Litigation Involving Phase One and Hasselblad

[hubell]

There were several references in the recent "exchange of views" between Michael Reichman and David Grover of Hasselblad (in the now closed topic, "Have Phase One Screwed Up?") about the outcome of litigation involving Hasselblad and Phase One. Does anyone have details about the litigation and whether the court's ruling is accessible on the web?

[michael]

To my knowledge (and I've checked) there is no online information on the exact details of the case.

Neither of the parties seems interested in discussing it either, so it's a bit of a black hole.

What is know is the following.....

There has been a case in a European trade court for several years over the right for Phase One (and others) to mount their backs on Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras. The argument, as I understand it, was that Phase One worked with Hasselblad on the engineering of the digital interface to the H1 camera system and as a result received a royalty free right to sell backs that attached to it.

Hasselblad then closed their system and would not allow other manufacturers to sell backs that attached. (They changed the model number, claiming it was a new camera, and therefore Phase One's right to interface no longer applied).

I may have the fine details off a bit, but those are the broad strokes and are well known to people in the industy.

My understanding is the the courts ruled recently that Phase did indeed have the right to attach to Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras (H3 and onwards looks like it's still problematic) and Leaf (as announced in todays video with Yair Shahar, Leaf's Product Manager, is now shipping their Aptus II 12 80MP in that mount.

I openly invite representatives of both companies to provide further details or elaboration on this matter. I have no interest in name calling or finger pointing. But, unless someone with knowledge of the matter comes forward all we'll have is supposition.

Michael

[hubell]

To my knowledge (and I've checked) there is no online information on the exact details of the case.

Neither of the parties seems interested in discussing it either, so it's a bit of a black hole.

What is know is the following.....

There has been a case in a European trade court for several years over the right for Phase One (and others) to mount their backs on Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras. The argument, as I understand it, was that Phase One worked with Hasselblad on the engineering of the digital interface to the H1 camera system and as a result received a royalty free right to sell backs that attached to it.

Hasselblad then closed their system and would not allow other manufacturers to sell backs that attached. (They changed the model number, claiming it was a new camera, and therefore Phase One's right to interface no longer applied).
I may have the fine details off a bit, but those are the broad strokes and are well known to people in the industy.

My understanding is the the courts ruled recently that Phase did indeed have the right to attach to Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras (H3 and onwards looks like it's still problematic) and Leaf (as announced in todays video with Yair Shahar, Leaf's Product Manager, is now shipping their Aptus II 12 80MP in that mount.

I openly invite representatives of both companies to provide further details or elaboration on this matter. I have no interest in name calling or finger pointing. But, unless someone with knowledge of the matter comes forward all we'll have is supposition.

Michael

I was not aware that there was even an issue about attaching Phase backs to H1s and H2s. My P65 works just fine with an H1, and Phase has been making its backs in H mounts all along. I had also understood that Phase would be selling its IQ series backs in an H mount, yet your interview with Kevin Raber posted on the LULA site implied that no decision had been reached on that, as if the litigation had just now opened that up a legal possibility for Phase.
I guess I understand why neither Phase nor Hasselblad want to publicize the the issues in the litigation. At this point in time where Phase has and will continue to invest millions of dollars in Mamiya and the R&D for a new camera platform, Phase has to be careful of what it asks for. Requiring Hasselblad to open up the newest H4 bodies and the latest lenses to Phase backs may not be in Phase's interest. The landscape is very different today from 2006 when the H3D came on the scene.
If anyone has PDF of the legal decision, perhaps they could share it.

[David Grover / Capture One]

I may have the fine details off a bit...

A bit?

I gave my account on the now deleted thread(?), so don't wish to get involved in a pointless argument, if it will simply be deleted again.

The only people who win in these kinds of things are the lawyers.

I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.

Respectfully,



David

[eleanorbrown]

It's too bad that photographers who just want to photograph get caught up corporate/legal bickering...Phase, Hasselblad, etc etc or whoever about whatever....I am also happily using my P65+ with my H2 (and am hoarding a new ("in box never opened")  H2 body in case something should happen to my #1 H2 body.  I don't want a Hasselblad digital back and I want the H2 camera body with support of the Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses.  I have the best of both worlds in my opinion...Too bad Hasselblad closed their system but that's corporate business.... eleanor

I was not aware that there was even an issue about attaching Phase backs to H1s and H2s. My P65 works just fine with an H1, and Phase has been making its backs in H mounts all along.

