[AT] OT Re: HIGH IDLE now runaway cars

Tue Feb 2 11:30:33 PST 2010

well the letter I got implied a $50 dollar CASH settlement but when it came 
it was a coupon and no offer for stock.  I would have taken that.  Your 
description of the camera and the court case is as I remember it.  I just 
didn't go into detail.

Charlie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "dglass" <dglass at numail.org>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] OT Re: HIGH IDLE now runaway cars

> The deal with the Kodak instant camera was that they violated Polariods
> patents and were court ordered to stop selling the PR10 film cameras and
> PR10 film. .  Since the consumer could no longer get film for the
> camera, Kodak was ordered to help out the consumer either by giving them
> a $50 coupon towards another Kodak camera or you could get one share of
> Kodak stock. (which was about $35 at that time.) The quality of the
> Kodak photo was much better than the Polaroid but it still wasn't good.
> Once the photo came out of the camera it was dry and took about five
> minutes to develop. It needed no air or anything.  If fact, on their
> commercial the photo was dropped in a goldfish bowl and you could still
> see it developing.
>
> charliehill wrote:
>> Al, mine used a film that didn't have a backing to pull off.  There was a
>> place about 3/4" wide all the way across the bottom of the film that
>> contained the developer.  You took the picture and when you turned the
>> "handle" to crank it out it squeezed the developer onto the film which 
>> was
>> covered by a clear sheet that stayed in place.  You just waved it around 
>> in
>> the air for a couple of seconds and you could watch it turn into a 
>> picture.
>> It worked great if you needed a low quality picture in a hurry.  I'm sure
>> insurance guys loved them.  It was well made but as far as photo quality 
>> it
>> was a piece of junk as was the polaroid.
>>
>> Charlie
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Al Jones" <farmallsupera at earthlink.net>
>> To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" 
>> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AT] OT Re: HIGH IDLE now runaway cars
>>
>>
>>
>>> Charlie,
>>>
>>> I had one of those Kodak cameras as a kid--probably my first camera.  It
>>> was the one where you could pull the backing off the print once it
>>> developed for a photo that was not as "bulky" as a Polaroid print. 
>>> (Seems
>>> like Kodak called it the "trimprint.")  IIRC, we got a coupon from Kodak
>>> and I used it to buy myself a Kodak "Disk" camera.  They went from one
>>> weird format to another!!
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>> From: charliehill <charliehill at embarqmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Feb 2, 2010 8:43 AM
>>>> To: Antique tractor email discussion group 
>>>> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AT] OT Re: HIGH IDLE now runaway cars
>>>>
>>>> David,  I had an old Kodak Handle camera.  If you remember it was a 
>>>> cheap
>>>> but improved knockoff of a polaroid instant print camera.  Well 
>>>> Polaroid
>>>> sued and won and Kodak had to stop making film for them.  I was sent a
>>>> form
>>>> for the class action suit.  At some point they settled and sent me a
>>>> letter
>>>> telling me I'd get $50 if I sent in the camera.  Then I got another 
>>>> letter
>>>> that said all I had to do was send in the metal name plate from the 
>>>> front
>>>> of
>>>> the camera.  So I peeled it off and sent it in.   A few MONTHS later I 
>>>> got
>>>> a
>>>> letter in the mail with coupons good for a total of $50 off the 
>>>> purchase
>>>> of
>>>> a rather large amount of Kodak film products.
>>>>
>>>> At that point I had absolutely nothing but but some scrap paper and a
>>>> Kodak
>>>> Handle camera in mint condition except for the name plate.  Of course 
>>>> that
>>>> made it useless as a collector piece so I threw the whole mess away.
>>>>
>>>> How much money do you think the $#%^#%^$#&^ lawyers got?
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "David Bruce" <davidbruce at yadtel.net>
>>>> To: "Antique tractor email discussion group"
>>>> <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:55 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AT] OT Re: HIGH IDLE now runaway cars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course they will come whether deserved or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sad thing is the only ones who really win from them are the lawyers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been "a party" in several class action cases (never as a 
>>>>> principal
>>>>> however)  and I think somewhere along the way I got a $20 off the next
>>>>> purchase coupon.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my mind the jury is out on the idea of Toyota reacting too slowly 
>>>>> to
>>>>> the situation however there have been reports of  potential problems 
>>>>> for
>>>>> a number of years.  Regardless they are now the whipping boy just like
>>>>> Ford and Firestone were over the Explorer roll overs, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>> NW NC
>>>>>
>>>>> Ralph Goff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we should have known the class action lawsuits against Toyota
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be coming.
>>>>>> http://www.globaltvbc.com/Regina+lawyer+issues+class+action+suit+against+Lexus+Toyota/2508481/story.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph in Sask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AT mailing list
>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at 