1996 Honeywell lawsuit

spiralcity · 10-11-2022, 09:38 PM - **4 Likes**

A little nostalgia.

HONEYWELL WINS $96 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MINOLTA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1992/02/08/honeywell-wins-96...-d99e872edd5b/

**Madaboutpix** · 10-12-2022, 05:14 AM - **1 Like**

Yeah, the Minolta Maxxum 7000 and 9000 AFs made quite a splash when they came out in 1985. The effect on the rest of the industry has been compared to the Sputnik crisis. I remember that the Minolta X-700 I was shooting as my first camera at the time suddenly felt much more dated than it actually was.

Quite intriguing that Minolta's success was made possible by "unkindly borrowed" Pentax technology.

**Michail_P** · 10-12-2022, 05:36 AM

Hadn't heard.... interesting !

**UncleVanya** · 10-12-2022, 06:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Madaboutpix

Quite intriguing that Minolta's success was made possible by "unkindly borrowed" Pentax technology.

Quote:

…cleared Minolta of intentionally stealing the technology.

They infringed on patents but they were judged to have not stolen technology. My guess is that their system was created after seeing the original and overlapped the patents but not the implementation.

photoptimist · 10-12-2022, 08:38 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

They infringed on patents but they were judged to have not stolen technology. My guess is that their system was created after seeing the original and overlapped the patents but not the implementation.

Indeed!

The patent system giveth and the patent system taketh away.

On the one hand, the patent holder is granted a monopoly on the production of their invention for a certain time. That gives the original inventor the incentive to invent, patent, and feel somewhat secure they can reap the profits of their efforts.

On the other hand, the patent system requires that patent applicant to reveal enough details of the invention that anyone can copy the invention. (You can't both patent an invention and keep it secret.) That gives subsequent inventors a jumpstart on creating different follow-on inventions.

**ffking** · 10-12-2022, 08:43 AM - **1 Like**

As I remember they then went after Canon and Nikon and finally Pentax. Pentax might have thought that their relationship with Honeywell made them same, but not so. I seem to remember that Nikon put up the biggest fight, showing all their original research papers, but that's the trouble with concepts - any use of it is an infringement.

Lord Lucan · 10-12-2022, 11:54 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by photoptimist

That gives the original inventor the incentive to invent, patent, and feel somewhat secure they can reap the profits of their efforts.On the other hand, the patent system requires that patent applicant to reveal enough details of the invention that anyone can copy the invention.

The patent system is completely and utterly broken.

There are companies (known as "patent trolls" and staffed almost entirely by lawyers) which are filing patents all the time (but never manufacturing any of them), written in the vaguest possible terms, purely with the intention of suing anyone who manufactures something that by any stretch of the imagination could be covered by it. These are called "submarine patents" because they pop up by surprise. In reality it discourages anyone from inventing anything or designing anything new, unless they have the power of a very large corporation behind them prepared to fight the patent troll in court. Searching for existing patents that might affect your own invention is a massive and almost certainly inconclusive task.

On the other hand, large manufacturing corporations are patenting every idea they can think of as "defensive patents". It is comical to see what some companies (Apple and Microsoft for example) do patent; Apple's rounded corners was one that happened to come to court, and about 10 years ago there was a guy who patented the wheel just to show how silly the system has become.

The attitude of the patent offices is to rubber stamp everything put before them (they are overwhelmed with the volume of it) and let the companies involved fight it out in court. I'm getting off-topic though.

**Madaboutpix** · 10-12-2022, 12:30 PM

A "cleverly implemented" Pentax idea, then? I'm not a patent layer, and I guess I should have read the WP article more thoroughly.

At any rate, the elephant in the room would seem to be why Pentax didn't exploit their great original idea themselves before others did. Was it lack of R & D resources, corporate conservativism, or did they just not fully understand what they had on their hands? (Just my wild guesses, am genuinely curious.)

But I also gather that things were even more complicated, given that Honeywell and Pentax were not the same.

**TwoUptons** · 10-12-2022, 12:41 PM - **2 Likes**

In the version of the story I heard, it was a clever Honeywell idea, not a Pentax one... and at that point Honeywell was no longer the distributor for Pentax.

That said, in the version I heard, Pentax paid up, either willingly or much earlier under threat of the lawsuit, such that it was Minolta who caught it at the end, not Pentax.

-Eric

MarkJerling · 10-12-2022, 03:09 PM

A question: The first Pentax AF camera was the ME-F, 1981. Did that use the Honeywell idea?

