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.

 

[A Aron]

What's interesting to me is the conflicting information I read or hear about this issue.

I spoke with a sales rep at EuroOptic late last year who told me flat out that Swarovski absolutely has a right to enforce its FOV patent because what they invented something truly unique. Others say the patent is absurd because it's based on a combination of specifications, not a new invention. Leica's website appears to claim that Swarovski's Patent is invalid.

Further clouding the issue is that people are saying Tangent Theta's 5-25X56 was "grandfathered in" so they did not have to comply (at least with that model). This suggests the idea that there was a meeting between Swarovski and TT ( and GOD knows who else) wherein they agreed to some "deal". Sounds like a passage from Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".

Maybe the Asian optics manufacturers just ignored the patent because they had the financial resources to challenge Swarovski in court. Swarovski knew this so they left companies like March alone.

Eventually the FOV patent will expire or be ruled invalid, if it hasn't already, and this will become a non issue.

 

[Glassaholic]

What's interesting to me is the conflicting information I read or hear about this issue.

Not surprising, patents are tricky and no one from Swarovski legal has come on to explain in layman's terms what exactly does their USA patent cover.

I spoke with a sales rep at EuroOptic late last year who told me flat out that Swarovski absolutely has a right to enforce its FOV patent because what they invented something truly unique.

The same argument was made in Europe but when Leica challenged it they won so there is precedent that when push comes to shove the US Patent would also not hold up; however, as ILya mentioned above, the court costs for both sides is quite extensive. While Leica won the court battle in Europe they did not go after the US Patent and pulled their Magnus line from the US Market. No one expect Leica knows for certain the reason they pulled the Magnus line out of the US but we conjecture that it was the patent issue, if the Magnus line returns to the US after the Swaro patent expires I think we have our answer.

Others say the patent is absurd because it's based on a combination of specifications, not a new invention. Leica's website appears to claim that Swarovski's Patent is invalid.

A lot of people are upset with the patent, but that doesn't mean it is absurd. Whether Swarovski was justified or not in submitting the patent, they had the wherewithal to do so before the long range sport optic market exploded in the US and thus hindered other manufacturers from building out wide FOV designs, what is surprising is that Swaro has not taken advantage of this patent with FFP scopes until just last year with Kahles. Imagine if Kahles had the ultra wide FOV design back with the K624i, I think they would have garnered considerably more than the market share they had. Granted, Kahles kind of went backwards when introducing their 5x erector line (K525i and K318i) by decreasing the FOV compared to K624i; seems like Kahles quickly realized this and offered their wider angle FOV eyepiece with the K525i DLR; however, not offering the wide angle FOV eyepiece with their K318i was baffling, had they done so I think it would have rejuvenated interest in that scope, instead they release the K328i which nobody was asking for, let me rephrase that... which nobody asked for at 37oz which is out of the comfort range for many looking for a nice crossover design.

Further clouding the issue is that people are saying Tangent Theta's 5-25X56 was "grandfathered in" so they did not have to comply (at least with that model). This suggests the idea that there was a meeting between Swarovski and TT ( and GOD knows who else) wherein they agreed to some "deal". Sounds like a passage from Mario Puzo's "The Godfather".

Again, conjecture, I don't think anyone has known for certain that this was actually the case, but the fact that the TT 7-35 has narrower FOV than the TT 5-25 seems to lean in that direction.

Maybe the Asian optics manufacturers just ignored the patent because they had the financial resources to challenge Swarovski in court. Swarovski knew this so they left companies like March alone.

Your guess is as good as anyone else at this point March is a smaller boutique sport optics manufacturer so doubtful they have the clout to go up against Swarovski. As ILya mentioned above it is likely that Swaro just is not interested, maybe thinking it's not worth it. But again, everyone outside of Europe has seemingly gotten a pass while optics manufactures in Europe have not been willing to take the risk in the US market (ZCO, Zeiss, S&B et al).

Eventually the FOV patent will expire or be ruled invalid, if it hasn't already, and this will become a non issue.

There is some discrepancy as to when the patent was actually submitted, was it 2006 or 2008 or? The patent will apparently expire 20 years after submission so if it was 2006 then by 2027 we should start seeing the wide FOV versions of the S&B 6-36 showing up, but if it was after 2006 then it may be longer. Again, I am not sure that anyone knows for certain and their is no certainty on how soon European mfr's will begin shipping any kind of wide FOV oculars in their scopes to the US.

It is not wise to bank on what "might" happen but rather capitalize on what we have today and we have a lot of amazing scopes to choose from regardless of FOV limitations.

