There can be only 1: Polaroid licensee withdraws Nikon-like camera

it's more stupid to imitate a design that doesn't sell.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

Carlos Rac

Stupid Canon Guy!...

May 19, 2017permalink

monkeybrain

My vote goes to this story for best DPR headline of the year.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

removed, I was wrong

Dec 8, 2013*permalink

dccdp

And the dinosaur wins.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

ballwin12

I bet this is a Chinese company, Am I right? They do nothing, just want to steal patterns from others.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Matthew Miller

Well, maybe. Sakar is a small company headquartered in New Jersey. But they don't really actually design anything themselves; they basically license different brands (like Polaroid or Vivitar or Kodak, or even Hello Kitty) and attach them to Chinese imports.

Since it tends to be very low quality and *COMPLETELY* unsupported (try getting ahold of anyone at Sakar with a technical question, let alone a support request!), I'm pretty sympathetic to Nikon here.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

so a small Chinese maker posted a threat to Nikon that needed reaction, which made the imitator known to the world?

Dec 8, 2013permalink

http://www.insideview.com/directory/sakar-international-inc

It is not Chinese. It is from Edison, New Jersey. I.e. it is American. It has 75 employees and a revenue of $100 Million. Not maybe giant, but not all that small either. It specialises in buying brand names and designing toys and electronic stuff using those brand names. Therefore it bought the brand name Polaroid when this company went belly up.

http://www.sakar.com/

Dec 8, 2013*permalink

@yabokkie It's more that Nikon spent money on industrial design to create a very specific look, and if they let one person copy that then they'd loose protection of the design.

If Nikon were just suing over the rough shape it would be one thing, but the Sakar is so blatant (same grip texture, same undersized hood bayonet and same silver/black accents on the lens) that Nikon really didn't have a choice.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

Right, Chinese companies do nothing. The iPhone is made on the dark side of the moon by purple aliens.

Dec 9, 2013permalink

xenaretos

Everyone should sue everyone until all manufacturing and craft is prohibited due to patent violations.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

There's no craft here tho, the product look has been entirely copied down to the Nikon's grip texture, silver stripes and black area around a reduced size lens hood bayonet

Dec 7, 2013permalink

pgb

The lens does prove a blatant attempt to clone another's work
to confuse the buyer.
The lens grip texture is an identical colour and similar pattern, the shutter and lens buttons are are identical and just re-positioned. If they made the lens grip black plastic they would have got away with it.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

xenaretos

It is a partial design copy but these cameras are still different and I wouldn't call that enough to accuse Sakar of plagiarism in this case (there are differences there, some may have even been deliberately introduced). And if it's not plagiarism, I don't see the point in banning it (the only thing I would probably think prudent to ask of them is changing the font of the gray "10-30" text on the lens which is indeed identical to Nikon's to the point of being confusing ).

I am thinking in terms of common sense here and not the modern law. And in terms of common sense, having to deliberately alter a working design so that it doesn't resemble some other is rather questionable.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

Revenant

"I am thinking in terms of common sense here and not the modern law."

Unfortunately, common sense has traditionally had very little influence on human society.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

Nikon just said they cannot withstand slightest blow.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

ProfHankD

Well, I suppose this at least averted lawsuits with Sony about the idea of a lens-shaped camera that talks to, and is operated by, an Android device. ;-)

I see both Adorama and BHPhoto have this on sale for $299 -- which, despite the Polaroid having truly strange specs, is surprisingly more expensive at BH than a similar-looking red or silver Nikon 1 J1 at $219. Even more interesting, BH lists the white J1 as discontinued. Remind me: who won this lawsuit?

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Deleted pending purge

"Trade dress" indeed. Why not patent white, red, black, and be done with competition. And there are those letters on one... saying n-i-k-o-n, and the other has p-o-l-a-r uh, something... Is this lawsuit aimed to protect the illiterate? How weird can it get...

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Look at this and tell me that the Polaroid's design isn't too similar to the Nikon
http://i.imgur.com/NJYMQKc.jpg

Dec 7, 2013*permalink

Deleted pending purge

Now we need a definition for too similar. It actually may boil down to either someone's idea of functionality or to the same author behind both shapings. In that sense, all cars are similar too. But there are also differences and these should count, without overly strong accent on their quantity.
An example would be seen in the army, where everyone is dressed the same, but still not look like clones; for reasons of soldiers iindividual features, abilities etc... and then there are those strips and stars and whatever which differentiate them by their own default.
Another example would also be all those SLRs, also many superzoom bridge cameras, or "pocketable" little boxes where the inscriptions often make the only prominent diff.
But when the lawyers get involved, all men and/or things can be made equal or different, as per wish, money clout, or whatever other reason, imaginable or not. Like in this case, where all the difference seems to have been disregarded in favor of similarities.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

But this is the thing, it's nothing to do with the shape. The Polaroid's lens has the same silver stripes, the same grip texture and the same flat black border around an undersized lens hood bayonet. Those are entirely optional elements, and Sakar *choose* to copy them from the Nikon. Every other camera may be the same rough shape, but they all have their own unique design elements. All the design elements of the iM1836 are directly copied from the Nikon 1.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Deleted pending purge

Still, the size differs, the commands differ, the placement of flash port is different... so why would some stripes be so important, when there are such prominently visible differences, not forgetting product names, manufacturer names etc?
Let's say the colors on the camera were other than what was made? Would it still point to similarities? Many people, me included, used to re-paint their cars when the new coat of paint was due, and one of my Fiats was painted citrus-yellow of the BMW. It still remained Fiat, only funnier! ;)
In other words, would somebody buy Sakar's product thinking it was Nikon? Hardly a "danger" worthy of all the hullaballoo, IMO.
On the other hand, if Nikon's overall design of model 1 was patent-protected to such detail, they'd be within their rights. But we do not know how detailed the patent documents are...
Never mind. It's lawyer food anyway.

Dec 8, 2013*permalink

kff

Nikon followed Apple ...

Dec 7, 2013permalink

ThePhilips

As images indicate, it is little bit more than about rounded corners.

So no: the case has substance, thus also evidently found a pretty quick resolution.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

kff

In this case, the technical innovation - better and cheap Android Camera ... and it is nonsense to do with another new lens mount ... and What is Nikon doing ... They prevent someone to do cameras better and slowing technological development ... but there is Samsung Galaxy NX ... :)

Dec 7, 2013*permalink

This lawsuit is nothing to do with technical innovation, it's a design patent on the specific look. The Polaroid copies the exact silver strips, the exact grip texture and the exact black area around an identically sized lens hood bayonet. All Sakar (the manufacturer) had to do was not use identical design accents and they would have been fine, I mean just look at it http://i.imgur.com/NJYMQKc.jpg

Dec 7, 2013permalink

kff

I think that Sakar had a few technical innovation, but Nikon stopped its by lawsuit in the style of Apple

Dec 9, 2013permalink

Wow, I think a lot of people commenting here need to stop and look at the lens. They have the same silver accents, the same grip texture, the same flat black strip around the hood bayonet etc.

If not for the lens I don't think Nikon would have sued (many cameras have similar body colours and shape) but the lens such is a blatant rip-off, and most importantly there's no good technical reason for it to look that way, that I don't see how Nikon really had a choice.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

diolus

A lot of armchair lawyers here.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Couscousdelight

did they use the same mount ?
No ?
So WTF Nikon ?

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Hubertus Bigend

The case was never about technology, it was only about the design (as in appearance).

Dec 7, 2013permalink

It's a design patent, so it's more like trademark. Basically the design looks too similar (same design accents, same colours) without any good reason to.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

The whole idea with design patents is fishy. Patents usually is an invention and have some newsworthiness and hight.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

> The whole idea with design patents is fishy

No it's not, design patents are one of the last sane parts of the patent system. It protects an exact look, something can use the same technology and be the same rough shape, but as long as the design isn't identical a design patent doesn't cover it. That's why there are so few design patent cases compared to overly-broad technology (especially software) patents.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

@Andy - did you not get that backwards? Design patterns are protecting a look and are very inexact. Otherwise Nikon would not have a case here.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

@Roland Almost all the design elements are copied exactly, down to the grip texture http://i.imgur.com/NJYMQKc.jpg

Also can you point to any case history of an overly broad design patent win?

