Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon sues Sigma for ¥12.6 billion over VR lenses

Go to last post
Just pointing out what appears to have been an error by Joseph, unless he knows about some Oly lenses that has escaped me - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong,

Nick
 
I guess he meant Panaleica lens for 4/3s. Olympus has just in-body IS as you said and I dont think they intend to change it (and I hope they wont). Though Sony currently has lens IS in E-mount.
nick_webster said:
Just pointing out what appears to have been an error by Joseph, unless he knows about some Oly lenses that has escaped me - happy to be corrected if I'm wrong,

Nick
Click to expand...
 
nick_webster said:
they don't have any stabilised lenses.
Click to expand...
They launched with nothing. No stabilized sensors, just a lens with a big "insert stabilizer here" place in the design. Their in-body stabilizer came years later.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Rickard Hansson said:
I mean, they have stabilized zooms as well.
Click to expand...
As has been explained a few times already in this thread, it is not about lens stabilization in general but rather some more specific detail(s) in how it is implemented.

Lens based stabilization is not just used by Nikon and Canon, but also by Panasonic, Sony and others.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny
 
nick_webster said:
they don't have any stabilised lenses.
Click to expand...
they hold patents on lens stabilisation

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Mescalamba said:
Not wise from Nikon. They dont get that some ppl use Sigma lens + Nikon body and in case they couldnt get it, they will simply leave for cheaper competition.

Plus in moment of unveiling SD-1 its very.. ehm, unpolite. Not sure whats financial status of Sigma, but it wouldnt be nice if they died cause of Nikon..
Click to expand...
While it is true that the situation is "impolite", you may be confusing who is being impolite to who...

Nikon's press release mentions that they've been negotiating with Sigma for quite some time, before launching the lawsuit. Now, you're dealing with big companies, here, and they don't do these things quickly. Odds are, Nikon and Sigma were talking about this before the first Sigma $1,700 announcement months ago, let alone the $9,700 announcement 5 days ago.

And Sigma certainly knew that, without a negotiated peace, the lawyers were coming.

How much thought, planning, and research do you think went into Nikon's efforts at negotiation, and into the lawsuit that they just announced? Now, how much thought do you think went into Sigma's picking that $9,700 price and then announcing it with so little consideration for how it would affect them. Seriously, who announces something that serious on Friday afternoon, then goes home for the weekend?

I think Sigma was the one trying to create a distraction.
Click to expand...
Sigma didnt bring this case on themselves, and according to legal statistic, have a 3 out of 4 chance of successfully defending against Nikons claim, and in all likelihood wouldnt pay the full claim if they lost anyway

more likely nikon just cutting off other avenues of supply to lenses,
much as they did with D40 and as Sony did with Sigma

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
If the SD1 is going to use Sigma mount lenses that are based on the Nikon VR system, I could see where Nikon would be upset (or Canon's IS if they thought it better.). They would surely lose on that suit if they are using Nikon's license to make aftermarket lenses for Nikon, but have decided to use Nikon's licensed (same) technology in their own body and lens designs too.

Glad I'm not in Sigma's shoes right now if that was their strategy. Nikon might end up with a truck full of Foveon SD1 sensors really cheap. The new "Nikon D5x Foveon 45 MP Body" for only $3,500. Ouch, Canon!

Mack
 
GMack said:
If the SD1 is going to use Sigma mount lenses that are based on the Nikon VR system, I could see where Nikon would be upset (or Canon's IS if they thought it better.). They would surely lose on that suit if they are using Nikon's license to make aftermarket lenses for Nikon, but have decided to use Nikon's licensed (same) technology in their own body and lens designs too.

Glad I'm not in Sigma's shoes right now if that was their strategy. Nikon might end up with a truck full of Foveon SD1 sensors really cheap. The new "Nikon D5x Foveon 45 MP Body" for only $3,500. Ouch, Canon!
Click to expand...
You have some faith in that sensor - for myself, I'd guess that the sensor that Nikon would have sketched in for the D5X (5 years away) would probably comfortably outperform the SD1 sensor. No-one else needs or wants Foveon sensors - had they they could have bought them years ago. It's not as if Sigma has the financial muscle to ward off predators of the size of Canon, Nikon and Sony had they come hunting for Foveon when it was independent. Even Olympus is a bigger company, and they haven't shown any interest - and they are in a rather more precarious situation with respect to sensors than the others.

