Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!mjl
From: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Newsgroups: net.rumor
Subject: Re: Poloroid v. Kodak
Message-ID: <9260@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jan-86 12:21:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.9260
Posted: Sat Jan 18 12:21:55 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 00:58:58 EST
References: <406@decwrl.DEC.COM> <168@rexago1.UUCP> <215@watdragon.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Michael Lutz)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 22

In article <215@watdragon.UUCP> jbtubman@watdragon.UUCP (Jim Tubman) writes:
>
>As I recall, Polariod file suit against Kodak for patent violations
>almost as soon as Kodak introduced their line of instant cameras,
>which must have been in the late 70's.  Has it really taken this long
>to get through the courts?

Yes, Polaroid did sue Kodak almost immediately (within 2 days I think).
And yes, it did take this long to resolve.  Business analysts quoted
in the local papers didn't think Kodak would be hurt all that much
by withdrawing from the instant photo market, as it's a small part
of their overall operation, and the heyday of instant photography seems
to have passed (to be replaced by such things as low cost/good quality 35MM
cameras).  The question now is whether Kodak will win an appeal eventually
and avoid paying damages.

Of course, as we're in BigK country here, you probably should take
this analysis with a grain of salt.
-- 
Mike Lutz	Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY
UUCP:		{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl
CSNET:		mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA