A friend of mine who did some wading into the shallow end of the Polaroid patents, came the conclusion that Polaroid had patented the process of osmosis, which was the basis for their claim. He was astounded that Polaroid won the case.
DagT wrote: >That was a Patent issue. Polaroid had some very general patents. > >DagT > >Den 14. jul. 2006 kl. 19.07 skrev William Robb: > > > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "graywolf" >>Subject: Re: A weird little story of Copyright >> >> >>That gets into some strange territory. Copyright in most countries >>protects your image (the photo) from commercial use by others. The >>painting is clearly a derivative work. In some countries derivative >>works are not allow without permission, in others they are. Even the >>courts do not seem to understand the copyright laws. It is clear that >>copyright (USA) does not protect ideas, only the results of the ideas, >>but in some cases the courts have ruled as if the idea is protected. I >>have no idea what the specific laws say in your country. >> >>Interstingly, and a bit closer to home, Eastman Kodak managed to >>run afoul >>of Polaroid's instant print process, not because they copied the >>technology >>(they didn't), but because the court agreed that Polaroid had claim >>on the >>instant print concept. >>It cost Kodak close to a billion dollars in late 1980's US currency. >> >>William Robb >> >> >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > > -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
