[rollei_list] Re: OT: Kwannon Prototype
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:42:24 -0700
Well, the Minolta-35 according to those who worked at Minolta was patterned
after the Leica. At least Sam says so in his book. But it was the first with
the 24 x 32mm format which was subsequently used by copied by Nikon. As to
whether or not Minolta infringed on those early patents, who knows. It is
true that all German patents in their country were made available to the
public free of charge. Somehow I do not think that Canon is upset Zeiss left
them out. They have done exceptionally well and unlike Zeiss still make
cameras. You forget the stubborn Zeiss folks who would not change and
refused to use a focal plane shutter in their 1970s SLRs. While very good,
it made the lens more expensive as were the cameras and they left that
business to Canon and Nikon.
I think there are probably business reason more than the romantic notion of
revenge as to why Canon and Nikon were not chose (like perhaps they were
making enough money on their own?) and instead chose Yashica (who was
starving for business) and Minolta (who was doing well on the electronic
side of the business, something Leica may have thought would be an
advantage.
I think your view has a "German spin" on historical record. But to each his
own.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
