Re: [Leica] Re: Japan vs. Germany in Korea

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

Take it easy!
If a copy performs "better" than an original it cannot - in your own terms
- - be a copy.  "It can be identical, yes, but not superior" - and if it is,
it is not a copy, then. I do not think that the Gauss formula was invented
by Zeiss as Carl Friedrich Gauss lived 1777-1855 and certainly he did not
get any compensation from Nikon.

Raimo Korhonen
- ----------
> From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Cc: LRZeitlin <LRZeitlin@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Japan vs. Germany in Korea
> Date: 11. toukokuuta 1998 5:56
> 
> Mr Zeitlin
> 
> Thanks for a most interesting post.  However, your comments completely
fail
> to respond, even tangentially, to any of my earlier comments.  Here's
why:
> 
> a)	The time frame in question is 1947 to 1950, NOT 1952.  It was a
> completely, radically, totally different ball-game by then.  The Japanese
> economy in 1949 was far more fragile than it was after two years of
> intensive American infusion when Japan became the staging area for our
> Korean involvement.  And the Japanese camera industry was an accomplished
> fact by 1952;  it was not such in 1950.
> 
> b)	No one, least of all I, has ever questioned that the Japanese lenses
in
> question would outperform Leitz lenses of the era -- the Japanese lenses
> were thefts of Zeiss designs, and it is almost universally conceded that
> the Zeiss lenses would outperform Leitz lenses by a considerable margin
on
> almost any optical parameter.  What I protest is the theft of the designs
> for these Zeiss lenses without compensation.
> 
> c)	Nor has anyone questioned the genius of  Nikon in melding the finest
> elements of the Leica and Contax RF designs.  Your point IS well taken
but,
> again, it responds to a point I certainly never made.  What I DO protest,
> again, is the theft of both Leitz and Zeiss Ikon patents without
compensation.
> 
> d)	The $10 price for a Nikon lens is for 1950, not 1952.  My source is
> Duncan.  His coverage of these "marvelous" lenses cites the figure.
> 
> e)	The cost issue IS a factor, as it was the free-lancers who touted the
> superb quality of the Japanese lenses.  And it was the cost factor which
> caused them to use these lenses.  It certainly made good sense for them
to
> do so.  What is annoying is that they then made excessive claims for the
> quality of the lenses -- "Japanese lenses outperform German lenses" --
> which simply was neither true nor capable of being true, as a copy cannot
> be "better" than an original.  It can be identical, yes, but not
superior.
> And, also, of course, it is annoying that they were praising stolen
> intellectual properties, and glorifying theft in so doing.
> 
> f)	The reason for suggesting you visit the Archives is to suggest that
you
> realize that this issue has been pounded to death on the LUG.  Stephen
> Gandy and I went back and forth, with citations, some years back, and you
> would probably benefit from reviewing our exchanges, as we explored this
in
> more detail than has been done in the current thread.  
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!