Dec 8, 2013permalink

King Penguin

Perhaps Leica should now take Fuji to court for their cheap leica rip off :)

Dec 7, 2013permalink

olivier_777

As a consequence, nobody can produce soap bars any more, because soap bars look like a Nikon 1.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

D200_4me

Fine with me. I hate soap bars. I only use liquid soap these days. Makes cleaning the shower much easier too :-)

Dec 7, 2013permalink

expressivecanvas

I'm glad someone said exactly what I was thinking... These cameras in question each look like a slippery bar of soap... and yet, they clearly are two different cameras. Nikon can't possibly think that this similar looking camera is why their sales are so low. If they do believe this ridiculous notion, there are more serious issues within Nikon to discuss...

Dec 7, 2013permalink

RichRMA

The only reason Sakar did it was the overall design is a cheap one. Far less complex than say the Sony NEX. No wonder Nikon could still make a profit on the "J" when they cut the price by 60%.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

It's not just the shape though, the lens has the same design accents too and it would have been cheaper for Sakar to not have them.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

jwkphoto

This reminds me of Polaroid suing Kodak for infringement over instant film and camera twenty years ago and winning. Then in wasn't long before Polaroid went under. About the same time Honeywell sued Minolta for infringement for their autofocus system. They both went out of business. Honeywell could not make it work well and Minolta did. Minolta paid 121 million for that and ended up selling out to Sony ten years later.

It seems like the end results is they all go out of business. Is Nikon next?

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Albino_BlacMan

Apple sued Samsung... Bye Bye Apple?

Lots of camera companies sued eachother, lots of camera companies went out of business. I'm sure Canon sued someone/ was sued back in the day. They still seem to be profitable

Dec 7, 2013permalink

JayBratcher

BTW - Nikon needs to sue Leica too:
http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/compacts/leica_c112

And someone who makes lipstick should sue Lytro - I'm positive my Grandma was trying to put Lytro on her lips the other day.

And Sigma - sue the pants off of Sigma until they make a camera that doesn't look like a brick with a lens glued onto the front.

And while we are at it, sue Sony too, for making cameras that look really good on paper but draw yawns in real life. I know they are capable - their video cameras are consistently top notch if you drop some proper coin.

And Canon - who do they think they are? Sue them! Don't care what for, they just have it coming.

Pentax, Panasonic and Olympus - sue them as well. I'm pretty sure their cameras look like something too.

I'll send my referrers fee to whichever lawyer picks these suggestions up.

You're welcome!

Dec 7, 2013permalink

caver3d

So, maybe Olympus should sue Sony and Nikon for copying the Olympus retro OM-D design/look for their digital cameras. After all, Olympus came up with the first digital camera with the retro "hump".

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Oly is a happy maker with stupid users.

premium customers that all the makers want to have but the sad thing is there are not many of foolish people. a maker cannot rely on those customers to become a top brand but they still try sometimes, like Nikon Df.

Dec 7, 2013*permalink

Vlad S

May be Sony should sue Olympus: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7/

Dec 7, 2013permalink

zzzorki7

Do NIKON hump real and fake in Olympus.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Nikon itself is a fake of Ikon.
only Ikon is junk and Nikon is the real thing now.
anything may happen tomorrow.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Edmond Leung

Good !
Victory in anti-counterfeiting.
It prevents the fake products spread out to the whole world.
An excellent decision from the court.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

JayBratcher

Did you really think that camera was a Nikon 1 Series? Was it infringing on Nikon's business (rhetorical question, because it possibly was, but no more than any other camera)? At what point are manufacturers no longer allowed to make a camera that looks like a camera?

Dec 7, 2013permalink

This has nothing to do with counterfeiting which is serious (and illegal). The concept here is that the appearance of the Nikon was so unique, it was proprietary. Imagine arguing that people went to buy a genuine Nikon and got a Sakar Polaroid by accident. Whoops! Well, this victory will put a stop to that.

Sadly, real counterfeiting is all over the place. Used to be only things perceived as overpriced, like OEM batteries & chargers (which Canon/Nikon don't make themselves, anyway), but now even even lens caps are faked, right down to the packaging.

Dec 7, 2013*permalink

No the issue here is that the design is just too similar. Not just the body shape, the accents on the lens are almost identical.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Revenant

"At what point are manufacturers no longer allowed to make a camera that looks like a camera?"

