any (NEW) rumours about 50mm f1.2 AUTO?

[fotofinish]

are there?

 

[Derrel]

Over the last five years, NIkon has filed eight patents for new f/1.2 lenses in the range of 50mm, according to this article published this summer.

Nikon has filed at least 8 patents for new f/1.2 full-frame lenses

Here is an other article, less than a month old.

New Nikon patents for 50mm f/1.2 and 60mm f/1.2 lenses | Nikon Rumors

 

[Aloicious]

I'd love to see an updated NOCT lens, but I dunno, if they had a consumer available product for every patent they'd have some seriously incredible stuff, but a product list miles long...They also have a patent for a 17mm PC-E tilt shift that I'd love to see come to pass, as well as a full frame 10mm f4, 18mm f1.8, a 200-500 f3.5-5.6, and many others...I think they even have a patent for a curved image sensor from a while ago IIRC.

alot of the time patents are filed early in the development/thought process to protect the company as the refine and develop things, and products can get pushed back years or decades in development, or even discontinued. so patents aren't exactly a perfect predictor on what will be released to the public in the future. but there's always hope...

 

[Gavjenks]

Anyway, patents are cheap, for a major company. In the US for a lens, maybe like $10,000, and some maintenance costs. A tiny drop in the bucket compared to potential revenues lost by somebody like Sigma stealing your design, even if you file many of them per actual product.

 

[cowleystjames]

It used to be common practice for patents to be filed to guard against patent infringement. This can also be a revenue earner. Consider this, you file a patent on a new lens that you have no intention of making but think it's a great idea, an opponent then produces a lens that incorporates a part of the patent, you sue in court, you then get a pay out our even better, a royalty on each lens sold.
Just because a company files a patent it doesn't mean it's going to be built.

 

[fotofinish]

Yep, I saw them, thanks. That is why I said 'new' rumours - I guess not huh?

That 60mm f1.2 would be great.

Over the last five years, NIkon has filed eight patents for new f/1.2 lenses in the range of 50mm, according to this article published this summer.

Nikon has filed at least 8 patents for new f/1.2 full-frame lenses

Here is an other article, less than a month old.

New Nikon patents for 50mm f/1.2 and 60mm f/1.2 lenses | Nikon Rumors

 

[Gavjenks]

Consider this, you file a patent on a new lens that you have no intention of making

Depending on where you are and what markets you want to sell to, this can backfire on you, because some countries require you to actively be exploiting your patent or in some cases even exploiting it IN that country, or you can lose your protection somewhat rapidly. Thus, all you will have accomplished is to tell your competitor exactly how to make a cool lens and then selling it there, instead of blocking them as intended.

I believe India is an example of one such country.

So for internationally relevant companies, it might actually be less common to just throw around bunches of patents intended merely to block competitors. They might still do it for particularly important ideas, since you still usually have a few years before you lose it for non-exploitation, and that can give you an edge, but it would be awfully expensive to do just for any old idea.

an opponent then produces a lens that incorporates a part of the patent, you sue in court

You can't sue somebody for just making a part of your patented thing. They have to make something that qualifies under the whole claim of the patent. Otherwise, nobody would ever be able to make anything that uses screws without infringinging like 25% of all patents in force, for example.

When you file for a patent, you include both sufficient detail for an expert in the field to build that device, as well as some notion of the "scope" of the patent's protection. You want your scope to be as wide as possible (otherwise it's useless) without overlapping with the scope of other existing patents (otherwise it won't get passed).

Then once it is granted, somebody has to infringe entirely within the scope declared in order for you to be able to sue them. So in a toy example, if you patented a lens, and your scope was "any fixed 60mm f/1.2 lens with image stabilization technology" (let's assume that was not a scope covered by other patents), then in order to infringe, a competitor would have to be selling a lens that is 60mm AND f/1.2 AND image stabilized. If they were selling a 60mm f/1.3 IS lens, you could not sue them.

However, you can also just patent parts of a system, like a conceptualization of image stabilization itself, which companies actually do. This would just be its own patent. Then your competitor couldn't sell any lens with IS that was too similar to your IS (Nikon sued Sigma awhile back for image stabilization they claimed was too similar to theirs). So they would not be able to make that 60mm f/1.3 IS lens if they were using your IS technology.

In reality, lenses in particular are so crowded with patents that youll never get away with just patenting any 60mm f/1.2 lens, or whatever. You'll have to carve out a much more specific slice of the pie to protect. Unless it's a really weirdo lens. Lensbaby for instance successfully patented ANY lens of ANY optical parameters, I believe, as long as it is attached to the body with a flexible, springy tube that returns to center position when released.

 

[Derrel]

View attachment 53638

Anyway, patents are cheap, for a major company. In the US for a lens, maybe like $10,000, and some maintenance costs. A tiny drop in the bucket compared to potential revenues lost by somebody like Sigma stealing your design, even if you file many of them per actual product.

Derrel gives Jar-Jar Gavbenks a pat on the back for his amazing post!!!