[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kwannon Prototype
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:27:26 -0400
At 04:07 PM 7/21/2010, Peter K. wrote:
What proof do you have Peter is incorrect Marc?
I mean aside diminishing someone else comments or alleged facts.
I did not say that Peter was incorrect, Peter
K: to the contrary, he has agreed with the
historical record on many occasions over the
years on the IDCC. I stated that the cited text,
which I presume from its texture was drafted by a
Japanese national, was just a gross
bloviation. It sets out the "Japanese spin" on the historical record.
As to proof, look at a 1948 Canon and a 1948
Nikon. Then try to find any agreement between
Zeiss or Zeiss Ikon and either Canon or Nippon
Kogaku permitting their use of German patents, or
the payment of any royalties. The items speak
for themselves. If you want more, look to the
record of the 1968 US District Court decision in
New York between the Zeiss Foundation (the owner
of both the Zeiss lensworks and of Zeiss Ikon, as
well as Winkel and Gauthier and Deckel) and
Pentacon. Pentacon claimed they were permitted
the use of Zeiss Foundation patents as the
Foundation had not defended themselves when these
patents were pilfered by the Japanese, and the
Court blew that argument out of the water by
pointing out that the ACC had refused to allow
the Germans to protect their intellectual properties.
Or speak with Emil Keller or Dr Carl
Nelson. Keller was the US Army manager at Leitz
from '45 to '48. Nelson was the US
representative on the Allied Committee for Optical Reparations.
Or read my books and articles. Or read Kuc. Or
join the Zeiss Historica Society and pick up the
backfile of the JOURNAL or do the same with the
Leica Historical Society of America or Leica
Historica in Germany, and read their journals.
The record is VERY clear though the Japanese will
not acknowledge the error of their ways. After
all, the Emperor never surrendered: he just
declared "the war to be at an end" and Japan
still has to acknowledge any war guilt and
refuses to recompense injured parties such as
Korean Pleasure Girls or Allied POW's. That is
the record: I am not Japan-bashing, but only pointing out the realities.
Finally, when the Zeiss Foundation sought a
Japanese partner, they avoided Nikon like the
plague and tried to cut a deal with Asahi; when
that fell through, they linked up with
Yashica. Similarly, Leitz refused to look to
Canon as a Japanese partner but chose Minolta,
one of the few companies which had not stolen
German patents. Old memories run long: Zeiss
made certain that Nikon and Canon were left out
when it started producing lenses for digital p&s
cameras, and Sony got the benefit.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