UMC · 10-12-2022, 04:51 PM - **2 Likes**

Well, Honeywell had been working on AF systems since the 1960ies and kept on filing patents through the 1970ies. By 1975 they had their "Visitronic AF" system ready for deployment and immediately started developing the successor, called TCL ("Through the Camera Lens") system.

I would reckon that any of the early AF systems, let it be Konica's C35AF, Canon's stand-alone 35-70 AF lens, Ricoh's and Chinon's 50mm AF lenses and especially Asahi's ME-F (and the likes of Canon, Nikon & Olympus) were "inspired" by Honeywell's research.

MarkJerling · 10-12-2022, 04:59 PM

Aha, thanks!

**clackers** · 10-12-2022, 10:33 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Lord Lucan

The attitude of the patent offices is to rubber stamp everything put before them (they are overwhelmed with the volume of it) and let the companies involved fight it out in court. I'm getting off-topic though.

Yes, unfortunately, I think patent offices should just reject clearly doomed applications by nutters, but just catalogue the rest.

They can never be funded well enough by the taxpayer to have the capability to do conciliation between parties or legal judgment, it's what consultants and the court systems have to do.

And of course, it matters which court system you go to. East Texas was/is a favourite for several reasons!

The Texas Town That Patent Trolls Built - Bloomberg

spiralcity · 10-13-2022, 09:15 AM

Well, this is it in a nutshell:

Honeywell said it disclosed trade secrets to Minolta in 1979 as part of negotiations to put a Honeywell autofocus part in Minolta cameras. Instead of completing the deal, Honeywell said, Minolta took the technology and went off on its own.

**UncleVanya** · 10-13-2022, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by spiralcity

Well, this is it in a nutshell:

Honeywell said it disclosed trade secrets to Minolta in 1979 as part of negotiations to put a Honeywell autofocus part in Minolta cameras. Instead of completing the deal, Honeywell said, Minolta took the technology and went off on its own.

That leaves out the fact the courts decided that while the patents were infringed; no actual theft of technology was involved.

10-11-2022, 09:38 PM - 4 Likes	#1
spiralcity Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chicago,IL. U.S.A Posts: 147	1996 Honeywell lawsuit A little nostalgia. HONEYWELL WINS $96 MILLION JUDGMENT AGAINST MINOLTA https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1992/02/08/honeywell-wins-96...-d99e872edd5b/

10-12-2022, 12:30 PM	#8
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,440	A "cleverly implemented" Pentax idea, then? I'm not a patent layer, and I guess I should have read the WP article more thoroughly. At any rate, the elephant in the room would seem to be why Pentax didn't exploit their great original idea themselves before others did. Was it lack of R & D resources, corporate conservativism, or did they just not fully understand what they had on their hands? (Just my wild guesses, am genuinely curious.) But I also gather that things were even more complicated, given that Honeywell and Pentax were not the same. Last edited by Madaboutpix; 10-12-2022 at 12:41 PM. Reason: Nuance.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Black & White One from the archives 1996	stevejo	Post Your Photos!	9	11-29-2020 10:28 PM
Nature "Exit" 1996	ginnyfoos	Post Your Photos!	4	11-09-2019 02:47 PM
D600 $1996 w/$114 in goodies at B&H plus 2% too	Samsungian	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	11-21-2012 04:58 AM
Honeywell ES or Honeywell SP II ?	durr3	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	11	07-11-2012 05:39 PM
Update and question on my 1996 Ford Ranger XLT	jct us101	General Talk	114	03-18-2010 10:41 PM

10-12-2022, 05:14 AM - 1 Like	#2
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,440	Yeah, the Minolta Maxxum 7000 and 9000 AFs made quite a splash when they came out in 1985. The effect on the rest of the industry has been compared to the Sputnik crisis. I remember that the Minolta X-700 I was shooting as my first camera at the time suddenly felt much more dated than it actually was. Quite intriguing that Minolta's success was made possible by "unkindly borrowed" Pentax technology.

10-12-2022, 05:36 AM	#3
Michail_P Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2019 Location: Kalymnos Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,006	Hadn't heard.... interesting !

10-12-2022, 06:20 AM - 1 Like	#4
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Madaboutpix Quite intriguing that Minolta's success was made possible by "unkindly borrowed" Pentax technology. Quote: …cleared Minolta of intentionally stealing the technology. They infringed on patents but they were judged to have not stolen technology. My guess is that their system was created after seeing the original and overlapped the patents but not the implementation.

