Sigma to pay Nikon $14.5 million for VR patent infringement

Yes, Nikon would love it if Sigma threw away a third of their business that is in competition with Nikon.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

That would be pretty stupid of Sigma to do, considering they would be losing probably 1/4 of their profit, and obviously they are making a HUGE profit on their business, if 15% of their profit from only 6 lenses ads up to $14 million. Would they survive? Sure, but they would not let Nikon win like that. Nikon would make more money if Sigma stopped making lenses for Nikon cameras. On top of that, it would not stop Nikon from suing Sigma in the future, if Sigma infringes on Nikon patents again.

The best thing Sigma could do to hurt Nikon would be to lower their prices, taking away sales from Nikon. But that would hurt both of them too. The next best thing Sigma could do is what they're doing right now . . . producing kick-ass Nikon-mount prime lenses with the same size apertures that Nikon lenses have, and selling them for less money.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

dr8

Just a thought....how many patents has nikon infringed upon, or stolen outright, thru the years? I remember when that was what was most famous about nikon. Not that it makes what is happening now OK.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

LeitzKameraAktion

Even the name 'Nikon' was ripped off - from Zeiss Ikon. There was a court case about it in the early '60s, and for a while Nikon were forced to brand their bodies Nikkor.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Ok so reading the comments completely blew my mind. I honestly had higher expectations from the DP forum members, figuring they would be at least of average intelligence.

Why the blind love for the underdog, even when the underdog is actually the party in the wrong? Incredibly difficult to comprehend.

I am pretty confident the judge in this case is much more capable of making the right decision than any of us here. So looking at the facts, it was the better outcome, legally and ethically.

So Nikon wins (rightfuly so) and people hate that because Nikon is the 800lb gorilla. Sigma lost, move on. The only concern here would be that $15million is probably huge in terms of their net profit. Who knows, it may put them out of business. I say this, because they probably have production changes to make, as well as refurbishing existing inventory. Better yet, do they have a VR system of their own? If not, they are in real trouble.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Accusing people of being stupid and then making stupid statements? The $14 million represents 15% of the profit from the 6 lenses that infringed on the patent. Please tell me again how Sigma is going to go out of business. Do you have ANY IDEA how many OS lenses Sigma makes? Do you know how many other lenses Sigma makes? Do you realize they can just get a loan and pay it off over 10 or 15 years? No . . . this will do NOTHING LIKE put Sigma out of business. In fact, I suspect that this good result for Sigma is only going to motivate them to infringe on more patents. This was a slap on the wrist, and it probably hasn't hurt Sigma at all. Just the free advertising it gives them might build their name popularity more than the cost of the law suit. IF they spent $14 million on advertising they might not get as much fame. This has been a fame builder, and they have sold more lenses because of their patent infringement. That has only profited them more . . . not less.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

completelyrandomstuff

Sigma is not necessarily a party who was wrong. They likely developed their own VR and Nikon found a way to point out a spot which was described in their patent.

Patent's are written to be as generic as possible. For example, when you patent a drug, you patent both the structure that is effective and tens of slight modifications.

If you develop and patent a drug, along with 100 other related structures then you block all the research for 100, not 1 compound. If someone, convergently, develops a compound that is within this 100, they own it, even though did no hard work in characterization of this compound.

Patents are not exactly the fairest thing in the world, so I wouldn't go about and assign blame.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Ian SS

This is what I call the weird game of business. When you are a late comer with all existing patents, it is hard to innovate without problems from possible infringement. I presume that a company like Sigma would have a good legal team to look over patents etc. but nothing is sure until it is tested in courts. In this case, Nikon might have a stronger legal team.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

Scotelly, When it comes to Sigma lenses, the Nikon and Canon mounts are their bread and butter. And this is a low margin business, so $15mill is a very big deal for a small company. But by your logic, Sigma is better off right? You know motivated and all? Here is another of your great ideas, Sigma should lower the price so low no one would ever buy nikkor glass right? With those business revelations you should be a CEO. Seriously man, clearly you don't own your own buiness.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

Ian SS

If I am Nikon or Canon, what would be the best strategy to prevent others from competing? Put a lot of patents so that which ever way you do it, you would be in some way infringe their patents. If I am Sigma, I would pick the one with the lesser evil and infringe their patents because if Sigma didn't do it, they would have a difficult time making sales and in turn increase R&D when you are a smaller company and a late comer. This is a weird game in business.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

tkbslc

I know people think this is evil big Nikon picking on the little guy. But you would be a careless and irresponsible company to not protect your R+D and investors if you didn't fight hard for your technology and patents. I would expect any well managed company to do the same.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Unfortunately, they got very little out of this law suit. A $14 million judgment is so insignificant that it doesn't protect Nikon's intellectual property very much at all. In fact, I suspect it only motivates other companies to infringe on Nikon's patents, since the ramifications is just the loss of a portion of the profits of the products that were sold, which infringed on the patent(s). If I were a company designing, making, and selling lenses, I would start making all sorts of lenses that infringe on Leica's, Pentax's, Nikon's, Zeiss' and Canon's patents. I'd go to town! Then, when I have the best lenses on the market, I would have the money to do my own R&D. I would gradually pay off the loans I would take, to pay the law suits I lost. Over time my company would become the biggest lens maker in the World. Maybe that is the Sigma strategy.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

tkbslc

I am sure the size of the award is in line with the level of infringement. Blatant obvious infringement would generally result in halt of sales of the products and large awards.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Ian SS

