-Nov-2005, 14:31
Anyway, just one correction to Kerry's post. The SR45-IIA is made by Seagull, not Shen-Hao. They just market it for Seagull, as they do some of Seagull's lenses.

Actually, a correction to your correction. It is the SR45 II model, a clone of the Toho FC-45X, that was being sold by Robert White and allegedly made by Seagull. The SR45-IIA is a copy of another Toho model, the FC-Mini. It is featured prominently on the Shen Hao web site and is a blatant rip-off of the Toho FC-Mini design (with a different lens board, which makes the camera almost useless). Incidentally, Robert White no longer mentions the SR45 II on their web site. They have appear to have dropped it (good for them - they should have never carried it in the first place).

I'm still not clear on the relationship between Shen Hao and Seagull. There seems to be some arrangement where they market/sell some of each other's products. I have no idea if they are both subsidiaries of the same corporation, or totally separate companies.

In any case, at the very least, Shen Hao is a seller (or perhaps re-seller) of the SR45 II (they offered to sell ten of these cameras to Don Hutton) AND they feature a near clone of another Toho product prominently on their web site. AND, that is the ONLY place I have seen this particular model (the SR45-IIA). They are obviously involved in copying and selling copies of Toho products, which I personally do not condone.

The sad thing is, they don't NEED to blatantly copy other people's designs. Their biggest seller, and the product that brought the Shen Hao name to the US market, the HZX45-IIA is NOT a clone of anybody else's product. Sure, it borrows design elements from other previous designs, but no more so than just about every folding wooden camera on the market. And it combines those features in a unique combination that made it appealing to so many buyers. Too bad they chose to abandon original designs and start blatantly copying the work of others.

Kerry

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2005, 15:19
We're not going to stop the Chinese anytime soon, short of having a depression because of all the lost manufacturing jobs. Then those dasterdly Chinese wil lget their due!

Shouldn't the question be why they are charging $4000 for a 7x17 copy? For ShenHao quality that is pretty outrageous...

Dan Jolicoeur
3-Nov-2005, 16:18
"Shouldn't the question be why they are charging $4000 for a 7x17 copy? For ShenHao quality that is pretty outrageous..."

What is wrong with the quality besides your bent nose?

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2005, 16:48
They make perfectly functional cameras, but put one next to an Ebony and tell me which is worth more... when you consider their R&D and labor costs are a fraction of a Japanese or American manfacturer, you'll agree that they are, at best, "sharp."

Kerry L. Thalmann
3-Nov-2005, 16:49
Actually, at this point none of us know ANYTHING about the quality of the Shen Hao 7x17. None of us have seen one or handled one in person.

That said, even if the quality is good, they may be pricing themselves out of the market. Their maximum bellows extension is much shorter than the competition. And if their 7x17 is anything like their other cameras, it will be considerably heavier than comparable cameras from other manufacturers. So, the real question is, would you pay $4000 for a 7x17 camera with only 24" of bellows that weighs more than other brands that have 36" (or more) of bellows?

The earliest price mentioned on the 7x17 Shen Hao was $2700. This was before anything else was known about this camera. At that time, I assumed it would just be an upsized version of their 5x12 model - which meant it would be on the heavy side, but at $2700 I would certainly been willing to consider a Shen Hao 7x17 even if it was heavier than the competition. Now, at $4000 and with only 24" of bellows draw, unless it's the lightest, best made 7x17 on the market, I'm no longer personally interested.

Kerry

Michael Kadillak
3-Nov-2005, 16:59
I am not concerned the least about the compensation component in any way shape or form JJ but if it were to happen as you stated, like Emile who got his music pirated the sun would still come up tomorrow and life would be continue to be an absolutely marvelous experience as always.

Cheers!

John_4185
3-Nov-2005, 17:43
I am not concerned the least about the compensation component in any way shape or form JJ but if it were to happen as you stated, like Emile who got his music pirated the sun would still come up tomorrow and life would be continue to be an absolutely marvelous experience as always.

Yours is an interesting living philosophy that I take seriously. Of course, you are not a full-time photographer or artist, so there is a bit of wiggle-room there. You are a 'business manager", whatever that might mean. Well, anyway, it's got nothing to do with photography.

Please post all your most valuable images in full resolution, or send me the original scans in full resolution so that my associates in China can copy them. If the images are marketable, then I am sure you will see them worldwide. It the are not, then ... that's tough. Thank you for your help.

Michael Kadillak
3-Nov-2005, 18:01
I agree with Kerry that after looking carefully at the Shen Hao web page specifications this could sort itself out on its own merits. A heavy camera with limited bellows extension at this price could be a difficult task to sell any significant number of. Although it is a 34# camera, my Wisner has 50" of bellows and retailed a while back for only $400 more than what the Shen Hao 7x17 is being touted at.

I would be very interested in hearing from Emile or any other buyer when they get a chance to get their hands on one.

Cheers!

John_4185
3-Nov-2005, 18:08
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
3-Nov-2005, 18:29
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
3-Nov-2005, 18:36
"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
3-Nov-2005, 18:45
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
3-Nov-2005, 18:56
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
3-Nov-2005, 20:11
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
3-Nov-2005, 20:44
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
3-Nov-2005, 21:01
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
4-Nov-2005, 01:35
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
4-Nov-2005, 01:56
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

Marc
4-Nov-2005, 05:57
Kerry,

yes and no. They are expired patents, i.e. they hold no protection (effectively a non-patent).

On this line: until someone shows a patent number for the Philips design or the Toho the entire discussion is pointless.

