FOV issues and patents

[blksno]

Not quite, euro patent was challenged and won so other manufacturers get to use a wide fov eyepiece. March being in Japan probably gets a pass is my guess but all others have to challenge the patent and win to use a wide fov eyepiece or the patent needs to expires.
I’ve heard rumors it will expire this year but I can not find that stated anywhere really notable.
My guess is we need some manufacturers to challenge it before we see any other wide fov scopes.
I find it interesting that kahles chose a 36mm tube on this scope. My guess is it has something to do with patents.

So this goes back to my question.
1. Does Nightforce get a pass because its a 30mm tube, or because it's deemed an inferior product or because it's not really worth it for either party to fight over it.
2. And my understanding is that Kahles is a moot point and the 36mm is irrelevant considering Swaro owns them anyway.
My guess on the 36mm tube was more to do with the elevation travel considering the March HighMaster (the only real comparison) has 40mil as well has a parallax down to 10m in a shorter pkg.

 

[Glassaholic]

So this goes back to my question.
1. Does Nightforce get a pass because its a 30mm tube, or because it's deemed an inferior product or because it's not really worth it for either party to fight over it.

I think they get a pass because they are manufactured in Japan. The patent seems to affect European mfr'd scopes sent to the US. Vortex RG3 6-36 also has FOV above the patent limits, but again, scope mfr'd in Japan

2. And my understanding is that Kahles is a moot point and the 36mm is irrelevant considering Swaro owns them anyway.

Correct. As far as I know the tube size does not matter, the patent seems to revolve around the eyepiece design.

My guess on the 36mm tube was more to do with the elevation travel considering the March HighMaster (the only real comparison) has 40mil as well has a parallax down to 10m in a shorter pkg.

With the popularity of ZCO, other manufacturer's have decided to take advantage of some of the advantages of the larger tube diameter, but it is mostly mechanical. Some have thought it draws more light but that is not the case, the front objective is what determines how much light is gathered vs the tube size. I conjecture that the larger tube may help with a somewhat more forgiving design but I have seen top 34mm designs perform as well and sometimes better at extremes of elevation where those optical abnormalities tend to rear their ugly heads.

 

[koshkin]

I think they get a pass because they are manufactured in Japan. The patent seems to affect European mfr'd scopes sent to the US. Vortex RG3 6-36 also has FOV above the patent limits, but again, scope mfr'd in Japan

Correct. As far as I know the tube size does not matter, the patent seems to revolve around the eyepiece design.

With the popularity of ZCO, other manufacturer's have decided to take advantage of some of the advantages of the larger tube diameter, but it is mostly mechanical. Some have thought it draws more light but that is not the case, the front objective is what determines how much light is gathered vs the tube size. I conjecture that the larger tube may help with a somewhat more forgiving design but I have seen top 34mm designs perform as well and sometimes better at extremes of elevation where those optical abnormalities tend to rear their ugly heads.

Where a scope is manufactured makes no difference. It only matters where it is sold.
In Europe, Swaro's patent has been nullified. In the US, it has not been challenged.
If anyone wants to sell a wide FOV FFP scope in the US, they do not need to challenge the patent. They can just go to market and see if Swarovski is going to claim infringement and go to court. It is entirely up to Swaro is they want to go after any specific company.
I am not aware of them going after any scopes that are not made in Europe, but perhaps there are things behidn the scenes I am not aware of.
I suspect they simply do not think of anyone else as their direct competition. Aside from that, they might not want to go after a company that is larger than they are and has the resources for a long court battle. That is what Leica did in Europe. It cost both Leica and Swarovski a lot of money and Swarovski ended up losing that patent. A smaller company like S&B is unlikely to want to deal with that mess since they will not make enough money from any particular product to offset the costs of a long litigation. For S&B (for example), it is simply easier to throttle the FOV in the US. I suspect ZCO, since its leadership is largely comprised of former Kahles people, would also be a target for immediate litigation from Swarovski should they open up the FOV of their scopes. Leica can do pretty much whatever they want in any market since neither company wants to go to court again.

If Swarovski decided to go after someone the size of Vortex, for example, it would be a comparatively bigger financial burden for Swaro, since Vortex is a much larger company. I would assume that Nightforce is also bigger than the sport optics part of Swarovski or is at least of comparable size, so they are not easy to intimidate.

Human nature being what it is, many business relationships are not terribly different from a bunch of five year olds trying to figure out who can be easily bullied out of the sandbox and who can't.