Nikon is not the evil here, nor Canon or any other well managed companies that want to protect their valuable investments in R&D. At the same token, it is also the best interest of well managed companies to increase the barrier to entry to all other competitors using patent as a tool.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

I am not a technician. But I think that all of this anti- vibration systems are very close in design. So it is easy to find an infringement with the little help of an army of clever lawyers. I don't appreciate stealing, but when you exaggerate patent protection to a certain level of degree, in reality innovations will go down, because no company is willed anymore to invest into R&D.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

Mar 13, 2014permalink

Tom Lombardi

This "win" by Nikon will only allow Sigma to grow as a brand. Whether it is true or not, popular opinion is now that the OS system in the Sigma's works nearly identical to that of the Nikon's VR. Whether that is the case in actuality is not important, rather the perception is true: If Nikon sued Sigma over the use of their OS system in these 6 lenses, that by the way, are receiving very positive reviews, then surely anyone looking to drop $2500 on a 70-200 f/2.8 VRII lens will look at that $1000-$1300 savings of the Sigma version and say, is the Nikon really worth that much more? Sigma will recoup this loss in sales they will get from having to pay it 10 fold.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Howard Prendergast

Not all apples are equal Tom. Just like there can be a big difference in flavour and quality of two Fuji apples coming from different farms, there can also be a difference in quality of lenses sharing similar technology coming from different manufacturers. They will not be equal lenses since all they share is some similar VR technology and have different facilities, company, workers. etc.

I wonder if Sigma will be able to continue using the technology going forward and if they do, will they continue to pay Nikon a 15% fee for all profits on those lenses. It would be a win-win situation for both I would guess as both are making money from the deal.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Simon97

These people who complain about Nikon winning the lawsuit are probably the first to complain if their photo gets stolen on the Internet.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Louis Dallara

I sure hope Sigma appeals this bad ruling and counters with suit.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Because your a patent attorney?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

egk4260

They stole something, made a profit off stolen ideas, and got caught; which of these points will be the basis of the countersuit?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

completelyrandomstuff

It is (much) more complicated with patents.

Optical Stabilization is a somewhat generic technology developed by several different parties.

Think of it as a nikon developing an island and putting sand on the beach. They go on to charge extra profit for visitors who want to lay down on a sandy beach. They patent a sandy beach to protect their investment.

Then Sigma, seeing a potential for profit builds an island and also wants a beach. Since sand is patented, they resort to putting pebbles and rocks, deeming it sufficiently different from sand.

Then a Nikon lawyer comes and makes an argument - sand is made of (partially) of eroded pebbles, therefore what sigma has made is actually a sandy beach, with beach particles of very large diameter. Therefore, sigma has infringed on our sandy beach patent and we require them to give us a cut of their profit.

Mar 13, 2014*permalink

King Penguin

Gosh, so many Nikon haters, even when Sigma is clearly in the wrong..........

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for Nikon.......well, that's what misguided and uninformed hate comments generally does - the opposite of what they proclaim!

........makes entertaining reading though!

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Kim Letkeman

Wow ... the one manufacturer that seems to have figured out how to make superior lenses for a very good price takes a bullet from what used to be my favourite manufacturer. Sheesh ...

Mar 12, 2014permalink

You mean figured out how to steal? Cross licensing with Nikon seems to work fine with Tamron. Unless you think that small companies should be allowed to steal from big companies.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

SRT3lkt

Nikon should have learned from Specialized's Cafe Roubaix case.

This case is just severely damaging corporate image.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Franklin J Ellias

It is not only about the price of manufacturing. I some situations it takes years of product sales to recover the cost of research and development. This is especially true when working with a limited commodity with a short shelf life. This is why we have and enforce patent laws both domestic and international. If one does not defend a patent vigorously the right to protect it is lost. I say BRAVO to Nikon, Apple and any company that defends their investments in R & D.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Tom Schum

If Sigma is working on a new DSLR or Mirrorless camera, this fine might put a serious dent in their schedule. We might be stuck with another year of delay in the Sigma development process.
On the one hand, patent infringement is a serious problem and ought to be enforced with fines. On the other hand there can be far-reaching effects against competition in a case such as this. Since Nikon was asking for ten times as much money as they actually got, the judgement seems lenient to me.
Thinking about in-lens image stabilization in general, it seems to me that there is not a whole lot of choice regarding how to do it: move a lens or an element of a lens. In-camera image stabilization is a similar situation: you move a sensor.
Either way, one false move and you have re-invented something previously patented, and there will be infringement issues to deal with. I doubt Sigma had any criminal intent. This is an area for the patent trolls.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

petrocan

i'm not a expert on patent, but usually a concept cannot be register. What you mentioned is a concept, move a element or a lens. That's a concept. But the implementation can be register, how to do you move that lens, with what to move it...