On a different note, has RW dropped the "Toho copy" (can't remember the model type) because of complaints or for other reasons?

Bruce Barlow
4-Nov-2005, 06:00
See Richard Ritter's site: http://www.lg4mat.net/, and his camera pictures. Richard's camera will have user-interchangeable backs and bellows to accommodate multiple ULF formats. I know Richard is making good progress on getting his cameras into production. As far as I know, it will be reasonably priced, too (I don't think he's settled on prices yet, because he's still getting bids on parts).

Richard started from a clear design point: how to get the weight out. I don't know what he may have borrowed from others, because I'm not that knowledgeable. Nevertheless, I know, and have faith, in Richard as an honest craftsman dedicated to servicing his customers. He lived through the long-ago Zone VI camera debacle, and never wants to do THAT again.

I have no financial interest in Richard's camera-making. We do teach workshops together, and I keep him supplied with brownies and M&Ms when I can. We hope to have his video on LF camera repair out soon.

Ed Richards
4-Nov-2005, 06:06
> 7x17 version of their 5x12 model they would probably have a run away best seller

Let's see, is that 10 or 12 cameras? LF is a hard niche for patents - they cost a lot now, and enforement costs a lot more, and takes time. If the infringer is a big company with plenty of US ties, it can be worth it. I suspect that the ULF view camera world does not sell enough cameras in the US to make it worthwhile to patent much. If you do not patent, you have no protection, but you can still make money by providing a better product/service. I doubt patents would make much difference in this battle - if the Phillips design were protected by patents, others could make perfectly good cameras with older design elements. While these might have slightly reduced functionality, a lower price would make that unimportant for many people. Copyright, OTOH, requires no legal formality to register, and if you want full rights, you can do it yourself for almost nothing. So your pictures are protected as soon as they are printed, but your camera will take a lot of expensive legal work to protect.

Kerry L. Thalmann
4-Nov-2005, 12:04
Marc - On this line: until someone shows a patent number for the Philips design or the Toho the entire discussion is pointless.

I respectfully disagree. As I stated above, even if there is no patent infringement, it matters to me. I have a personal choice to make, and I choose to support the innovator, not the imitator. Why? Because I value innovation more than I value imitation. It's really that simple. If we throw out all the discussion about patents, copyrights, etc. it all comes down to personal choice. And that's why we are having this discussion - to debate the merits of buying certain products above and beyond the legalities involved in manufacturing and selling those products. I choose to support the innovators. Otherwise all we'll have left is imitators, and then who are they going to imitate?

Marc - On a different note, has RW dropped the "Toho copy" (can't remember the model type) because of complaints or for other reasons?

I have no idea. Back when that thread was ongoing, I did a Google search and found several complaints about the quality of the Chinese made Toho clone (that was also sold briefly by Badger Graphic as their M2 model). Most of the complaints had to do with light leaks and bellows coming detached. Also, both Badger and Robert White readily admitted the build quality of the Chinese made Toho clone was inferior to the genuine Toho product.

Which is another reason I buy from the innovator rather than the imitator - the originator of the design will understand the intricacies of the design much better and therefore build a better product - even if the materials and design are the same. As the originator of the design, I also suspect they will take more pride in the assembly, fit and finish and overall quality of their product.

My comments here with regard to fit and finish and quality of construction are specific to the genuine Toho FC-45X vs. the Chinese made Toho clones. I have not seen one of the 7x17 Shen Hao cameras in person, nor read anything about the quality of construction from anyone who has. To comment on its quality at this point would be unfair and premature.

Kerry

Kerry L. Thalmann
4-Nov-2005, 12:24
Me - 7x17 version of their 5x12 model they would probably have a run away best seller

Ed - Let's see, is that 10 or 12 cameras?

Which is certianly a lot better than 0 - 2 (or what ever made up numbers you'd care to discuss). Why go to the trouble and expense of designing an expensive, ULF camera and then shoot yourself in the foot? My point was that a 7x17 version of their 5x12 would have been a lot less expensive to design and build than a completely new (to them) design. The 7x17 version of their 5x12 could have used the same basic design and shared most of the same components. They would have had to design and fabricate very few new pieces - thus keeping costs down. The camera could have sold for less and they would have gotten it to market sooner - both resulting in more sales. As it is, instead of a heavier-than-average 7x17 camera with limited bellows draw for $2700 (the original price quoted when first asked about their rumored 7x17 model), they now have a $4000 heavier-than-average 7x17 camera with limted bellows draw. And they would have had none of the controversery and outrage from loyal Phillips owners seen in this thread. It seems obvious to me, that a $2700 7x17 version of their 5x12 would have been a better seller than the $4000 version that borrows heavily from Dick Phillips' design. But, I could be wrong. I just know for me personally, I was seriously interested when I though they were going to offer a $2700 7x17 version of their 5x12. Now that I've seen what they are actually selling and the actual selling price, I am no longer interested in buying one - but that's just my own personal choice.

Ed - LF is a hard niche for patents - they cost a lot now, and enforement costs a lot more, and takes time. If the infringer is a big company with plenty of US ties, it can be worth it. I suspect that the ULF view camera world does not sell enough cameras in the US to make it worthwhile to patent much.

I understand what you are saying and agree 100%. However, that wasn't my point. For me, the decision comes down to my personal value system and my personal budget. We can argue about patents and IP rights all day long, but in the end, it's my personal values and the capacity of my wallet that have the biggest impact on my decision of where to spend my LF equipment dollars.

Kerry