Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: more on Japan vs.Germany in Korea
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:27:37 -0400

I appreciate Mr Zeitlin's having mentioned the Petzval Portrait Lens
design, as, of course, the success of the Voigtlander concern was based on
an outright and blatant theft, one contenanced and encouraged by the
Habsburgs, for that matter, of this design from the unfortunate Professor.
The theft resulted in three things -- Voigtlander moved from Vienna to
Braunschweig to escape the process of law, the head of the Voigtlander
family was ennobled, and the success of the company was assured.  So, no,
Nikon and Canon are not the only moral lepers amidst the optical industries
of the world!

Apparently, you have failed to follow the primary thrust, though, of my
argument:

a)	Nikon and Canon stole Zeiss designs and built Zeiss-pattern lenses (and
Canon at least one Leitz design)

b)	These were passed on to Duncan and his ilk as inexpensive alternatives
to their irreplaceable German lenses.  (Nikon had developed a fine camera
and produced perfectly fine copies of Zeiss designs;  that photographers
going into danger chose these over the German products is a simple factor
of economics and availability, and perfectly comprehensible.  But this
doesn't make the Japanese products "better".)

c)	To satisfy their American editors, Duncan, et al., claimed these lenses
were "better" than their Zeiss fore-runners, a patently false statement --
they might have been "as good", but they were certainly no better

d)	The myth of Japanese optical superiority dates from this claim, as the
American photographic press, especially Pop, jumped in and trumpeted the
claim in a public forum and to a degree which, I suspect, was never
intended by Duncan and his fellows.

e)	Neither Nikon nor Canon ever paid a dime to Zeiss or Leitz for these
thefted properties.

As to American participation in the theft, well, several points should be
borne in mind.  First, after the fiasco of American seizures of
intellectual properties in the First War, neither Zeiss nor Leitz granted
world rights to their American branches:  ELNY and CZUSA owned the American
rights only, and this is what the US seized on 11 DEC 41.  These rights
carried no privileges extending half a world away to the Orient.  Second,
the culprit here is not General MacArthur, who probably knew nothing about
this, but the Allied Control Commission.  Third, if I help you to rob a
bank, and we are captured, my participation doesn't spare you a lengthy
prison sentence, nor moral responsibility for your misdeeds.

And I guess that is what really gripes my goat, is that Nikon and Canon
founded themselves on stolen properties and have never admitted such nor
assumed responsibility for their actions.  (And, yes, I DO own a slew of
Canon gear and previously had some Nikon gear, incidentally the most
trouble-prone, awful, ineffective, unreliable piece of mechanical junk I
have ever had in my possession, this including a slew of Soviet cameras and
a Renault, for the automotively minded among our number.)

Marc


msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!