 

[koshkin]

Not surprising, patents are tricky and no one from Swarovski legal has come on to explain in layman's terms what exactly does their USA patent cover.

The same argument was made in Europe but when Leica challenged it they won so there is precedent that when push comes to shove the US Patent would also not hold up; however, as ILya mentioned above, the court costs for both sides is quite extensive. While Leica won the court battle in Europe they did not go after the US Patent and pulled their Magnus line from the US Market. No one expect Leica knows for certain the reason they pulled the Magnus line out of the US but we conjecture that it was the patent issue, if the Magnus line returns to the US after the Swaro patent expires I think we have our answer.

A lot of people are upset with the patent, but that doesn't mean it is absurd. Whether Swarovski was justified or not in submitting the patent, they had the wherewithal to do so before the long range sport optic market exploded in the US and thus hindered other manufacturers from building out wide FOV designs, what is surprising is that Swaro has not taken advantage of this patent with FFP scopes until just last year with Kahles. Imagine if Kahles had the ultra wide FOV design back with the K624i, I think they would have garnered considerably more than the market share they had. Granted, Kahles kind of went backwards when introducing their 5x erector line (K525i and K318i) by decreasing the FOV compared to K624i; seems like Kahles quickly realized this and offered their wider angle FOV eyepiece with the K525i DLR; however, not offering the wide angle FOV eyepiece with their K318i was baffling, had they done so I think it would have rejuvenated interest in that scope, instead they release the K328i which nobody was asking for, let me rephrase that... which nobody asked for at 37oz which is out of the comfort range for many looking for a nice crossover design.

Again, conjecture, I don't think anyone has known for certain that this was actually the case, but the fact that the TT 7-35 has narrower FOV than the TT 5-25 seems to lean in that direction.

Your guess is as good as anyone else at this point March is a smaller boutique sport optics manufacturer so doubtful they have the clout to go up against Swarovski. As ILya mentioned above it is likely that Swaro just is not interested, maybe thinking it's not worth it. But again, everyone outside of Europe has seemingly gotten a pass while optics manufactures in Europe have not been willing to take the risk in the US market (ZCO, Zeiss, S&B et al).

There is some discrepancy as to when the patent was actually submitted, was it 2006 or 2008 or? The patent will apparently expire 20 years after submission so if it was 2006 then by 2027 we should start seeing the wide FOV versions of the S&B 6-36 showing up, but if it was after 2006 then it may be longer. Again, I am not sure that anyone knows for certain and their is no certainty on how soon European mfr's will begin shipping any kind of wide FOV oculars in their scopes to the US.

It is not wise to bank on what "might" happen but rather capitalize on what we have today and we have a lot of amazing scopes to choose from regardless of FOV limitations.

Leica Magnus was pulled from the US market because of slow sales. It had nothing to do with patents. After the European lawsuits, it seems like Leica and Swarovski decided that they have had enough lawsuits and Leica can sell anything they wan tin the US if they are so inclined. I was very surprised Magnus did not do better here. To date, it is still the best SFP scope I have seen to date.

ILya

 

[stanley_white]

“The key to me being able to shoot that NVA sniper through his scope and kill that NVA general was additional FOV.”

-Not Carlos Hathcock

 

[NateVA]

“The key to me being able to shoot that NVA sniper through his scope and kill that NVA general was additional FOV.”

-Not Carlos Hathcock

The key to shooting the sniper through his scope was the rifle (evidence that it happened) conveniently disappearing from the armory. And the key to shooting the NVA general was the fact that there's also no evidence it ever happened.

Either way, I'm sure if he had been given a fancy ass mega-FOV scope he'd have been over the moon. Sometimes nice things are cool.

 

[NateVA]

Leica Magnus was pulled from the US market because of slow sales. It had nothing to do with patents.

That really sucks. It seems to be a competitor to the S&B Polar which seems to sell well enough for Schmidt to keep it on the US market. Maybe their name is just recognizable enough they don't have the same issue.

 

[chevy_man]

That really sucks. It seems to be a competitor to the S&B Polar which seems to sell well enough for Schmidt to keep it on the US market. Maybe their name is just recognizable enough they don't have the same issue.

I see a ton of scopes on the store shelves. None of them include Leica, March, S&B, Kahles, etc. Only in the last few years with PRS gaining popularity have I started to see Leupold Mark series and Nightforce in stock.

They are at a specialty price point. Most here still wouldn't know they existed if it wasn't for online sales.
Europtic is the only place I have ever seen Swaro scopes for sale. I see lots of binos and spotters, but never scopes.
I've still never seen a Leica scope in person.