When they are infringing on someone else's design patent. And those are usually very specific, and not about general shapes like "soap bar" or such.
There are lots of other "soap bar" cameras on the market, but none is similar enough to be infringing on the Nikon 1 patent. Except for the Sakar/Polaroid camera and lens, which is similar enough, according to the court ruling.
You may not like the current patent laws, but given that we have them, we must abide by them. It's up to any designer to make sure that his design isn't too similar to someone else's.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

expressivecanvas

Looks like Nikon is choosing to behave like Kodak in their last days in the camera business with logic like if you can't make money in the camera business, then try to make money in the courtroom. Perhaps we should be asking whether Nikon is headed down the same road.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

ryansholl

Big corporation or profitless sole proprietorship: You create something. Someone makes a look alike that may keep naive grandmothers from buying your product for their grandkids. You do what?

It's cool. That money we spent making things look pretty is excellently spent on someone else milking it for all it's worth.

Make them stop selling it.

I can't believe this is an issue, I really can't.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

guamy

This one also can be sold to asian countries where patents laws can't be reached.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

InTheMist

Title of the year!

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Barney Britton

Newsletter subscribers were treated to 'Nikon Sues Sakar over Incriminating Polaroid'.

You're welcome.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

I am not all for design lookalike protections. The camera says Polaroid. We do know that Polaroid do not mean Nikon. If they had called it Nikon or Nihon or Nippon or some such, then I think there would have been a case. But personally, even if Nikon may be technically right, I find this move by Nikon unnecessary.

Moreover, the Polaroid thing looks like a cheap toy. And I assume it feels even cheaper when you have it in your hand. The Nikon on the other hand looks serious and feels substantial. The Polaroid thing will not hurt the Nikon sales, IMHO.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

DDWD10

The Polaroid looks like a knock-off of itself!

Dec 7, 2013permalink

If Nikon didn't take this to court they'd likely lose protection of their design and other people would copy. Remember it's not just the camera shape, the Polaroid has identical design accents on the lens for no good reason.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/protection-by-lawsuit.html

Its a strange world where you can protect "design accents". But we are descendants of ship B, so why not.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Expat Nomad

But there ARE differences to the design (e.g., mode dial, AF assist, port locations). Edit: I presume the menus are different too.

If this was the music industry, we'd be talking about the remix/tribute/cover.

Dec 6, 2013*permalink

marike6

This case is more like the music industry equivalent of a sample. Maybe an artist will speed the sample up changing the pitch a la Kayne West, but it's still a copy of an original work.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

JayBratcher

But it's not like the music industry, where the art itself is ripped off. This is a camera we are talking about, not a fashion statement. Nobody flaunts their Nikon 1 because it looks cool.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Revenant

Yes, there are differences, but without reading the design patent in question, we don't know what the relevant design elements are. It doesn't have to be identical to be infringing on the patent; it's a question of being similar enough, and that's up to the court to decide.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

SRT3lkt

I was thinking this as the Panasonic-Leica or the Sony-Hasselblad type thing, up until I read this article.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

aandegoons

A new low... DPR Anti Nikon trolls rooting for the thief.

Sakar is actually using the molds from the Nikon 1 system.

Dec 6, 2013*permalink

Richard Butler

Hogan speculates that Sakar might be using the molds. Note that the image we've used differs more from the J1 than the ones on his site - as do the images of the prototypes we took at CES (lens release button and AF illuminator in difference places, for example).

Dec 6, 2013permalink

aandegoons

Ya I think Hogan is right. Sakar just poked a few holes in the mold but overall the two are way too close. Seems the mold issue is very common in China.

Either way rooting for thievery is pretty low.

Dec 6, 2013*permalink

Richard Butler

I hope you don't believe I'm 'rooting for thievery.'

I'm just pointing out that your statement that 'Sakar is using...' isn't supported by evidence. It's possible but almost irrelevant - the court will decide whether Sakar has infringed the design rights (and it certainly looks like Nikon has a case). It's 'whether' that matters, rather than 'how.'

Dec 6, 2013permalink

Thom has no way of knowing, and that's not what he said. He speculated is that it the two cameras might have been made from the same mold (obviously not by Nikon, or they should sue themselves).

Then, the real revelation: In China, everybody copies everything. Wow. The lawsuits that appear reasonable pertain to technology, trademarks and counterfeiting. If Sakar wrote Nikon on the camera, that would be a serious attempt to fool people.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

aandegoons

Not at all R Butler. But many of your forum posters are.

BTW how much pointing out would you be doing if I started a website that looked a lot like this one named Dpreviewed?