I guess sigma has copied the way to do it. Then you can argue there must not a tons of way to do that either. Ask a lens architect and he will tell you otherwise.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

A concept can not be registered? I think you mean patented. And if you do, then you are mistaken. ANYTHING can be patented, as long as it is something new. If nobody had ever thought of having a lens element move inside a lens, to stabilize the image, then whoever thought of that could patent that. Of course, whoever did invent that probably patented it long long ago, and patents don't last forever. Everyone is using optical image stabilization now, and I doubt they would be if they were all infringing on a patent. This patent infringement was about something else. I do not know what, and it does not matter. What it comes down to is that patents are infringed all the time. Nikon did the right thing. It made them look like the inventor of great technology. They didn't win much money, but they showed the World that they will enforce their patents and win the case. Unfortunately for them, they did not succeed in making an example of Sigma, because the $14 million judgment sucks.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Leandros S

@Scottelly: Congress has struck down the right to patent individual genes. I'm pretty sure you therefore couldn't patent someone's blood.

Mar 14, 2014*permalink

fakuryu

Well if Sigma did infringe on Nikon's IP when it comes to IS, then why not if there is a basis for it. At least Nikon is not pulling off an Apple by suing better phones because of the shape or color.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Yea, go read daily mail of IT. Stupid headers made to lure people in while in fact got nothing to deal with reality. Law suits for design are always by far more complex than just "shape and color". Educate yourself before posting BS.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Would Samsung’s phones still be better if they didn’t copy Apple’s? I have never owned a cell phone, but from my perspective, phones looked like little fold up plastic toys with buttons before the iPhone, and now everywhere I look, they all look like iPhones, even when they’re Samsungs. Seems like pretty shameless copying to me.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Kim Letkeman

@Mark ... you assume that Samsung copied Apple, basing this on your extensive experience with having never owned a cell phone? I used an iPhone for years before switching to the Galaxy S3. Other than the obvious, which is that there are only so many ways to build a smart phone, the Galaxy is a superior experience in every way. But ... Apple has not stood still either, so the whole industry just gets better and better ...

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Not assuming, just observing. But I do have a question: Would you say that Samsung Galaxy users are more annoying or less annoying than Apple iPhone users? Because in my experience, they all seem the same amount of annoying.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Bob Meyer

Mark, your admitted lack of knowledge of cell phones is showing. Apple was not the first to built a flat phone that was a rectangle with rounded corners. Palm (see Treo) did it long before. Palm also had a grid of icons as the user interface, just like Apple, but way before. Apple didn't invent multi-touch, either, even though they got a patent for it. The patent system is just broken: patents are granted for almost anything, no matter how trivial, and no matter how much prior art there is.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nevertheless, pre-iPhone nothing looked like the iPhone, and now they all do.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

G1Houston

It is easy to come up with a rectangular tablet with a single button to control everything? All of you have thought about it and just did not have time to build one? In the court evidence against Samsung, Apple showed the pre-iPad tablet built by Samsung, it looks much more like a game console with two bulging ends with many buttons for the hands to hold. Once iPad showed up, their tablets became perfectly square with the same single home button in the middle. Did you all forget how MP3 players and Cell Phones look like before iPod and iPhone showed up? More importantly, the law suit was never about just the look, but functionalties.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Langusta

Good job Nikon! Finally you found something where you can be successful...

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Kim Letkeman

Nikon still lead DXOMark and have superior features in many areas. You comment is shameless fan-boyism. What I dislike is that Sigma obviously made a mistake and might get knocked out just when their superior lenses are really having an impact. And since m4/3 is the smallest of their markets, it is we m4/3 users that will feel the brunt of this.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Langusta

I thought that shameless fan-boyism is people getting upset when their beloved company, cherished with holly, unquestionable numbers at DXO, meets some negative feedback...
Seriously...I have used various systems, N included. I have respected this company for what they used to be/do. Now it's a simply sad to see where they went: overpriced cr**p such as Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G, having quality issues with almost every new release and try to challenge Sigma in court rather than R&D department.
Nikon with 76% of their sales located in cameras (Canon 26%, Oly ~15%) does seem to get desperate now; but instead of giving proper touch to the product, they go retro, defile Noct-Nikkor or sue someone...
Aren't you disappointed with it...not even a bit?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Lucas_

I believe the Nikon DXOMark champ is the D800, which uses a Sony sensor.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Shameless hate is just as bad as fanboy. Nikon makes on of the best lineups in the industry, which is reflected in the fact they actually make a profit selling their product. And hello, they won the lawsuit, unless you think its ok to steal.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nikon has lots of DXO mark champs, some use sony sensors, some use nikon sensors.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Hey, no need to bash Nikon, because they are enforcing their patent(s). BTW, how can you say the Nikon D800 and Nikon D5000, D5100, D5200, and D5300 are not "successful" Langusta? I think the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G is pretty successful too . . . and innovative. I also think Nikon has done an excellent job with their new water resistant point-and-shoot cameras with GPS that have mapping features (unlike most digital cameras that have GPS).

