Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad HTS 1.5 available in U.S. market again  (Read 2097 times)
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« on: September 28, 2012, 12:49:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The patent dispute that temporarily halted the sale of the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 tilt/shift adapter in the U.S. market has been settled by a ruling in Hasselbladís favor. The HTS 1.5 is now available for purchase in the U.S.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2012, 02:14:54 AM »
ReplyReply

The patent dispute that temporarily halted the sale of the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 tilt/shift adapter in the U.S. market has been settled by a ruling in Hasselbladís favor. The HTS 1.5 is now available for purchase in the U.S.

Can you tell us more about the infringement case....
Logged
jduncan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2012, 08:28:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The patent dispute that temporarily halted the sale of the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 tilt/shift adapter in the U.S. market has been settled by a ruling in Hasselbladís favor. The HTS 1.5 is now available for purchase in the U.S.

This is great news. Do you have the source?

Thanks,

J. Duncan
Logged

english is not my first language, an I know is shows
oldmanman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2012, 03:34:02 PM »
ReplyReply

(attached documents)
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2012, 09:01:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, these documents leave not much room for interpretation. Good to see that fraudulent and frivolous litigation is not rewarded. The plaintiff appears to be a total sleez bag...
Logged
David Watson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2012, 03:53:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, these documents leave not much room for interpretation. Good to see that fraudulent and frivolous litigation is not rewarded. The plaintiff appears to be a total sleez bag...

Well I am not sure about that.  It seems to me that, given the date of the original patent (1995) there may well be a strong argument in favour of the plaintiff.  Fortunately for Hasselblad he either chose to represent himself, in part, or alternatively could not afford expert legal and technical advice.  Seems to me, rather like taking sides in a divorce, that there is an argument to be made for both sides.  In Hasselblad's shoes I may have taken the option of paying what would have probably been a fraction of the legal fees to settle. I just hate giving money to lawyers but I also agree that one should not accede to what is effectively blackmail.
Logged

David Watson ARPS
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad