Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Polaroid & Fuji Instax

Polaroid & Fuji Instax All things Polaroid and Fuji Instax

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Fujifilm vs Polaroid Cage Match!
Old 11-17-2017   #1
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,763
Fujifilm vs Polaroid Cage Match!

I don't know if you caught this, but Fujifilm sued Polaroid yesterday in federal court in New York, attempting to invalidate Polaroid's trademark and trade dress for the SX-70/600 style integral instant print. Polaroid apparently had gotten upset when Fujifilm started selling Instax Square, which looks a lot like the "shake it" version of Polaroid.

What do you think about this?

You could see this as a money grab by Polaroid, a blatant knockoff by Fuji of an iconic design, or the trial that could determine the fate of the Impossible Project.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #2
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,240
However it shakes out, Polaroid has all the rights in the world to pursue Fujifilm for infringing on their patents and trade marks.

Still, it's not going to induce me to buy either of their products.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #3
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
 
davidnewtonguitars's Avatar
 
davidnewtonguitars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Beaumont, TX
Posts: 1,392
If Polaroid owns the square, I'm calling dibs on the circle. I'm gonna be rich.
__________________
Leica M2 / 7artisans 35-f2 / Leitz Summitar
http://davidnewtonguitars.squarespace.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #4
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
Wait a minute, I'm missing something here.
1. Polaroid is upset with Fujifilm's Instax Square.
2. So Fujifilm sues Polaroid because Polaroid is upset?

If so, hope Polaroid gets sat on hard by the court. They sued Kodak over their instant film in the early 80's. They won and the much better Kodak system had to be discontinued. Hated Polaroid ever since then and cheered when they went belly up, they deserved it.

Polaroid's greed and stupidity was the cause of the decline and near death of instant photography. Kind of like the Wright brothers delayed the development of airplanes in this country by suing anyone who tried to build airplanes.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #5
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidnewtonguitars View Post
If Polaroid owns the square, I'm calling dibs on the circle. I'm gonna be rich.
The original Kodak consumer cameras (were they Brownies?) where "You press the button, and we do the rest" (after sending the entire camera back to Kodak, and they returned it with your prints and a fresh load of film) made circular images, so you might be a little late to the ball.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #6
farlymac
PF McFarland
 
farlymac's Avatar
 
farlymac is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 6,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
Wait a minute, I'm missing something here.
1. Polaroid is upset with Fujifilm's Instax Square.
2. So Fujifilm sues Polaroid because Polaroid is upset?

If so, hope Polaroid gets sat on hard by the court. They sued Kodak over their instant film in the early 80's. They won and the much better Kodak system had to be discontinued. Hated Polaroid ever since then and cheered when they went belly up, they deserved it.

Polaroid's greed and stupidity was the cause of the decline and near death of instant photography. Kind of like the Wright brothers delayed the development of airplanes in this country by suing anyone who tried to build airplanes.
So, I guess you are okay with the fact the Kodak ripped off Polaroid by stealing their formula to make instant film. Kodak got what they deserved.

PF
__________________
Waiting for the light
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #7
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by farlymac View Post
So, I guess you are okay with the fact the Kodak ripped off Polaroid by stealing their formula to make instant film. Kodak got what they deserved.

PF
Kodak's was a different system and exposed through the back of the film, the polaroid SX70 (SX, pronounced sucks) film exposed through the front, thus the need to reflect the image off a mirror to get a correct, left to right picture.
Kodak's made better images and would have been easier to adapt to medium and large format cameras but noooo, Polaroid figured the way to success was just sue all the competition and wear them out in court.
I still have Colorbrust pictures taken in 1985. Stored in the dark, they still look good.

All a moot point now. Both Polaroid and Kodak (at least the Kodak we knew for decades) no longer exist.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #8
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
Does polaroid, the ones having the patents, still produces anything like it? Are they ctively using those patents and how long are they just sitting on it, not doing anything remotly sensible with them.

Ok, not patents but trademark they abandoned, even less defendable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-17-2017   #9
Out to Lunch
Registered User
 
Out to Lunch's Avatar
 
Out to Lunch is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 5,400
For details: https://www.worldipreview.com/news/f...-borders-14933
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #10
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
Does polaroid, the ones having the patents, still produces anything like it?
Yes .
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #11
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
No, from the article above, PLR IP only marketeers the ip, they do not produce anything. But again, there is the usual muddle between trademark and ip. Trademarks loose their protection if not used or defended after a number of years. But in case of the borders of an instant photograph those borders do have a technical function.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #12
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanik View Post
No, from the article above...
Whatever the article says, that would still be "yes" in the real world. The producer of the Polaroid Originals films (former Impossible Projects) owns PLR IP.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #13
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuiko85 View Post
Wait a minute, I'm missing something here.
1. Polaroid is upset with Fujifilm's Instax Square.
2. So Fujifilm sues Polaroid because Polaroid is upset?