[michael]

I gave my account on the now deleted thread(?), so don't wish to get involved in a pointless argument, if it will simply be deleted again.

David,

Nothing you have written here has ever been deleted, particularly not relating to this topic. Please do not misrepresent this. The previous thread was closed because it had run out of steam, but it was not deleted. It is there for anyone to read if they wish.

As for the facts of the matter, if you would like to put forward Hasselblad's side of the story you are cordially invited to do so. I'll even promise to publish it unedited on the main site.

But please, stop telling me that I have my information wrong, and then not backing it up with anything. I know all of the principals from both sides of the equation and have for some years, so there's no point in your dissembling.

Thanks you,

Michael

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

There is something called freedom of choice. Good to have.

I have read an interview with the former CEO of Hasselblad. The point he made that the back represented the greatest value. So Hasselblad wanted to sell backs. From an economical viewpoint it makes a lot of sense, for Hasselblad that is.

Nice to hear that you are fully satisfied with the system you have invested in.

Best regards
Erik

It's too bad that photographers who just want to photograph get caught up corporate/legal bickering...Phase, Hasselblad, etc etc or whoever about whatever....I am also happily using my P65+ with my H2 (and am hoarding a new ("in box never opened")  H2 body in case something should happen to my #1 H2 body.  I don't want a Hasselblad digital back and I want the H2 camera body with support of the Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses.  I have the best of both worlds in my opinion...Too bad Hasselblad closed their system but that's corporate business.... eleanor

[UlfKrentz]

snip...

I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.

Respectfully,



David

David,

I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.

Cheers, Ulf

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Actually I think it may have been pretty smart. Hasselblad has a strong position in the professional field, they may even own the market. Now, the back probably represent something like 60-80% of the value of the package. Would it not be lucrative for Hsselblad to dominate the MFDB for the H-system business? For sure, some potential buyers/owners were alienated, like MR, but it may matter little to Hasselblad as he wouldn't have their back anyway.

Of course, it may not be the smartest thing to drive one of the most respected authorities in the field in the welcoming arms of the competition.

Best regards
Erik

David,

I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.

Cheers, Ulf

[BernardLanguillier]

This question of openness is a complex one.

Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.

Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.

In this context, the job of strategists defining product directions is to find the best possible compromise between the value for the customers and that for the company knowing that there will always be unhappy customers.

Our 2.0 world has made these things more complex because of the viral nature of social network where the voice of a very unhappy customer tends to have more weight now than it did in the past.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hubell]

I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.

Respectfully,



David

I understand, David. However, my interest in this subject is not a matter of idle(or even professional) curiousity. I am interested to know whether it will soon be possible to buy an H4D body to use with a Phase back or the 35-90 zoom.
Thanks.

[David Grover / Capture One]

I understand, David. However, my interest in this subject is not a matter of idle(or even professional) curiousity. I am interested to know whether it will soon be possible to buy an H4D body to use with a Phase back or the 35-90 zoom.
Thanks.

Hi Howard,

No problem - its a technical question. 

Phase One can continue to make any products for the H1 and H2 platform.  The H4D is separate.

Best,


David

[David Grover / Capture One]

David,

Nothing you have written here has ever been deleted, particularly not relating to this topic. Please do not misrepresent this. The previous thread was closed because it had run out of steam, but it was not deleted. It is there for anyone to read if they wish.

As for the facts of the matter, if you would like to put forward Hasselblad's side of the story you are cordially invited to do so. I'll even promise to publish it unedited on the main site.

But please, stop telling me that I have my information wrong, and then not backing it up with anything. I know all of the principals from both sides of the equation and have for some years, so there's no point in your dissembling.

Thanks you,

Michael

Michael,

I received many emails along the lines of "why was the thread deleted?", and then I couldn't find it. So did it temporarily go away for a while?

Anyway, I will politely decline, based on past experiences, unless my superiors would like me to.

David

[David Grover / Capture One]

David,

I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.

Cheers, Ulf

Hi Ulf,

The design of the 28 and 35-90 were based on the ability to perform software corrections as well.

ie..  Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus.  To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.

This is why it only works with HxD products.

However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.

The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.

Cheers,


David

[UlfKrentz]

This question of openness is a complex one.

Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.

Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.

In this context, the job of strategists defining product directions is to find the best possible compromise between the value for the customers and that for the company knowing that there will always be unhappy customers.

