It's all a matter of the circumstances, Brock. I (and probably you) don't know what kind of infringements were involved, if any. Also, I doubt that Schott could really be used to infringe another big company's patents, since blackmail usually breaks "fair practice" laws, and can be prosecuted. Small companies, — now that's another matter. They get screwed all the time in the U.S., and I assume in Europe too.
All I can say is that Zeiss is looking more and more like Swaros, --- and I don't care! I'm more than happy if two or three companies proffer great products for me to choose between.
I'm just annoyed that Swaro cheapened up their SLC-HD models, 'caus I like 'em best of all.
Ed
Well, Ed. Here's the thing, the EDG was out before the SV EL. The Brit who did the 10x42 SV EL review got it wrong, saying the the SV EL was the first premium open bridge roof to use field flattener. No so, Nikon had the EDG 1, though it was short-lived. So how can you sue over something you haven't even designed yet? Again it goes back not to the focuser, which isn't similar to the EL, but the open bridge design, which many sports optics companies use and now even Zeiss uses (but with impunity).
Even if Swaro hadn't threatened litigation, the EDG focuser needed to be redesigned since they made so many that were defective. What's unfathomable was that reviewers of the EDG prototypes pointed this out to Nikon and yet they went ahead with production anyway. Why rush to market? Did they know that Swaro had the SV EL in the works? Yes, all rhetorical questions, you would say, but to switch gears and reply to an earlier comment of yours about ER, I don't think that asking why ER doesn't have an ISO standard is "rhetorical." It's a valid question.
From what I've read from the experts AFOV is "plastic" and depends not solely on a simple magnification x FOV formula, but also related to the bin's distortion level, yet they developed a standard.
If there could be agreement on the range of useable ER, and I think there is a consensus among users (15 or 16mm on the short side and 17-19mm on the long side), and since you can precisely measure the height of the eyecups above the EP housing, and you can precisely measure the recess of the EP top lens below the EP housing, useable ER can become a standard so that for once eyeglass wearers will know which bins work for them and which bins won't (provided they know how much they need since that will vary within the range depending on their facial features and glass thickness). A more experienced four-eyed user would know.
The way ER is measured now is, as the 10x42 SV EL stated, "a bit disingenuous." With so many people wearing eyeglasses still -- according to the Vision Council of America, approximately 75% of adults use some sort of vision correction. About 64% of them wear eyeglasses, and about 11% wear contact lenses, either exclusively, or with glasses -- that you'd think this would be an important spec to be accurate about, but as we know, ER specs are about as reliable as weather reports in central Pa.
Brock
