Con Artist?

Did Connie strike again? After comments from me and others were erased from her blog, I decided to give ConnieTalk another try, specifically commenting on her recent post about Polaroid. Though Polaroid went bankrupt over six years ago, and stopped selling consumer "instant cameras" last year, it's Polaroid recent decision to close two Massachusetts factories affecting about 150 jobs that Connie decries (emphasis in original):

Polaroid is taking away their famous instant photo cameras with hardly a whisper. . .

There just is not, and never will be, a camera as handy to keep in your closet as Polaroid. . . .Edwin H. Land founded it in 1937 and instant film cameras have been out since 1948; but in 2001, after drowning in the market of digital cameras, they filed Federal Bankruptcy protection and were bought by a subsidiary of Bank One.

Every time the man behind the miracle dies, things go bad. Polaroid...McDonald's...KFC...Disney...Alexander Graham Bell...Hilton...

It becomes an empire that doesn't care for itself for the way the inventor did.

If Polaroid indeed withdraws any further plans to market this product, the U.S. patent (that prevented Kodak from producing instant film cameras in 1986) could be removed. Meaning, anyone would be able to design and market their version of the shoot-and-print camera.

It's high time we supported budding genius minds that have product ideas outside of corrupted national monopolies, and bring small businesses back to thriving in the United States.

This made no sense, as I showed in comments:

As the articles you link to say, Polaroid didn't die because it failed to "care for itself for the way the inventor did." Polaroid went bankrupt because consumers no longer wanted its product. (Similarly, Kodak had to write off its entire film business a few years ago.) It had nothing to do with supporting genius, or where one gets film developed. (Contrary to your example, AT&T did quite well for more than 50 years after Alexander Graham Bell died in 1922.) Rather, Polaroid was felled by "creative destruction," in the form of new and better digital technology--and the creative destruction aspect of capitalism is itself pro-consumer and anti-monopoly. I'm not sure what you would change--force customers to stick with film to keep a factory producing unwanted goods? There's a heck of a lot more jobs in digital photography than the 150 lost by Polaroid's planned closure.

And I have no idea what you're trying to say here:

"If Polaroid indeed withdraws any further plans to market this product, the U.S. patent (that prevented Kodak from producing instant film cameras in 1986) could be removed. Meaning, anyone would be able to design and market their version of the shoot-and-print camera."

First, few people want such a camera to be available--which is why Polaroid went bankrupt. Second, patents are not "removed" (whatever that means) from non-use. They expire after a certain number of years, whether or not the patent holder licenses or uses the idea. Indeed, for the most part, absent deception or an anti-competitive conspiracy, patent holders may refuse to license their patent entirely.

My comment appeared immediately on Connie talk -- albeit without the attempted embedded hyperlinks. This time, I took a screen shot:


(note time 11:47 pm)

Less than two hours later, my comment has vanished.

How did it disappear? Why was it erased? Only Connie knows--and so far, she's been silent or slippery on my blog and hers.

What's it all mean? As evidence of Connie's commitment to openness, diversity, and tolerance, Res Ipsa Loquitur. Look it up.