Patience? OK, so how about this: monks! It must be possible to find an
enthusiast who might be in a position to convince the Pope that a new order is
called for. It's happened before... Instead of distilling Benedictine of
copying ancient manuscripts, the cloistered followers of the Rule of Saint
Philophoton would process Kodachrome and hand-finish OM-3Tis. Add a female
order and you double the workforce. A lot better than doing the laundry in
Ireland. {Phil, in need of a sedative}
On 12:30 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> And on the legal front, shouldn't intellectual property laws be
>> amended so as to forbid entities that have been selling technology
>> from negating the usage value of said technology by withdrawing
>> products from the market, withdrawing technical support and
>> availability of parts, while retaining the intellectual property
>> connected to the discontinued technology?
>
>This reasoning might apply to copyrights, but doesn't apply to
>patents. The basic patents on Kodachrome expired 50 years ago (at
>least). Anyone is free to manufacture and process Kodachrome film.
>
>There are no physical assets to take over (other than Kodak's
>coating and processing machinery). The term "Kodachrome" is another
>matter. Once Kodak stops manufacturing Kodachrome, it _should_ lose
>the right to "Kodachrome" as a trademark. But the laws no doubt say
>differently.
>
>
>> There is no such thing as forced obsolescence of a Stradivarius.
>> But there is a colossal amount of forced obsolescence which is
>> underpinned in great part by existing intellectual property laws.
>
>The copyright and patent laws have nothing to do with it. Kodak
>feels the sales of Kodachrome are not large enough to justify its
>profitable manufacture and processing. Perhaps, if they withdrew
>Kodachrome from retail sales and sold it directly, via the Web, it
>would again be profitable.
>
>The decline of Kodachrome's popularity is probably due in part to
>lack of patience -- can a professional photographer afford to wait a
>week to get his 'chromes back, when Velvia, et al., can be processed
>in a couple of hours? The fact that reversal films have become
>obscenely expensive doesn't help, either. I can get 36 color
>pictures (film + prints) for less than what an unprocessed roll of
>Kodachrome costs. That's nuts. And I'd pay $10 for the processing.
>How can slide processing cost more than printing?
>
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe:
>mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins:
>mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
>
==
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|