Dec 6, 2013permalink

samfan

Well, a web site equivalent of this Sakar thingy would be a web site with a similar layout to this with black background, white text, orange subtitles (instead of blue) and a red square logo (instead of a round blue one) saying something completely different.

Also the web site would be about Chinese gadgets with Android and not cameras.

In other words, artificial similarity with differences obvious at the 2nd sight.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

samfan

Also, funny fact: When I first encountered the N1 system (which was at their announcement presentation), I thought the J1 looks remarkably similar to a Leica. No, really. Look at it from above. A mini-Leica.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

samfan

I really don't like these patents and lawsuits. Why just throw money at the lawyers instead of... Well I don't know, how about engineers? Or quality control? Or common sense? (Meaning, don't assemble your cameras from the cheapest Chinese parts, sell them at a massive premium and then act surprised that someone else uses the same parts.)

Anyway, dpreview, maybe you should put a pic of J1 there instead of J3. J3 doesn't look so similar, while J1 is quite identical.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

Richard Butler

Try reloading the page (we already had).

Dec 6, 2013permalink

dan the man p

I'm surprised people are upset about this lawsuit. The Polaroid is an obvious rip-off. Even the lens is styled the same way.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

gerard boulanger

Patent infringement? Yes, they are both white, like many other cameras are black... If you remove the logo on a Nikon and Canon DSLR, I guess the only difference might be the little red thing on the Nikon.
The top of the Sakar and the Nikon are very different as Canon and Nikon DSLR are.
Now if it's about a design registered at USPTO by Nikon, it might be a different story.
I hope it's not just about similar white look.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

Look at the lense. They have the same silver accents, the same grip texture, the same flat black strip around the hood bayonet.

If not for the lens I don't think Nikon would have won (many cameras have similar body colours and shape) but the lens is such a blatant rip-off, and most importantly there's no technical reason for it to be.

Dec 7, 2013*permalink

D1N0

So the Chinese government decided they would rather have Nikon making J1's in China than in Thailand and told Sakar to make a less obvious rip off.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

I've not looked at the design patent owned by Nikon, but comparing the two cameras they do look very similar to me. To the extent that the design patent covers the Nikon 1 then, this seems fair enough to me. Sakar seem to agree, given how far they backed down.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

pdelux

Just because they backed down doesnt mean that they are wrong, just means they dont have as much money as nikon, large corporations can keep small companies in court for years to the point where the little guys go bankrupt. Doesnt matter whos right or wrong anymore.

Dec 7, 2013permalink

Why are you assuming they only backed down because they are a smaller company though? It's also possible that that had nothing to do with it, isn't it? To me this looks like a pretty clear case of copying.

Dec 8, 2013permalink

It's only a matter of time before Canon cracks down on those drinking cups that look like L lenses.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

FencerPTS

Note to lens makers: when applying for design patents for lenses also file a design patent for cups.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

I have one of those!

Dec 6, 2013permalink

CameraLabTester

This sentence is a justified punishment for Sucker... or rather, Sakar for stupidly trying to imitate what is already a very poor, ugly, horrible and forgetful design devoid of beauty. They should have at least tried a more poorer, uglier, more horrible and oblivious design like Leica Lunatic or Leica Lambroast or something...

Dec 6, 2013*permalink

marike6

Never thought a random dot could be so interesting, kind of like a pin prick letting out hot air.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

Nikon may sometimes be slow developing new lenses or filling backorders but when it comes to suing they are up there with Apple & Samsung. I do see the similarity in these inspired designs but I don't see how consumers might confuse one with the other.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

FencerPTS

Gosh it sure is funny how much the Nikon 1 looks like the Olympus PEN E-PM1 and PEN E-PL3 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1. Just saying...

So can anyone shed light on to what specific aspects of the design patent Sakar is violating but that Olympus and Panasonic are not?

Dec 6, 2013*permalink

FencerPTS

In case anyone is interested, the relevant patent is D682906. The design patents cited in this patent refer extensively to Leica, Samsung, and other Nikon cameras.
So where did Sakar go wrong? One guess: the top of the body has a beveled edge to the back. Beyond that, there are very few unique features.

Dec 6, 2013permalink

Englishman in France

Did Nikon patent shiney white plastic ? I bet apple are just kicking themselves.

Dec 6, 2013permalink