Swarovski Patents (1 Viewer)

Talk is cheap. Read the patents and maybe you'll understand why Swarovski defended them...I should say apparently defended them since I have NO DIRECT knowledge of any litigation.
By the way...it's always been about the focus design.

http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/SwarovskiOptikKG.html

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6266185.html

They must be very serious about it. They hired the huge Fulbright and Jaworski Law Firm as Agent/Attorney.

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>

This is interesting reading, and it is not about the open frame, twin hinge design.
Much of the patent is about the focussing mechanism.
Nikon must have been too close with the EDG I, so had to redesign.

It would be interesting to know if the China types have copied things much the same.
They usually just, clone and copy, and the lawsuits of patent and copyright
infringement are often in the news. Too bad.

Jerry

There have to be cutaway views of both the EDG I and the SLC/EL/SV somewhere so the focusing mechanisms can be compared. Then look at a cutaway view of the EDG II and see if there was a change in it from the EDG I.

Bob

ceasar said:

There have to be cutaway views of both the EDG I and the SV somewhere so they can be compared. Then look at a cutaway view of the EDG II and see if there was a change. Or if one can find a change.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob:

Good idea, but good luck in finding cutaways on both of these. If you can
find anything, post what you can.

Allbinos has some nice cutaways of the Zeiss, but I have not found others are so quick to share this info.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

This is interesting reading, and it is not about the open frame, twin hinge design.
Much of the patent is about the focussing mechanism.
Nikon must have been too close with the EDG I, so had to redesign.

It would be interesting to know if the China types have copied things much the same.
They usually just, clone and copy, and the lawsuits of patent and copyright
infringement are often in the news. Too bad.

Jerry

Click to expand...

But it could be about the open frame if Swaro wanted, since that too is patented, so perhaps that's why Nikon changed the EDG II's external design, knowing they could come after them again if they changed the focuser mechanism (assuming that was the issue) and yet kept the open frame.

1. Binoculars comprising:

first and second body tubes connected by first and second jointed bridges swiveling around a joint axis and longitudinally spaced apart along said body tubes without connection by a center axle so as to form a reach-through;

Nikon got around the language of the patent by removing the "second jointed bridge" with the open hinge design. If Nikon had patented that open hinge "one jointed bridge" design for the EDG II, they could have sued Swaro over the SLC-HD design.

Sue Me/Sue You Blues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2JIexhpMNs

<B>

brocknroller said:

But it could be about the open frame if Swaro wanted, since that too is patented, so perhaps that's why Nikon changed the EDG II's external design, knowing they could come after them again if they changed the focuser mechanism (assuming that was the issue) and yet kept the open frame.

1. Binoculars comprising:

first and second body tubes connected by first and second jointed bridges swiveling around a joint axis and longitudinally spaced apart along said body tubes without connection by a center axle so as to form a reach-through;

Nikon got around the language of the patent by removing the "second jointed bridge" with the open hinge design. If Nikon had patented that open hinge "one jointed bridge" design for the EDG II, they could have sued Swaro over the SLC-HD design.

Sue Me/Sue You Blues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2JIexhpMNs

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock:

My speculation and yours are just that, about patent issues. These
are very technical and can be drawn out for years in the courts.

What I do know here, is that Swaro. has a very good binocular design
with the EL SV, and many would agree. And Nikon with the EDG has
also designed a great binocular.

I find them both to be very good. And I have personal experience.


Jerry

NDhunter said:

Brock:

My speculation and yours are just that, about patent issues. These
are very technical and can be drawn out for years in the courts.

What I do know here, is that Swaro. has a very good binocular design
with the EL SV, and many would agree. And Nikon with the EDG has
also designed a great binocular.

I find them both to be very good. And I have personal experience.


Jerry

Click to expand...

Exactly, it could get tied up in courts for years (heck, my best friend's divorce took a year)! So why make the lawyers rich when you can redesign, which Nikon had to do anyway because they had problems with the EDG I's loose focuser knobs and drifting diopters. However, and herein lies the rub, they wouldn't have changed the body design on a bin they had just released unless they felt compelled to do so.

It's like the filibuster in the Senate. In the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a senator had to stand up their for days reading recipe books, the funnies, or whatever he could get his hands on to keep the vote from going through, but now, you just got to threaten to filibuster, and the bill is dead. Same with lawsuits, you don't actually have to sue the other company, you just have your lawyer send them a threatening letter, and the other company knowing all the time and expense involved, why would they even bother to defend themselves even if they intended no malice?

Whether the open bridge design was only part of what the big stink was about or the whole shebang, Mike was telling the truth when he said that Nikon had to stop making the EDG I due to the open bridge design, because that is part of the Swaro patent.

I rest my case.

C. Darrow, Esq.

Brock,

Still playing that old broken record?

Jan

I've got the original cut throughs of the EL, SV and SLC in my shop.
Can somebody explain me how to get the photo's on this thread?
Jan.

Jan,

Go to the area where you post replys, below that window is a button "Go Advanced".
Click that and you will see below a section labeled "Additional Options".

