Equipment & Techniques > Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography
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:
--- Quote from: michael on January 27, 2011, 10:15:16 am ---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
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: michael on January 27, 2011, 10:15:16 am ---
I may have the fine details off a bit...
--- End quote ---
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
--- Quote from: hcubell on January 27, 2011, 10:35:02 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version