RDKirk
•
Forum Pro
•
Posts: 16,545
Re: There's no evidence that Canon will do anything differently
EmotionBlur wrote:
RDKirk wrote:
EmotionBlur wrote:
That's always been the case, but this time it's a matter of not infringing Canon's AF patent. Samyang had to pull its reverse-engineered AF lenses off the market because of that and now it's got manual focus lenses only.
It's always been a case of not infringing on Canon's patents. Canon has never been indulging infringements on its IPs. If Samyang pulled its lenses, it's because Samyang knew they were infringing on Canon's IPs.
So, how did Sigma and Tamron manage to do what they did with EF mount? Is there a chance of buying licenses, or did the EF mount patents expire before they could do anything? (I hope for the first).
Back in the 80s, IBM produced a computer they called the PC with a unique architecture, heavily patented running software that was heavily copyrighted.
Other companies produced computers that were "IBM PC compatible," able to run the same operating system and software, which were proven legal as long as they did not actually copy IBM's patented products. They could be "workalikes" as long as they were not actual copies.
That's why we have so many "PC" computers today.
Sigma and other companies could produce lenses that were compatible with Canon as long as they didn't copy the elements of Canon's lenses that were actually patented. They could work just like Canon lenses without being copies of Canon lenses or copying specifically patented elements of Canon lenses.
That wasn't particularly easy, particularly for Sigma. It took them decades to get it right. Sigma actually had a bad reputation for unreliability for quite a while.
-- hide signature --
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'