If so, hope Polaroid gets sat on hard by the court. They sued Kodak over their instant film in the early 80's. They won and the much better Kodak system had to be discontinued. Hated Polaroid ever since then and cheered when they went belly up, they deserved it.

Polaroid's greed and stupidity was the cause of the decline and near death of instant photography. Kind of like the Wright brothers delayed the development of airplanes in this country by suing anyone who tried to build airplanes.
First, it's not the same Polaroid. New people bought the name, basically.

Second, Polaroid's claim is to the "square format with white border." That's what they say is infringing. That's completely unreasonable IMHO. If Polaroid has dibs on square format with border, think about who else they will blackmail.

Third, Fuji's action is to ask to court to force Polaroid to drop their demand. That's a reasonable action to defend against an unreasonable demand.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #14
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by brbo View Post
The producer of the Polaroid Originals films (former Impossible Projects) owns PLR IP.
Here's a May 2017 article which quotes the very clear press release.

PLR IP is owned by the wealthy Polish family Smolokowski. Wiaczeslaw (Slava) Smolokowski is the majority shareholder in The Impossible Project.

Dante, I don't think this is a cage match. More like just typical legal skirmishing.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #15
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
Fujifilm called Polaroid's bluff and Polaroid is now going to have to defend itself in court at no small cost. Fujifilm could bankrupt Polaroid (aka The Impossible Project) with the legal fees that Polaroid is going to incur.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #16
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Fujifilm called Polaroid's bluff and Polaroid is now going to have to defend itself in court at no small cost. Fujifilm could bankrupt Polaroid (aka The Impossible Project) with the legal fees that Polaroid is going to incur.
Polaroid could simply drop the claim.

Typically, in the patent-troll lawsuits, the costs are very high for the defendant (Fuji in this case), not so high for the plaintiff (Polaroid). Too often, the defendant finds it cheaper to just pay; that fuels the patent-troll business.

Claiming the rights to square with border? That feels like a pattent-troll to me.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-18-2017   #17
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
Typically, in the patent-troll lawsuits, the costs are very high for the defendant (Fuji in this case), not so high for the plaintiff (Polaroid). Too often, the defendant finds it cheaper to just pay; that fuels the patent-troll business.
In this case, Fuji is the plaintiff. It filed the lawsuit for a declaratory judgment. Polaroid (actually PLR IP) is the defendant. Undoubtedly Fujifilm is going to inundate PLR IP with depositions and document production, and PLR IP is going to hemorrhage legal fees, which it can ill afford to pay.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2017   #18
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,763
My comments on this.

https://themachineplanet.wordpress.c...polaroid-suit/

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2017   #19
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
In this case, Fuji is the plaintiff. It filed the lawsuit for a declaratory judgment. Polaroid (actually PLR IP) is the defendant. Undoubtedly Fujifilm is going to inundate PLR IP with depositions and document production, and PLR IP is going to hemorrhage legal fees, which it can ill afford to pay.
Yes, in this case, Fuji is plaintiff.

I'm talking about the underlying case in which Polaroid is demanding royalties and would typically go to court as plaintiff to get them.

But, seriously, do you support the idea of Polaroid getting a royalty on any and every square photo with border? I think Polaroid claim is absurd.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2017   #20
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran View Post
But, seriously, do you support the idea of Polaroid getting a royalty on any and every square photo with border? I think Polaroid claim is absurd.
I haven't read their trademark and trade dress documents, so I haven't formed an opinion about who would prevail on the merits. I also don't know if the square Instax is the same size/same proportions/same border widths as SX70, and whether the Instax film requires the wider bottom border for a chemical pod. I am certain that Fujifilm researched Polaroid's IP before it finalized square Instax and felt its design wasn't infringing. I expect Fuji will go to the mat on this, that the litigation will be very expensive, and that Fuji is in a much better position to fund it than PLR IP, which will play a significant role in the outcome. Which is why it was a brilliant move on Fuji's part to be proactive and file as plaintiff for a declaratory judgment rather than allowing PLR IP to take the initiative. I am pretty sure that PLP IP thought they could just send a couple of demand letters and negotiate some royalty payments without actually having to incur the expense of litigating their IP. In all likelihood, PLP IP's response when they were served with the complaint was "Oh s**t". I am looking forward to following this.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-19-2017   #21
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante_Stella View Post
Excellent article!
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:57.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.