Mar 12, 2014permalink

If a company is low on ideas, the sales are going down, quality becomes poor, no innovations, just introducing overpriced retro-stuff, what to do? You try to win battles at court, when you are not able to do so in the market.
NIKON, this action is very poor.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

BaldCol

Why is it poor? Are you suggesting they should not bother to protect their patents?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

photofan1986

Just like Apple :D

Mar 12, 2014permalink

I don't agree at all. Nikon is doing lots of good stuff. In the past few years they made a great step forward by removing the AA filter (Nikon D7100), pushing up to the 24 megapixel range ahead of most companies (but long after Sony). Canon has STILL never made a camera with a sensor more than 22 megapixels, when they USED TO BE the megapixel leader. In some ways that is good and in some ways that is bad. Nikon makes some great lenses, and they introduce one now and again, such as the 14-24mm f2.8 G, the 60mm f2.8 G macro, and their new 56mm f1.4 G. They new Nikon D5300 with wi-fi, GPS and no AA filter is an interesting example of how Nikon has quickly responded to the market, improving a product that was already selling pretty well. They didn't HAVE to put GPS into that camera, because Canon didn't put GPS in the 70 D or any of their Rebels, but they did anyway. As far as I know, the ONLY true DSLR with GPS built in is the Nikon D5300. No innovations?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Some month ago they went to court, because a little company without any dedication brought a camera to the market, which looked like a Nikon 1J1. I was wondering how to infringe a design, which is just a simple camera design like a brick. However, I am Nikon user for 35 years. Quality and service went down dramatically. The 1.4/58mm is a typical example of a lens which is only expensive without any added value.
The flood of cheap consumer DSLRs is not innovative. The only mirrorless system they have created is the Nikon 1. Wow. Sony employs a much better sensor.
Nikon does not impress me anymore. If I would not loose so much money, I dumped the rubbish immediately.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

You have not been a Nikon user for 35 years. You’re lying in order to satisfy a psychological need to justify your choices.

Mar 13, 2014permalink

backayonder

So how much Yen does it take to develop a D400 exactly?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

ImageAmateur

Well, Pentax made the K3 that matches in every respect what one would expect a D400 to be, with their own technology and it only costs USD 1,100 to buy now, roughly.

;-)

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Lucas_

The Pentax K-3 also has a Sony sensor.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

I was under the impression that pretty much EVERY dslr sold today has a Sony sensor . . . except the Canon 70 D and the Sigma SD15 and SD1 Merrill.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2013/13_all_e.pdf

Scott, The D7100, D700, D3s, D4 and D4s do not have Sony sensors. There have been more (D2H?).

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Ale1210

which losses are you talking about ?

Fiscal year ending 31/3/ 2014 figures are even better, net income YTD 12/2013 up by 16%

Mar 12, 2014permalink

zettlers

The Tokyo District Court? Duh! They should have contacted the real experts: We are born to judge :-)

Mar 12, 2014permalink

At first I didn't get your comment. Very dry.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

SRT3lkt

smaller company that sticks up gets hammered down by larger corporation.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

hikerdoc

No, the court in Japan, which is there to protect both of their interests, decided that Nikon was the wronged party, but not nearly as egregiously as Nikon had claimed!

Just because Sigma, who makes many great lenses, is smaller does make it alright to use and profit from another's intellectual property without appropriate license.

If a country allows its manufacturers to copy batteries or software and sell it we call it piracy, and condemn the country for not properly enforcing copyright and patent law. Explain to me; how does being a small corporation suddenly makes it right to live by a different set of laws?

Yes, I realize that typical piracy involves using the same name for a product. This seems similar, just hiding the issue inside another product and branding it as your own innovation.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

PedagangAsongan

poor sigma :(

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Oh yeah . . . poor little Sigma. This was a win for Sigma . . . even though it "says" Nikon won the law suit. It builds Sigma's name, only takes 15% of the profit Sigma got from 6 of their 42 lenses, and Sigma gets to pay off the $14 million over probably 10 or 15 years (business loan). Sigma is not going to be hurt by this judgment. Nikon is going to be hurt more than Sigma.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

luchs

Nikon has an advantage because there are 3rdparty lenses. Think of Fuji and Sony A7 cameras - how much more attractive would those two be if there would be Sigma lenses available since the native lenses are quite expensive.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

marleni

I think the same.
The battle against third-party lenses is simply short-sighted.
When people have to decide for a new DSLR, the one that allows to select from a greater variety of lenses is much more attractive.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

lacikuss

Just wait and see how Sony swallows Nikon…

Nikon has no capability to develop better the 16mp sensors, so they went to Sony…

Mar 12, 2014permalink

And...? How that's any proof that Sony will ever "swallow" Nikon? Sorry, but you are obviously clueless posting crap like that.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

