Hi, that would not be a very clever argument. It would imply that the camera makers such as Pentax also had to be film makers. Or that kitchen equipment makers also had to be food retailers; printer manufacturers would have to be paper makers. Law-makers would have to be Fagins. Cup makers would have to guarantee a water supply.
-- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 9:42:19 AM, you wrote: > Don't a lot of countries have a ten year support rule for newly sold > products? I thought that was the reason the LX is still fully serviced by > Pentax but M and A series camera bodies are no longer serviced by them. It > wouldn't be hard for a clever legal mind to argue that "support" also means > the provision of consumables that the product requires. I notice that Fuji > and Kodak still sell film cameras, so I guess that commits them to selling > film for ten more years at least. But of those two companies, only Fuji > sells pro-grade film cameras, so perhaps only Fuji has any obligation either > legal or moral to keep pro-grade film on the shelves. > Remember in the late 1970s when Kodak was forced to cease selling instant > film-packs and Ektaflex (correct name?) instant enlarging paper, because > they'd infringed Polaroid's patents. They were also obliged to buy back all > the hardware that had been sold, because obviously they were unable to > continue support of those products with consumables. But at other times > when a product has failed (e.g. Disc) or demand for it has dried up (e.g. > 110 Instamatic) they've let the consumables trickle onto the shelves for the > required period at least, so no legal liability to the owners of orphaned > cameras. > When Kodak and Fuji both withdraw film cameras from sale is when I'll begin > stockpiling film. > regards, > Anthony Farr
