Just noticed this on another site. May be of some interest to other readers.Nikon sues Sigma over lens patent - British Journal of Photography
Nikon sues Sigma
- Thread starter silvertip
- Start date
I'm siding with Stu, the last poster of that article. I get tired of Company A suing Company B, all the while lawyers getting rich and the consumer not benefiting one iota from all the legal crap.
Another poster in that article stated that Sigma doesn't have any R&D costs. How the hell does he know that? Pretty blatant statement to make. OK, I'm going to stop now. I'm getting myself angry over stupid crap again.
Another poster in that article stated that Sigma doesn't have any R&D costs. How the hell does he know that? Pretty blatant statement to make. OK, I'm going to stop now. I'm getting myself angry over stupid crap again.
Browncoat
Senior Member
Oh good, I was hoping someone would side with Stu. Muhahahahaha....
Stu is barking up the wrong tree. Nikon has been doing optics for generations, and is an industry leader. R&D, marketing, cost of doing business...all that is factored into their pricing. But you know that already. Their stuff is expensive for a reason. Because it's worth every penny.
Enter Sigma. They're an aftermarket brand. Their business model is not to innovate, create, or lead. Their business model is to copy, shortcut, and cheapen. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it happens across all business markets. There's always a knockoff brand out there that is similar and cheaper, but not a good.
Take our industry for example. Photographers...there are pros and amateurs. Pros have the equipment, knowledge, and experience to get the job done. Amateurs might have similar gear, but not nearly the knowledge or experience. Yet some buyers will go with the amateur simply because the pro comes with a premium price tag.
In this case, Nikon has tried unsuccessfully to resolve the matter out of court. I'm sure they realize that Sigma is often a gateway to their Nikon products. However, there is some protected technology here that has been infringed upon that helps Nikon maintain its elite status. They have every right to protect themselves.
Stu is barking up the wrong tree. Nikon has been doing optics for generations, and is an industry leader. R&D, marketing, cost of doing business...all that is factored into their pricing. But you know that already. Their stuff is expensive for a reason. Because it's worth every penny.
Enter Sigma. They're an aftermarket brand. Their business model is not to innovate, create, or lead. Their business model is to copy, shortcut, and cheapen. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it happens across all business markets. There's always a knockoff brand out there that is similar and cheaper, but not a good.
Take our industry for example. Photographers...there are pros and amateurs. Pros have the equipment, knowledge, and experience to get the job done. Amateurs might have similar gear, but not nearly the knowledge or experience. Yet some buyers will go with the amateur simply because the pro comes with a premium price tag.
In this case, Nikon has tried unsuccessfully to resolve the matter out of court. I'm sure they realize that Sigma is often a gateway to their Nikon products. However, there is some protected technology here that has been infringed upon that helps Nikon maintain its elite status. They have every right to protect themselves.
jcottone45
Senior Member
My two cents:
I think it's business as usual in every industry, if a company makes a fantastic product that's costly but excellent, it's fair game to others who for their own gain are going to duplicate it (most times in appearance only, sometimes a decent alternative) to make a buck.The technology is certainly not the same, but at times useful.Fotojack is right the only winners all the time are lawyers who stand to gain big time by the long period of time before trial, and thats not including appeals after the trial. Meantime the consumers get nothing out of all the drivel lawyers have to say let alone all the disinformation they'll circulate form both sides.
Unfortunately this is how acceptable our society has been for a great many years towards "Pirates", as long as there's a buck to made, turn a blind eye & a deaf ear.
I think it's business as usual in every industry, if a company makes a fantastic product that's costly but excellent, it's fair game to others who for their own gain are going to duplicate it (most times in appearance only, sometimes a decent alternative) to make a buck.The technology is certainly not the same, but at times useful.Fotojack is right the only winners all the time are lawyers who stand to gain big time by the long period of time before trial, and thats not including appeals after the trial. Meantime the consumers get nothing out of all the drivel lawyers have to say let alone all the disinformation they'll circulate form both sides.
Unfortunately this is how acceptable our society has been for a great many years towards "Pirates", as long as there's a buck to made, turn a blind eye & a deaf ear.
Browncoat
Senior Member
Copyright law is pretty cut and dried. Intellectual property can have a few grey areas, but has strong ties to copyright and trademark law. This isn't going to be a case that drags on forever or has tons of appeals like in criminal cases. Either Sigma stole Nikon's technology or they didn't. End of story. The only real fallout consumers will likely see is a possible increase in Sigma's prices down the road to cover the damages assessed by this lawsuit if Nikon wins. Nikon probably won't have anything out of pocket, as Sigma will have to pick up the tab for legal fees if they lose. That's pretty standard.
At the very worst, Sigma stops making lenses with Nikon mounts out of spite (which would be a dumb business move on their part) or goes under completely.
At the very worst, Sigma stops making lenses with Nikon mounts out of spite (which would be a dumb business move on their part) or goes under completely.
Calgary 617
New member
If it would be that simple, there would be no endless cases if it comes to patents infringements etc at all. But this can go on forever, as Nikon needs to prove up to the very last component of the system that the patent was breached and that Sigma breached it on purpose, which in today's world is a long process with several independent researches and evaluations from the technical and lega side.
If a whole system could be patented per se, the only car manufacturer would be Mercedes-Benz and they would be stinking rich, as their founder invented the car. The industrial production of cars would also benefit Ford as the investor of the industrial production, a company that was near bankrupt. But today things are way more complicated, especially if it goes to court.
My father has been working in that market for over 20 years now, even a single desktop lamp can be copied (just the design and style) and even to the untrained eye it is obvious what was done. Still the whole legal process in court can take up to two years if it is that "simple" and obvious.
This, to me, is as daft as Harley Davidson trying to sue Honda a few years back over the sounf of the Honda V-Twins claiming that Honda was deliberately making its bikes to copy the Harley sound. As far as I know a lot of big twin motorcycles sound the same. In this case unless Sigma is producing direct copies of Nikon lenses then I don't think there should be an issue, Sigma produce F mount lenses that can be used on Nikon cameras, for those of us on a budget the Sigma alternative is often superior to a Nikon at the same price. Having used Nikon and Sigma lenses a lot over the years both designs on the physical side of the lens seem to be very very different as to the IS/VR systems, there are a lot knocking about, Sigma could have very well developed their own we wait and see. In the end though I suspect that us the punters will loose, as whichever side looses they will have to either boost prices to cover the costs or cut R&D to cover the costs, either way we loose.
The only benefit for us consumers I see is that if Sigma is producing lenses so close to Nikon, then they may be the ones to go to if you have a hard time affording the Nikon lens. I am looking at that with the 70-200 2.8. At over a grand less, I think I can live with the slight differences in the Sigma over the Nikon. Would I like to have the Nikon? Sure, but $2,500 is a lot for me to pay for a lens, not matter how good it is.
As for either side having to pay legal fees for the other, patent law does not include that. If Nikon wins, they will limit Sigma's ability to produce their lenses. Sigma won't be paying Nikon's legal fees. At least not in a US court. My nephew is a patent attorney and has worked many cases like this.
As for either side having to pay legal fees for the other, patent law does not include that. If Nikon wins, they will limit Sigma's ability to produce their lenses. Sigma won't be paying Nikon's legal fees. At least not in a US court. My nephew is a patent attorney and has worked many cases like this.