The Sony A7 could have a slew of third-party lenses for it. Sony does not want third party lenses to be available for it. If they did, they would have made a deal with Tamron to make some, before launching it. For now Sony wants that camera to be a showcase camera with Zeiss lenses available, which make the camera look better. Third party lenses will come . . . when it is their time. Don't forget that Nikon and Canon are primarily lens companies. The main reason they make cameras is to sell lenses. Why would they want competitors to take that business?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nikon this year 6 million DSLR, 11.5 million compact and 8 million lens. I think they are primarily a camera company that makes a good deal of their money rom lens sales. And Lens companys like Sigma do not get permission to make lens for Sony. They just reverse engineer them, which is why they got sued.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Zigadiboom

Hmmm...wonder if Nikon will sue me if I develop a sensor which requires rubbing oil on its surface.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

backayonder

You need a slick lawyer

Mar 12, 2014permalink

A clever boy like you shouldn't have to worry.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

pdelux

That would only sue you if you invent a shutter mechanism that grinds itself onto the sensor as well.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nukunukoo

One wonders if Nikon deliberately programmed the firmware of their newer models to break Sigma's AF performance.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

OBVIOUSLY they did it!
(just like canon is screwing the use of other batteries in their newest cameras! I am using my 70D in helping develop a new 360 device and they managed to make it incompatible with the electric power that works with ALL canon dslr of before!
In fact canon did even worst when they first launched the eos3 and none of the old Sigma lenses would work with any slr since then! Bstrds!

Mar 12, 2014permalink

BaldCol

Apple did the same with third party chargers for thier ipads and iphones.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Apple at least got some reasoning behind it (smaller size, easier to use, cheaper to produce, more versatile) - Nikon has nothing.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

G1Houston

"Apple did the same with third party chargers for thier ipads and iPhones."

No, there were reports that fire broke out when people used 3-rd party cheap knock-off chargers to charge Apple products. Apple offers these people a free exchange for bad products not made by them. Apparently Apple has also now made it difficult for cheap improperly built chargers to come on the market in the first place.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

They may have done that to drive sales of the Sigma USB dock and the new Sigma lenses that work with it. Who knows if this is not all a circus act. $14 million?!? That's nothing. It's a joke. It almost seems like we're being duped into believing they aren't all in this together.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Digitall

Ouch! Maybe Nikon will briefly report profits this year.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

miiicho

Made my day :D

Mar 12, 2014permalink

fyi, Nikon is quite profitable. Sigma on the other hand is not. This blow could be damaging for years to come.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Didn't you read where it says the $14 million is 15% of the profit they made on the 6 lenses that infringed on the patent? How does that mean Sigma does not make a profit? AlexRuiz, I think you need to take a math class . . . or a reading class.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Traingineer

What a shame. (°□°)

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Why is it a shame?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nathan Cowlishaw

Nikon is a stinking bully. I'm glad I abandoned their DSLRs in 2008 when joining Micro Four Thirds and Sigma is a good company. Go Sigma! :)

Mar 12, 2014permalink

BaldCol

"Sigma is a good company" apart from stealing other companies assets.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Yea, all these companies bullied by Nikon. Must have cried all nights.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Dennis

Not only have they infringed on Nikon's patents; they were also notorious for reverse engineering Minolta's lens mount rather than paying to license it (which could have been prohibitively expensive; I don't know), resulting in incompatibilities every few years. To Sigma's credit, they offered free upgrades, when possible. (I unfortunately had a lens, years ago, that was "too old" to upgrade to work with a new Mnolta AF body - and this was all pre-digital). I appreciate that Sigma is offering some excellent lenses these days, but I'm not convinced that they're "good guys" any more than any other company.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

JackM

Pssh. Third party lenses.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Who makes the second party lenses?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Marty4650

I hope the folks who say "Sigma should stop making lenses with Nikon mounts" realize that is precisely how Sigma makes a living. The lions share of their revenue comes from selling lenses to Canon and Nikon users.

You could probably take all the Sigma SA mount users and have a group meeting with them in a two car garage.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

SigmaChrome

If you've got a two car garage, you can host it. I'll even let you try a Sigma + Sigma lens combo. You will definitely like it.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

LiOm Photography

agree with everything except the last part. i know you where trying to be funny, but the last yearly sigma mount user group reunion held here had well over 3000 attendees, at which point no more people were allowed in the building. And we're a small 100x35 mile island. Sigma mount users are a devoted bunch.

Also, theres a STRONG possibility your nikon branded lens is made by sigma anyway. look it up

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

unfortunately i cannot afford to change system, however i must ask you Marty4650 if you EVER saw any good photo done with a foven sensor???
I saw some from the very first dslr abd was COMPLETELY BLOW AWAY by TRULY AMAZING COLOURS AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A DIGITAL FILE REAL COLOURED DETAIL!!!!!! I promise you that you have never seen ANYTHING LIKE THAT!!!

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Marty4650

Yes, of course. The Foveon sensor can produce stunning results. But that wasn't the point I was making.

A third party lens maker cannot exist if they stop making lenses for 40% of the people who own ILC cameras. Sigma can survive without Olympus, Pentax, Fuji or even Sony mount lenses, but they cannot "stop making" lenses for Nikon, or Canon.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2013/13_all_e.pdf

That must be a really big two car garage Marty. Can I come over to your house?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

pdelux

Nikon trying to recoup losses on compacts, turns to litigation...