Maybe their market share is much smaller than you estimate? It's easy to forget that just because the local store you frequent actually has some of these, that 95% of sporting goods stores are struggling to sell anything north of $500 optics to the average Joe.

 

[chevy_man]

The key to shooting the sniper through his scope was the rifle (evidence that it happened) conveniently disappearing from the armory. And the key to shooting the NVA general was the fact that there's also no evidence it ever happened.

Either way, I'm sure if he had been given a fancy ass mega-FOV scope he'd have been over the moon. Sometimes nice things are cool.

It's possible. We were doing a ton of things that we weren't supposed to be doing in places we weren't supposed to be.
As for the rifle going missing, you've never met a shithead in uniform? I sure have. Not a stretch that someone grabbed it not knowing or caring about the importance to a story in 50 years.

But, bullets do go through scopes.

 

[NateVA]

It's possible. We were doing a ton of things that we weren't supposed to be doing in places we weren't supposed to be.
As for the rifle going missing, you've never met a shithead in uniform? I sure have. Not a stretch that someone grabbed it not knowing or caring about the importance to a story in 50 years.

But, bullets do go through scopes.

I don't have much of an opinion on the possibility of the bullet going through a scope. Was just remarking that both those things are part of a long list of un-evidenced claims by Hathcock. Or his biographer I suppose. Marine Sniper, Silent Warrior, and White Feather all read like fanfictions so maybe the author made stuff up himself. I loved those books growing up, it's what probably got me interested in long range shooting. So it sucks that most of the more famous stories appear to be tall tales.

Maybe their market share is much smaller than you estimate?

I don't think S&B sells THAT many Polars in the US. Just obviously it's enough to keep them on the market here.

 

[clefairy]

If I was to buy a zero compromise in Europe, would it have a more fov then a zco in the states?

 

[A Aron]

Not surprising, patents are tricky and no one from Swarovski legal has come on to explain in layman's terms what exactly does their USA patent cover.

The same argument was made in Europe but when Leica challenged it they won so there is precedent that when push comes to shove the US Patent would also not hold up; however, as ILya mentioned above, the court costs for both sides is quite extensive. While Leica won the court battle in Europe they did not go after the US Patent and pulled their Magnus line from the US Market. No one expect Leica knows for certain the reason they pulled the Magnus line out of the US but we conjecture that it was the patent issue, if the Magnus line returns to the US after the Swaro patent expires I think we have our answer.

A lot of people are upset with the patent, but that doesn't mean it is absurd. Whether Swarovski was justified or not in submitting the patent, they had the wherewithal to do so before the long range sport optic market exploded in the US and thus hindered other manufacturers from building out wide FOV designs, what is surprising is that Swaro has not taken advantage of this patent with FFP scopes until just last year with Kahles. Imagine if Kahles had the ultra wide FOV design back with the K624i, I think they would have garnered considerably more than the market share they had. Granted, Kahles kind of went backwards when introducing their 5x erector line (K525i and K318i) by decreasing the FOV compared to K624i; seems like Kahles quickly realized this and offered their wider angle FOV eyepiece with the K525i DLR; however, not offering the wide angle FOV eyepiece with their K318i was baffling, had they done so I think it would have rejuvenated interest in that scope, instead they release the K328i which nobody was asking for, let me rephrase that... which nobody asked for at 37oz which is out of the comfort range for many looking for a nice crossover design.

Again, conjecture, I don't think anyone has known for certain that this was actually the case, but the fact that the TT 7-35 has narrower FOV than the TT 5-25 seems to lean in that direction.

Your guess is as good as anyone else at this point March is a smaller boutique sport optics manufacturer so doubtful they have the clout to go up against Swarovski. As ILya mentioned above it is likely that Swaro just is not interested, maybe thinking it's not worth it. But again, everyone outside of Europe has seemingly gotten a pass while optics manufactures in Europe have not been willing to take the risk in the US market (ZCO, Zeiss, S&B et al).

There is some discrepancy as to when the patent was actually submitted, was it 2006 or 2008 or? The patent will apparently expire 20 years after submission so if it was 2006 then by 2027 we should start seeing the wide FOV versions of the S&B 6-36 showing up, but if it was after 2006 then it may be longer. Again, I am not sure that anyone knows for certain and their is no certainty on how soon European mfr's will begin shipping any kind of wide FOV oculars in their scopes to the US.

It is not wise to bank on what "might" happen but rather capitalize on what we have today and we have a lot of amazing scopes to choose from regardless of FOV limitations.

Ah, you got me. I enjoy conjecture just as much as the next guy!