--
Bob
 
Honeywell set Minolta on the road to ruin but if Nikon, a camera company, ruin another camera maker the they will not be forgiven by the buying public who want choice & diversity. Ever heard that old saying about winning the battle but losing the War ?
--
Keith-C
 
I used the word jiggle in the present tense - ie that is what they do now. I am aware that earlier bodies didn't as I have one :-)

You also used the present tense to suggest that Oly use in lens IS - which AFAIK they don't, and never have done - unless you know something I'm not aware of.

Nick
 
I didn't know that, but I guess it remains to be seen if they ever implement them,

Nick
 
KEITH-C said:
Honeywell set Minolta on the road to ruin but if Nikon, a camera company, ruin another camera maker the they will not be forgiven by the buying public who want choice & diversity. Ever heard that old saying about winning the battle but losing the War ?
--
Keith-C
Click to expand...
That's not a very sensible way of looking at things. Any company will protect its intellectual property, it is part of the value of the company and it is the duty of the directors to realise that value. Many would dispute the whole idea of IP and patents, but in a world where they are a commercial reality, if Nikon has a case that Sigma has used its IP without payment then it pretty much has to pursue the case. You might have a case in seeing Nikon fighting a 'war' if it simply refused to licence the technology or insisted on a ruinous licence fee (although they would still be within their rights) but to seek to get some royalties back for use of its IP is hardly unreasonable. Since other companies seem to produce image stabilised lenses without violating Nikon's IP, presumably Sigma has the option of simply changing its designs.

Or, since Sigma seems to have decided not to reach agreement with Nikon, one expects that it has some confidence that it can break the patent. The common way of doing this is find some prior art (that is, a publication or product that predates the patent application and embodies the substance of the patent). However, if that was the case, the sensible course would have been to disclose the prior art during the negotiations. Nikon would hardly embark on the expense of legal action if they knew they were likely to lose.

Similarly, I think your suggestion that Honeywell 'set Minolta on the road to ruin' is a pejorative way of seeing things. All Honeywell was looking for was to return value on its intellectual property. They did not restrict Minolta's use of it, nor prevent them building cameras, moreover they pursued the same case against Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh and Eastman Kodak. Since phase detection autofocus was not 'obvious' and Honeywell put considerable investment into its developent, it seems fair that they should have returned some value from that investment.
--
Bob
 
KEITH-C said:
Honeywell set Minolta on the road to ruin but if Nikon, a camera company, ruin another camera maker the they will not be forgiven by the buying public who want choice & diversity. Ever heard that old saying about winning the battle but losing the War ?
Click to expand...
Yeah right let anyone profit from the work of others. It was Minolta's fault and it will be Sigma's fault if they lose. Don't try to make Nikon look like the bad boys here they are just protecting their investment. Seriously you sound like those defending music, movies or books downloads arguing that artists are already rich and should give up their rights.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Patco said:
GMack said:
I wonder if or why Canon hasn't jumped on the Sigma lawsuit yet either, unless the Canon IS lens shake design is too different from the Nikon VR one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Canon is looking for bigger fish to fry, and is planning to launch a suit against Nikon for both the stabilization and the in-lens focus motor?
;-)
Click to expand...
Nikon had in-lens focus motors for the F3-AF system, 2 years before Canon.

And from what I've been able to gather, the overall idea "stick a stabilizer in a lens" is to generic to patent. Nikon is apparently suing Sigma over a patent on how stabilization is implemented, i.e. the use of movable positive elements as the stabilization mechanism (Canon uses flat places, Oly uses positive-negative pairs).
Click to expand...
Hmm What type of elements do Sony use in their E-Mount lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top