[W&B] How Come no Rochester Optical Patents

[Bob Kulinski]

Dave - this morning I saw a Murray and Heath sliding box camera on eBay - supposedly one of only  two M&H cameras known. Bidding was at $4200 - only 2 bidders - #1 and #2. This afternoon it has completely disappeared - not even a notice of being withdrawn - as if it never existed. Any ideas?

________________________________

From: woodandbrass-bounces at kjsl.com on behalf of David Silver
Sent: Sat 2/10/2007 11:22 AM
To: Collectors of 19th Century Cameras &Photographica
Subject: Re: [W&B] How Come no Rochester Optical Patents




Anthony and Blair were people, so any of their patents are pretty obvious.
For Kodak, well, George Eastman WAS Kodak and he kept an iron grip on any
ideas his engineers contrived, so those many patents are also obvious.
Scovill and American are more difficult, but there are common patents
under the company names.  Rochester patents, and there aren't a heck of a
lot of them, are under indiviudal names, Walker, Carlton, whatever, so you
might not see the company connection.  They're there, but yoy have to
connect some dots.  I'm sure some of the folks here who are so good at
patent research can dig out some examples.  Ehrmann, McElroy, any
comments?

Best wishes,

David Silver--President
International Photographic Historical Organization
E-mail: silver at well.com  Telephone: (415) 681-4356
Webpage location: http://www.well.com/user/silver/


On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 DColucci at aol.com wrote:

> One can find lots of patents to Anthony, Scovill, Blair, Kodak....but none
> that I recall for ROC ?  How come ?
>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4680 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/woodandbrass/attachments/20070210/0f7211a4/attachment-0001.bin