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Ale1210

which losses are you referring to?

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Leandros S

Your reporting does not state whether Sigma is allowed to continue with the sale of the six lens models, and, if so, whether Nikon will continue to receive 15% of Sigma's profits on these items.

I also find the summary of the ruling confusing - 10bn Yen total profit, or 10bn Yen from the sale of infringing lenses?

Surprised that Sigma apparently did not, or could not, bring a counter-suit, and wondering whether they will reconsider the prioritisation of the Nikon mount in releasing new lenses.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

If they are not getting along with Nikon they would introduce the Nikon versions first, in order to take Nikon sales as much as possible. If they are getting along with Nikon, because this has all been a show or something, they they will not introduce a new 12-24mm f2.8 A any time soon, and they might not even introduce a new 85mm f1.4 A any time soon. It looks like they are going to be introducing a Nikon D800 killer this year (SD1 Quattro), but the jury is out on that one. (It's a little too soon to tell.) They certainly did seem to play ball with Nikon, when they priced the SD1 so high. They gave Nikon time to catch up and introduce the D800, before they brought the price down to where they originally stated that they would sell it. It all seems very suspicious to me.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Leandros S

By a flip-side argument, they should withhold models that address markets that Nikon doesn't address, to not add significant value to the system.

Mar 14, 2014permalink

hikerdoc

I copy material to a term paper it is plagiarism and I am expelled from university.
I walk out of walmart with a DVD it is shoplifting and I go to jail.
I copy someone's lyrics it is copyright infringement and I pay a penalty.
I use someone elses patented process to create a product I can sell to their customers at a reduced rate having avoided the R&D costs and .....I am a victim if the other company is larger?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

It's hard to know without reading all of the patents and reading the judge's entire report, but with many patents it's quite possible (even likely) that that infringing company didn't avoid the necessary R&D, rather that their designed necessarily covered some possibly-overly-broad patent already awarded.

Still, it's up to the infringing company to research any still-valid patents, and negotiate with the patent-holding company to prevent this sort of litigation succeeding.

It *might* be that they simply didn't check thoroughly enough. Or it *might* be that Sigma did check, and considered that their designs skirted existing patents enough so as not to require negotiations with Nikon. Or some other permutation - maybe we'll find out over the coming days.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Cyrille Berger

There is no such things as broad patent, they are actually extremely specific. What can make people think that patent are "broad" is the way they are summarized in the news, such as "sending email over 3G" or "VR patent". But if you look at the actual patent, the claims are very specific. And the reason it is that way is because the law and international treaty require patent to be specific. And this is made to avoid anti-competitive patents. For instance, a claim that "moving an element of a lens to compensate motion" is not enough, it has to describe how the element is moved.
However, it is true that patent writer try to make their patent cover more than it should, but this is a very thin line, because they take the chance that their patent will get invalidated in court.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

im not sure about that: just check what they are trying to patent with the seeds used to produce food!!!
EVERYONE would have to pay that disgusting company EVERY TIME they would try to simply use the seeds they ALWAYS USED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HUMANITY!!!

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Andy Crowe

@Cyrille Berger This is a hardware vs software patent issue. Hardware patents have to be specific because you must be able to recreate the physical technology from the patent. Someone can create something that does the same thing but with a different method of doing it and not be covered. On the other hand software patents are often granted when they just describe how a UI acts. Thus you can have a patent that says "when screen over-scrolls it bounces back" which is basically just the thoughts of a UI designer and prevent every single possible implementation of that feature, where patents are only supposed to stop people copying a single implementation.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Watch the last season of Boston Legal, and you will see a case where the guy's doctor patented the guy's blood. Wow! I don't know if that is possible, but it sure opened up my eyes to the type of stuff that is probably going on right now.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

RichRMA

I'm fairly certain the only thing Nikon is making a profit off are their lenses so I understand why they'd be trying to eliminate some competition. The Sigma lenses must use specific methods that Nikon uses to make its VR system work. But I wonder then if this is a semi-standardized system, how Panasonic and Canon avoided copying Nikon, or did Canon's I.S. lenses come before Nikon's?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Abu Mahendra

Yes. Canon introduced IS long before Nikon. Nikon was caught off guard because they were focused on the "purity" of photography, IS being considered a phlilistine abomination.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Nikons selling 6 million DSLRs and 11 1/2 million compacts this year. and one of the two camera makers posting profits. Pretty sure its not all on lens.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

naththo

Nikon hardly sell lens which is correct sandy b. Try the Nikon failed to make profitable from selling Film scanner so they stopped making. Cos you know why, very expensive lens inside film scanner make sale very unattractive. They need to do a lot better than that for expensive lens price that needed to be lower to keep the sales intact. Same for Canon they need to do the same. If you want to sell very expensive lens, then manufacture the lens at lower volume to avoid losing a huge margin of profit. Since last year, DSLR had a severe impact on sale decline. So Nikon and Canon need to watch out for. They are losing profit. Some camera shop are thinking about closing here in Adelaide due to lack of sales last year either. Its not looking good. They are on edge at the moment. Its very worry one.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Not sure about "hardly", they are forecasting 8 million lens sales this year. But you are right, all those sales numbers are down substantially. But this is true for all the camera makers, none of them are doing good. Nikon is vulnerable because it's their main market, but they are a fiscally conservative company with lots of money in the bank, they should be ok..for awhile. They certainly have to clean up their tarnished image. Honesty and transparency would be a good start.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Maji