Use the red labeled Attach Files and click the Manage Attachments, self explanatory from there

Pileatus said:

Talk is cheap. Read the patents and maybe you'll understand why Swarovski defended them...I should say apparently defended them since I have NO DIRECT knowledge of any litigation.
By the way...it's always been about the focus design.

http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/SwarovskiOptikKG.html

http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6266185.html

Click to expand...

I can imagine that's the point. The focus mechanism designed for a small bridge. Perhaps that kind of copy was not the first one. The focus mechanism of the HG pocket bins always reminds me of the one built into Swaro pockets.

Steve

I wonder what the focusing mechanism is like on the Zeiss HT?

Lee

Vife pictures and also the prints of the focus system of the EL/SV with the spring system.
Jan

jan van daalen said:

Brock,

Still playing that old broken record?

Jan

Click to expand...

Hey, somebody has to counteract the non-stop Swaro love song you've been singing since you first posted on the forums (Swaro sells more so they are "the only alpha"). :loveme:

If you read the patent information that John posted, you'd have seen that the #1 category Swaro patented was the open bridge design itself, so any company that makes open bridge designs, not just Nikon's EDG I, could have been subject to litigation, but they singled out Nikon, which was making a similar bin (but not necessarily the same internal design) as the EL, but it was a more improved product because it had ED glass and field flatteners. so that put it ahead of the EL WB.

Until somebody comes along and contradicts Mike Freiberg's statement that it was the EDG 1's open bridge design that initiated the threat of litigation, you can be sarcastic to me, but you can't disprove his words.

I, too, speculated from the first time I read about the lawsuit, that it must have been something more technical than the body design, such as the focuser mechanism, that caused the Swaro to issue a "cease and desist" order to Nikon, but so far, no-one has come forth with any proof of that.

I based that assumption on the criteria of U.S. patent law, which requires "novelty" (that is, a feature unique to the product that has never been used before). As I already pointed out Zeiss had both porros and roofs that meet Swaro's definition of an open bridge desgin because they have two swivel hinges and an open space between the two barrels. But perhaps because Zeiss never patented the design or the patent expired is the reason why whatever authority issued the patent allowed Swaro to patent this design. Only a European patent lawyer could answer that question.

As one member recently said, Nikon is the only company that could go head to head with the Swarovski EL. From the reviews and ranking on the EDG, that's probably true.

As far as Nikon not fighting the issue in court, that's no proof of anything. True, the redesigned EDG II did increase Nikon's production cost, which Mike also said, but how much would a dragged out legal battle cost? Besides, Nikon probably wouldn't have won, because the patent office allowed Swaro to patent the double hinge design, even though it was not new or novel (see the Zeiss porro below or Zeiss Dialyts, the twin bridge design existed before the EL!).

As I outlined earlier, that probably would never have been patented in the U.S. because the design did not meet the "novelty" criteria, but it was patented in Europe by Swaro. So now all manufacturers have to beware who sell in Europe - no open barrel "double swivel hinge" designs are allowed to compete with the EL - unless they are no threat to the EL such as the ZR ED2/3 and Hawke Frontier ED. Or at least, that's the way it appears since those companies are still manufacturing and selling their double hinged bins in Europe.

Note, however, that Zen Ray's top of the line Prime ED, which uses field flatteners, does not employ the open bridge design. According to one BF member who has connections with the company, it did this to prevent the Prime ED from looking too much like the EL. Take from that what you will.

I also notice that top shelf bins such as the Brunton's new roof and Bushnell's top roof are using the "open hinge" design rather than double hinge.

The only new top shelf bin made with an double hinge is the new Leica Geovid, which is in violation of Swaro's EL patent. I have to wonder why Swaro is allowing Leica to use that design, but not Nikon. These are valid questions.

<B>

Brock,
I've only stated that Swarovski defended its patent rights.
If you want (us) to believe that they only defend it against Nikon. That's your broken record.
Jan.

Brock, sorry to interrupt at this point, but the Zeiss design has the pivot spindle (is that what you call it) down the middle meaning no clear access to the two tubes. Its not the same as the Swaro design.

Lee

jan van daalen said:

Brock,
I've only stated that Swarovski defended its patent rights.
If you want (us) to believe that they only defend it against Nikon. That's your broken record.
Jan.

Click to expand...

You also stated on the Nikon sub forum: Considering the R&D and further costs Nikon had to make to come to this model and then on first notice dumping it lets no reason (for me) for any doubts.

That's why I replied. As to the "broken record," well, like Rocky Marciano used to say: repetition is the mother of memory.

I'm open to the truth whatever it might turn out to be, but I don't want to pre-judge Nikon the way you keep doing. By pre-judging Swaro's motives, I thought I'd turn the tables on you so you could see what it feels like to be on the other side. But I don't think you got that either. So I will turn the "record player" off.

<B>

Here is [maybe] the original ''open bridge''.....

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Marvelous-Ze...ular&hash=item4d08058aa9&_uhb=1#ht_500wt_1022