10-12-2022, 08:38 AM - 2 Likes	#5
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Originally posted by UncleVanya They infringed on patents but they were judged to have not stolen technology. My guess is that their system was created after seeing the original and overlapped the patents but not the implementation. Indeed! The patent system giveth and the patent system taketh away. On the one hand, the patent holder is granted a monopoly on the production of their invention for a certain time. That gives the original inventor the incentive to invent, patent, and feel somewhat secure they can reap the profits of their efforts. On the other hand, the patent system requires that patent applicant to reveal enough details of the invention that anyone can copy the invention. (You can't both patent an invention and keep it secret.) That gives subsequent inventors a jumpstart on creating different follow-on inventions.

10-12-2022, 08:43 AM - 1 Like	#6
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	As I remember they then went after Canon and Nikon and finally Pentax. Pentax might have thought that their relationship with Honeywell made them same, but not so. I seem to remember that Nikon put up the biggest fight, showing all their original research papers, but that's the trouble with concepts - any use of it is an infringement.

10-12-2022, 11:54 AM - 2 Likes	#7
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,961	Originally posted by photoptimist That gives the original inventor the incentive to invent, patent, and feel somewhat secure they can reap the profits of their efforts.On the other hand, the patent system requires that patent applicant to reveal enough details of the invention that anyone can copy the invention. The patent system is completely and utterly broken. There are companies (known as "patent trolls" and staffed almost entirely by lawyers) which are filing patents all the time (but never manufacturing any of them), written in the vaguest possible terms, purely with the intention of suing anyone who manufactures something that by any stretch of the imagination could be covered by it. These are called "submarine patents" because they pop up by surprise. In reality it discourages anyone from inventing anything or designing anything new, unless they have the power of a very large corporation behind them prepared to fight the patent troll in court. Searching for existing patents that might affect your own invention is a massive and almost certainly inconclusive task. On the other hand, large manufacturing corporations are patenting every idea they can think of as "defensive patents". It is comical to see what some companies (Apple and Microsoft for example) do patent; Apple's rounded corners was one that happened to come to court, and about 10 years ago there was a guy who patented the wheel just to show how silly the system has become. The attitude of the patent offices is to rubber stamp everything put before them (they are overwhelmed with the volume of it) and let the companies involved fight it out in court. I'm getting off-topic though.

10-12-2022, 12:41 PM - 2 Likes	#9
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,213	In the version of the story I heard, it was a clever Honeywell idea, not a Pentax one... and at that point Honeywell was no longer the distributor for Pentax. That said, in the version I heard, Pentax paid up, either willingly or much earlier under threat of the lawsuit, such that it was Minolta who caught it at the end, not Pentax. -Eric

10-12-2022, 03:09 PM	#10
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	A question: The first Pentax AF camera was the ME-F, 1981. Did that use the Honeywell idea?

10-12-2022, 04:51 PM - 2 Likes	#11
UMC Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Vienna Photos: Gallery Posts: 205	Well, Honeywell had been working on AF systems since the 1960ies and kept on filing patents through the 1970ies. By 1975 they had their "Visitronic AF" system ready for deployment and immediately started developing the successor, called TCL ("Through the Camera Lens") system. I would reckon that any of the early AF systems, let it be Konica's C35AF, Canon's stand-alone 35-70 AF lens, Ricoh's and Chinon's 50mm AF lenses and especially Asahi's ME-F (and the likes of Canon, Nikon & Olympus) were "inspired" by Honeywell's research.

10-12-2022, 04:59 PM	#12
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,406	Aha, thanks!

10-12-2022, 10:33 PM - 1 Like	#13
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Lord Lucan The attitude of the patent offices is to rubber stamp everything put before them (they are overwhelmed with the volume of it) and let the companies involved fight it out in court. I'm getting off-topic though. Yes, unfortunately, I think patent offices should just reject clearly doomed applications by nutters, but just catalogue the rest. They can never be funded well enough by the taxpayer to have the capability to do conciliation between parties or legal judgment, it's what consultants and the court systems have to do. And of course, it matters which court system you go to. East Texas was/is a favourite for several reasons! The Texas Town That Patent Trolls Built - Bloomberg

10-13-2022, 09:15 AM	#14
spiralcity Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Chicago,IL. U.S.A Posts: 147 Original Poster	Well, this is it in a nutshell: Honeywell said it disclosed trade secrets to Minolta in 1979 as part of negotiations to put a Honeywell autofocus part in Minolta cameras. Instead of completing the deal, Honeywell said, Minolta took the technology and went off on its own.

10-13-2022, 10:04 AM	#15
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by spiralcity Well, this is it in a nutshell: Honeywell said it disclosed trade secrets to Minolta in 1979 as part of negotiations to put a Honeywell autofocus part in Minolta cameras. Instead of completing the deal, Honeywell said, Minolta took the technology and went off on its own. That leaves out the fact the courts decided that while the patents were infringed; no actual theft of technology was involved.