Our 2.0 world has made these things more complex because of the viral nature of social network where the voice of a very unhappy customer tends to have more weight now than it did in the past.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,

please don´t get me wrong. I am not an unhappy customer, in fact exactly the opposite. I am enjoying putting the parts together that I consider the best for our work and this is including the H system. I am also aware of the business part of the job and understand the need for ROI, this is exactly what I am talking about. How many Hasselblad/Phase or Hasselblad/Leaf users did actually switch to Hasselblad DB users due to that closing decision? On the other hand they probably lost quite an investment in new bodies and lenses from this group. AFAIK the major part of research and development of the H-system was done before Imacon joined. R&D of the H-system (camerawise) should be paid from selling cameras and lenses, regardless of the back mounted. But may be... - closing the system was necessary to get sales of the joined brand DBs to get this R&D paid. I´ve been to photokina and was kind of disappointed, the new pro level was Ferrari red, storm trooper white and naked steel. I did not place an order. May be the dentist next to me? Honestly, I appreciate the developments of pro gear and I enjoy using it but I do not like this type of "business politics". Still like to know, wether there is any technical need to bann the HCD lenses from H1 / H2. A new firmware might help getting R&D paid for some lenses...

Cheers, Ulf

[UlfKrentz]

Hi Ulf,

The design of the 28 and 35-90 were based on the ability to perform software corrections as well.

ie..  Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus.  To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.

This is why it only works with HxD products.

However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.

The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.

Cheers,


David

David,

I was kidding about that some time ago, not assuming it was the true reason. Thank you for your open answer. I can accept the technical aspect and for the kind of work we do we might be able to correct it, but I´m not sure if I would like to have to do it all the time. Anyway, we enjoy working with H-System cameras and all the pre D lenses, it is still my prefered MF platform!

Cheers, Ulf

[aaanorton]

Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.

Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.

These two things are certainly *not* the same. Phase is encouraging you to stay in their product line by offering value added pricing. Hasselblad could have done the same by building better backs than anyone and offering them at competitive prices, with irresistible upgrades. But they didn't. They simply took their ball and went home. On some level, Hassy - and everyone else who observes this practice - admits that the competition was simply too tough, so they closed up their kit.

That said, $45k for these new backs is just stupid.

Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus.  To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.

This is why it only works with HxD products.

However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.

The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.

David,

Respectfully, once you add layers of software and post-capture correction, we are by definition no longer talking about optics. Closing your own clients out of your own products is just an extension of what I discussed above. The same holds for disallowing 3rd party developers to build software/hardware tools to compete with your own. If you are producing "100% perfect" results with your distortion correction, why not let others take a whack at it?
Competition is always better, for all parties concerned.

[Schewe]

I have read an interview with the former CEO of Hasselblad. The point he made that the back represented the greatest value. So Hasselblad wanted to sell backs. From an economical viewpoint it makes a lot of sense, for Hasselblad that is.

If you are talking about Christian Poulsen there some stories to be told...you know Christian used to work at Phase One? That he tried to get Phase One to build a scanner? That he left Phase One with the designs (which were brilliant) to create Imacon? That somehow every time Imacon got bought out, Christian seemed to come out on top finally ending up as CEO of the Hasselblad Imacon Company?

I've known Christian since the old Imacon days and while I respect his engineering prowess, I think there's plenty to question regarding his management skills. I think the closing of the Hasselblad system was a mistake and I'm not at all sure that the "public" reasons for doing so are, well, "all the reasons" it was done. Personally, I think Hasselblad now regrets that move (although this is my personal opinion not based on public information).

So, we'll see. I do actually wish Hasselblad well. I used a Hasselblad (the real Victor Hasselblad AB film camera) professionally for decades. The film Hasselblads are actually having a bit of a come back. I recently sold my 500 CM for almost $1,200. I got a lot less for my 500 ELM. I now use Phase One...from Denmark which was also home to Imacon, and near another Scandinavian country a bit different, Sweden, where Hasselblad came from (now, not so much).

Strange bed fellows...

[Christopher Sanderson]

I received many emails along the lines of "why was the thread deleted?", and then I couldn't find it. So did it temporarily go away for a while?

The thread in question is here and always has been...

[eronald]

Poor Phase One
(1)- first Hassy locked them out
(2)- then Leaf locked them out
(3)- then they suddenly had enough money to buy Mamiya
(4)- then they suddenly had enough money to but Leaf
(5) - now their customers are whining about their prices. Ingrates!


Edmund