----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(earlier post snipped) > > > > I did say "mostly goes away", you seem to have translated that into > "completely goes away" in your post. > > Anyway, it's seven years in North America, I believe. > But how is "support" defined? > > The market is full of products that have ceased to be supported in one way > or another by their parent company. > Canon stopped making lenses for the FD mount well short of ten years after > discontinuing the cameras that used that mount. > This would certainly qualify as no longer supporting the product, but I > don't recall any court cases. > > Support could mean that they supply one, and only one film type (probably > Max 800, under a new name) to keep things nice and legal, and this is what > "mostly goes away" could mean. > > William Robb > > I agree almost completely. Film choice and outlets will be minimal. Kodak makes no pro-grade cameras so have no need to support non-existent products with pro-grade film. OTOH Fuji does make pro cameras (sold outside Japan as Hasselblads) so I would expect to see a continuing supply of pro films from them, for the statutory period of support. K or F, or for that matter Konica, Agfa, Ilford or any other film manufacturer needn't actually ~make~ emulsions for the whole period they plan to sell them. They could always crank up the plants any time sooner and lay down a stockpile. Maybe even send them to Greenland, Alaska, the Northwest Territories or Siberia for low cost refrigerated storage. Ten years is the number lodged in my memory for product support. I think I read it as the requirement in Japan, and it is the requirement for home appliances and motor vehicles in Australia. It's better than even odds that it also applies to all manufactured products. Unlike the situation in the early 1900s Australia does ~not~ lead the world in any ctizens' or customers' rights issues, so would not have chosen ten years as a support period without a foreign precedent. The Canon example can be answered by pointing out that FD mount cameras and lenses were supported by mechanical servicing including the supply of spare parts, and continued availability of consumables, whether from Canon or a third party, for the statutory period. The ability to indefinitely expand or enhance a superceded product was not the purpose of the law, simply to ensure that a product ~as it was sold~ remains useable for a period that is acceptable from a consumer POV. Companies may well vanish without a trace and leave products unsupported, but companies that want a continuing presence in the market don't leave customers pissing in the wind too many times before their future becomes history. Of course a good legal mouthpiece can make any case, the manufacturers could counter that cameras have become a disposable commodity not expected to last more than a few years. Kodak could make that claim based on its film camera offerings, Fuji couldn't. One thing that major corporations do, especially when they have symbiotic relationships like camera manufacturers and film manufacturers have, is to get a "memorandum of intent" to enhance investor confidence in their future projects. I cannot believe that a single camera maker would plan a single film camera if they did not hold a "memorandum of intent" on the future availability of film from at least two and preferably four or more film manufacturers. By the way, it just occurred to me that Minolta recently tied its fortunes to a film manufacturer. Interesting times we live in, indeed. regards, Anthony Farr