Nikon produced the first optical stabilized lens, a 38–105 mm f/4-7.8 zoom built into the Nikon Zoom 700VR (US: Zoom-Touch 105 VR) camera in 1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Spectro

@abu

No, nikon own VR. IS patents or whatever you call it. Otherwise Canon would be the one suing. Nikon Zoom 700 VR camera was the first to have Image stabilization. Canon came out with the first lens, but the patent was already patented by Nikon.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Revenant

You don't own a general patent for optical stabilisation, autofocus or whatever. You own a patent for a specific implementation thereof, a specific technological solution. Just because Nikon, Canon and Panasonic all have OIS, it doesn't mean that they achieve this in exactly the same way. Sigma, on the other hand, apparently used Nikon's implementation, or at least came close enough to get Nikon's attention.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Naththo and Sandy B, where are you getting your information? Nikon has reported growing sales and profits for their imaging company, and they expect growing sales and profits this year too. Look at page 16 of their most recent "Financial Results" report: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2013/13_all_e.pdf

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Twice this (fiscal) year Nikon has lowered their sales forcasts. Yes they are still making a profit in all divisions.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

aut0maticdan

very small figure. They either have very thin margins or don't sell a lot of units. this even after stealing IP from a competitor to reduce R&D costs. sheesh

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Huh? How many lenses do you think they need to sell in order for 15% of their profit from six of their lenses to reach $14 million? I would guess that would be at least a million lenses! An that is only 6 of their 42 (or more) lenses that they make! If you count the lenses with different mounts as different lenses, then they make 192 different lenses! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=100&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&ci=274&setNs=p_PRICE_2|0&N=4288584247+4291220258&srtclk=sort

Mar 12, 2014permalink

ZorSy

OK, let them settle for good: it is obvious that Nikon knows the inner workings of Sigma OS (as much they know about their own as it appears to be 'similar') so they could create a lot of fuss to owners of new Nikon bodies that wouldn't work with Sigma OS lenses. This is FACT, and the 'war' happened over end users head.
Now, is this 'settle of the records' going to change anything for end users? Is Nikon going to 'enable' Sigma lenses on newer Nikon bodies through FW update or is Sigma going to get the required 'knowledge' to upgrade their lenses so they can be used on Nikon bodies without side effects?
Less likely! I think all those users who own OS lens and Nikon body and NEITHER works as meant to, should take massive class action against BOTH companies...because they are the real LOSERS in this patent infringement war.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Der Steppenwolf

Good point.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Zorsy, Nikon does not owe Sigma anything in exchange. Not now or the future. It is up to Sigma (if they value product quality) to make sure their lenses work with Nikon bodies. Nikon does not build their cameras around compatibility with Sigma glass.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Alex, I think he's referring to Nikon doing things like producing new cameras (or changing camera firmware existing cameras) to ensure Sigma lenses won't work properly with Nikon bodies?

If so, the point isn't that Nikon should build cameras to work with Sigma glass, it's that Nikon actively fiddles with their cameras to try to stop Sigma lenses working properly.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

naththo

If Nikon dare them to stop third party lens from working. Thats anti competition, its illegal and is against the international law. They could be taken to court for anti-trust lawsuit. So they better watch out. If they do, then they are becoming a thug like Microsoft is.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

I have a couple of sigma lens that work perfectly with my D600. Go figure.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Cyrille Berger

There is no law that prevents Nikon to block third party lens from working. And certainly, no international laws. And if there was, Nikon would have been sued a long time ago, if only to be forced to publish the F-mount specification.

There are laws in many countries against abuse of monopoly position, but for Nikon to get in trouble over that, they would need to achieve monopoly in the camera body market. And since it is not nearly the case, they cannot be sued for abuse of monopoly and cannot be force to provide interoperability documentation.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

iullian

How anybody think that this could even work? Imagine Nikon is coming with a firmware to remove compatibility with Sigma lenses (or others). Except the case in which that specific firmware turns EVERY picture into a Pulitzer one, who would even think to implement that firmware in his/her camera? Would have to be under serious drugs or something.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Horshack

Perhaps Sigma can offset the 15% profit judgement by claiming 15% of their profit was erased due to lenses arriving with Nikon-related impact damage.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Richard Franiec

We all should be glad that idea of patent did not existed at the time of the wheel invention.
On the other hand, in our material world, stealing (adopting) versus purchasing the rights to intellectual property is considered as an act of piracy, perhaps rightly so.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Wouldn't matter much if patents did exist then, given that they only last for around 15-20 years, depending on jurisdiction.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Henrik Herranen

RPHG: It is a common myth that patents only last 15-20 years. That's what we are taught, but unfortunately it's not the truth.

