Thanks, John, for posting links to that Swaro patent information.
As to "talk being cheap," it's not "cheap" when it comes from the mouth of the horse, in this case, a Nikon representative who responded to my question about why Nikon never sold the EDG I in Europe and why they put out the EDG II instead of simply fixing the problem with the EDG I's focuser knob and diopter.
As I'm sure you recall, many EDG Is with defects were replaced with EDG IIs. At first, I thought the redesign was due to some kind of "fatal flaw" with the internal focuser mechanism they couldn't fix, but then Mike responded that with each subsequent production run they kept "tightening down" something or another, I was never clear about what it was, and that made the focuser knobs and diopters in later production runs less likely to fail, and indeed, some BF members still have their original EDG Is, which are still working fine.
After Mike revealed that it was litigation over the EDG's "open bridge design" that caused Nikon to scrap the EDG I and redesign the EDG, not a "fatal flaw" they couldn't fix, I tried to get additional information from him about the litigation, but he never responded (could be he can't respond due to legal reasons).
Being sued over the "open bridge design" didn't make sense to me, so I speculated at that time, based on what I know of U.S. patent law, having written about it several times over the years, that a lawsuit would only make sense if it had something to do with a feature unique to the EL such as its internal focuser or diopter design rather than the general shape, which is not unique enough to patent, at least under U.S. patent law.
From your post, it sounds like you "apparently" agree with that assessment.
However, if that was the reason, I have to wonder why if Nikon "stole" the EL's internal focuser design, they couldn't get it right, because the focus knobs kept coming loose! If you're going to be a thief, at least be a good one.
I don't know if that was the case any more than you do, but it sounded like Jan had some industry insider information that we didn't, which is why I asked him to spill the beans.
The EDG's internal diopter is a different design than the ELs. The EL's focuser pops out and engages the diopter mechanism whereas the EDG's focuser knob pops out so that the user can access and turn the diopter wheel underneath the knob. Two different animals in that regard, so not likely what the litigation threat was about.
If Nikon did copy something patented under those 19 categories that other manufacturers did not in their open bridge design roofs, it was never readily apparent externally, having used both the EL and EDG I for about a month each. We'd have to compare detailed internal diagrams of the two bins to find out where the duplication was.
I would think that if Swaro's allegations weren't true, Nikon would have told them "bring it on" and went to court to defend their design. OTOH, considering the cost of litigation, maybe it was easier to just redesign.
Sometimes companies do sue each other out of "protectionism," that is, they want to keep the competition from getting to market with a design they are working on before they market theirs. Even if they knew they couldn't win the case, they could delay the marketing of their competitor's product long enough to get their similar product ready for launch. We don't like to think of our favorite bin companies that way, but it happens all the time in business.
Look at the recent lawsuit between Apple and HTC, in which Apple sued phone maker HTC and filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that the Taiwanese company was infringing on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone.
An interesting point is the fact that Apple did not name software makers Google or Microsoft in its filings even though in its complaint to the ITC Apple named 12 phones that it claimed use technology that infringes its patents. Five of those phones--including the Nexus One, which is sold directly by Google--use Google's Android operating system. And seven of the phones named in the complaint use Microsoft's Windows Mobile software.
Being first in the market with a design makes it difficult for others to grab part of that market share since all "smartphones" have similar designs and use similar aps. The trick is to make it different enough to compete in the same market, and then "lawyer up" in case your competitor sues. But when you're competitor is a giant like Apple, you're going to need the "dream team" to win your case, and that won't happen because Apple already has them on retainer! So does Google and Microsoft.
Anyway, I hope we eventually find out the truth about what went on with this lawsuit, and as a Nikon fan, I hope Nikon did not
purposely steal Swaro's design but rather independently invented something that Swaro already had patented. That does happen.
Sometimes it happens subconsciously (at least that's what George said):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYiEesMbe2I
<B>