I admit I wasn't even aware of the issue until after I purchased the S&B 6-36, then watched DLO's rant on YouTube.

Despite all the FOV hubbub, I'm still happy with my purchase as this is, in my opinion, S&B's best effort to date in this category.

 

[kthomas]

I see a ton of scopes on the store shelves. None of them include Leica, March, S&B, Kahles, etc. Only in the last few years with PRS gaining popularity have I started to see Leupold Mark series and Nightforce in stock.

They are at a specialty price point. Most here still wouldn't know they existed if it wasn't for online sales.
Europtic is the only place I have ever seen Swaro scopes for sale. I see lots of binos and spotters, but never scopes.
I've still never seen a Leica scope in person.

Maybe their market share is much smaller than you estimate? It's easy to forget that just because the local store you frequent actually has some of these, that 95% of sporting goods stores are struggling to sell anything north of $500 optics to the average Joe.

Besides birders, it doesn't seem that Leica really has much of a reputation here. It's just not a known quantity - which can be a tough sell in that price bracket and competition.

 

[koshkin]

Besides birders, it doesn't seem that Leica really has much of a reputation here. It's just not a known quantity - which can be a tough sell in that price bracket and competition.

Leica is one of the three oldest optics/camera companies in the world. In the photo and video world, they are easily one of the most recognizable name out there. Same goes for their binoculars to a good degree. With riflescopes, they have never been big and that's a shame. With photo and video lenses, their designs are absolutely heirloom-level legendary.

ILya

 

[Glassaholic]

Leica Magnus was pulled from the US market because of slow sales. It had nothing to do with patents. After the European lawsuits, it seems like Leica and Swarovski decided that they have had enough lawsuits and Leica can sell anything they wan tin the US if they are so inclined. I was very surprised Magnus did not do better here. To date, it is still the best SFP scope I have seen to date.

ILya

Really? Lots of products have slow sales in the US but the mfr continues to allow them to trickle in, that seems like a poor decision by Leica Germany to just cut off supply to US completely, feels like there is something more behind the scenes to this. But I get it, "feels like" and reality sometimes don't see eye to eye

 

[Glassaholic]

Ah, you got me. I enjoy conjecture just as much as the next guy!

I admit I wasn't even aware of the issue until after I purchased the S&B 6-36, then watched DLO's rant on YouTube.

Despite all the FOV hubbub, I'm still happy with my purchase as this is, in my opinion, S&B's best effort to date in this category.

It is a fantastic scope even though US FOV is hindered, it's still better than some scopes and right up there with others with regard to FOV performance. Optically it is an excellent scope and DTII+ turrets are some of my favorite, now that they have the TR2ID reticle I can see it as a very viable option for tree lovers...

 

[panzerkiller13]

Leica Magnus was pulled from the US market because of slow sales. It had nothing to do with patents. After the European lawsuits, it seems like Leica and Swarovski decided that they have had enough lawsuits and Leica can sell anything they wan tin the US if they are so inclined. I was very surprised Magnus did not do better here. To date, it is still the best SFP scope I have seen to date.

ILya

I have my suspicions that the reticle options didn't help the Magnus line. I purchased one years ago after spending a lot of time researching, but ended up selling it and opting for a Meostar R2 for the much more usable reticle. Had my Magnus been the illuminated version, I would have likely held onto it as the glass was absolutely phenomenal and more comfortable to look through considering tunnel vision and "largeness" of image. The reticle was just far too thin to be of any use in low-light situations and completely washed out in the woods well before hunting times ended, rendering all of the advantages of the quality glass null and void without an illuminated dot. The Amplus reticle is better in this regard to me, but I wish there was an option to combine it with the optics of the Magnus as an alternative to the Meopta.

Seems like all we can do is wait for this market to potentially make a comeback and enjoy what we can for the time being!

 

[koshkin]

I have my suspicions that the reticle options didn't help the Magnus line. I purchased one years ago after spending a lot of time researching, but ended up selling it and opting for a Meostar R2 for the much more usable reticle. Had my Magnus been the illuminated version, I would have likely held onto it as the glass was absolutely phenomenal and more comfortable to look through considering tunnel vision and "largeness" of image. The reticle was just far too thin to be of any use in low-light situations and completely washed out in the woods well before hunting times ended, rendering all of the advantages of the quality glass null and void without an illuminated dot. The Amplus reticle is better in this regard to me, but I wish there was an option to combine it with the optics of the Magnus as an alternative to the Meopta.

Seems like all we can do is wait for this market to potentially make a comeback and enjoy what we can for the time being!

I tried to convince them to add some reticle options, but no luck.

ILya