Real-life example: The popular MP3 audio format was invented in the late 1980's, and the MP3 international standard ISO/IEC 11172-3 is dated 1993-08-01. Still, according to Thompson the patents are still valid, and will be for at least a few more years. So every MP3-capable standalone device manufacturer still pays ransom money to them for each unit they build, or face the consequences.

The reasoning for why the patents pertaining to the MP3 format still are in force though there is clear printed proof that everything in MP3 is more than 20 years old (anyone can order the standard and check the date) transcends my understanding.

For a mention of "submarine patents", see:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Mp3

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

Cyrille Berger

And how long did it takes for the wheel technology to propagate ? Patents are part of deal that ensure spreading of knowledge. In exchange for some years of protection, inventors have to publish their invention, which will allow other inventors to build on those results.
Too many people only see one aspect of the patent, the negative one and forget the positive one.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Henrik Herranen

Cyrille: That's how it is supposed to work. But it doesn't.

The following I speak with some bitter experience.

Patents are routinely given to "inventions" that are not inventions at all. I dare say that the vast majority of patents are non-inventions and obvious; exactly what shouldn't be patentable at all. (Btw, the MP3 patents I mentioned earlier do not fall under this umbrella. What they did at the time was genuinely excellent.)

In theory it is possible to contest a patent you think is invalid. However the cost of that is prohibitive.

The big ones usually cross-license patents. Smaller companies cannot play that game so they are left out to dry.

And if some of the litigious companies sends you a ransom letter and threatens with court for an imagined patent infringment, often it is easier to pay than end up in a legal battle that will bankrupt your company way before you have any chance to win. I've seen a medium size company topple over exactly like this. It was quite sad.

Mar 12, 2014*permalink

itsastickup

Quite likely common-sense features afflicted by the curse of patents.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

GPW

Nikon has got to make money somehow!

Mar 11, 2014permalink

xmeda

Sigma, please stop making lenses for Nikon :D

Mar 11, 2014permalink

walgarch

Yes, because less competition is exactly what Nikon wants

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Lucas_

Yes! Give priority to Sony A and E mounts before Nikon.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Joed700

I wonder if Nikon can sue Sigma for producing the Sigma 35mm FF f/1.4, a lens that outperforms Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 for half the price...

How about suing Fujifilm for its XT-1, a retro camera that actually functions better than the Nikon DF....

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Eric Calabros

So you shouldnt protect your IP because someone is making a (arguably) better product?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

DStudio

If you can't beat 'em (and you can't buy 'em) ... sue 'em!

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Joed700

@Eric Calabros - I totally support IP; I'm just trying to be sarcastic about the fact that Nikon is losing the leading edge in terms of invnovation; Nikon really dropped the ball ever since they introduced the Nikon D800..D600, which followed by the half ass Nikon DF...

Mar 13, 2014*permalink

D200_4me

Meanwhile...the magical unicorns controlling the in-body VR inside my E-M1 continues to do a better job than my former Nikkor lenses. :-)

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Eric Calabros

Even at Tele range?
Oh you dont have tele lens for EM1 yet

Mar 12, 2014permalink

GROW UP eric!!!
And learn HOW TO READ AND SEE PHOTOS IN THE NET INSTEAD OF JUST TROLING!!!

I will even give you aome help:
http://www.olympus.com.au/Products/Digital-SLR/Lenses/SuperPro.aspx

YOU WISH nikon (or canon) had auch an AMAZING Zuiko 90-250mm f2.8 Telephoto Zoom!!! (not to mention that it is indeed a 180-500 f2.8!!!
SUCK IT!!!

Mar 12, 2014permalink

Jeez, someone's really butthurt.

Mar 12, 2014permalink

peevee1

"Even at Tele range?
Oh you dont have tele lens for EM1 yet"

You mean 3 600mm-equivalents are not tele enough for you?

Mar 12, 2014permalink

balios

If you're counting "equivalents", then you can crop FF images to whatever "equivalent" you want... So you can take a 800mm/5.6, crop the image by half and its like you own a 1600mm/5.6 lens (omg!). But that would be a silly way to look at it because it wouldn't have the IQ of a 1600mm FF lens.

Mar 13, 2014*permalink

vadims

I bet Sigma just came up, themselves, with a solution that was already "protected" by a Nikon patent.

It's long overdue all this "patent"... stuff is revised and a bit of sanity is brought into it.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Andrew Booth

Sigma's turnover last year was 33 billion yen - $320 million

This shouldn't concern them too much.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Joachim Wulfers

if their net profit was 10% of turnover, then this fine amounts to approx. 50% of their profit. Most certainly of great concern.

Mar 11, 2014permalink

Dave Oddie

It is 15% of the profit on the sales of the six specific lenses.

From the article:

15% of the 10.1 billion JPY profit Sigma made on the lenses in question will go to Nikon.

So that is 1.5 billion JPY which is not a lot.

Mar 12, 2014permalink