If the FOV was wider it would have been classified as an assault scope and banned.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56
- Thread starter Just Macca
- Start date
So, it may be a possible patent issue forcing S&B to artificially limit the field of view to avoid patent infringement... how disappointing if true.
I'm sure it's still a great scope even in the FOV-restricted US configuration, but as a US customer I would not be happy paying for a "limited" version of the scope when others can buy it with the full FOV. Looks like all their newest scopes are affected-- the 6-36, 10-60, and 3-18.
It does present a business opportunity though. Since Felipe isn't around to help anymore, I'm going to start a new company called Elite USFoV (Elite Unlocked Schmidt Field of View) that will specialize in removing the FOV limiting aperture rings from the US market S&B scopes that are affected by this patent. I'm actually already doing this for my DHS contacts, so feel free to ship me your S&B 6-36s.
On a more serious note, it would sure be a shame if S&Bs US service department somehow lost the field stop / aperture ring while they have your scope disassembled for that pesky "turret issue" you sent it in for...
I'm sure it's still a great scope even in the FOV-restricted US configuration, but as a US customer I would not be happy paying for a "limited" version of the scope when others can buy it with the full FOV. Looks like all their newest scopes are affected-- the 6-36, 10-60, and 3-18.
It does present a business opportunity though. Since Felipe isn't around to help anymore, I'm going to start a new company called Elite USFoV (Elite Unlocked Schmidt Field of View) that will specialize in removing the FOV limiting aperture rings from the US market S&B scopes that are affected by this patent. I'm actually already doing this for my DHS contacts, so feel free to ship me your S&B 6-36s.
On a more serious note, it would sure be a shame if S&Bs US service department somehow lost the field stop / aperture ring while they have your scope disassembled for that pesky "turret issue" you sent it in for...
Not just Schmidt apparently. ZCO too.So, it may be a possible patent issue forcing S&B to artificially limit the field of view to avoid patent infringement... how disappointing if true.
I'm sure it's still a great scope even in the FOV-restricted US configuration, but as a US customer I would not be happy paying for a "limited" version of the scope when others can buy it with the full FOV. Looks like all their newest scopes are affected-- the 6-36, 10-60, and 3-18.
It does present a business opportunity though. Since Felipe isn't around to help anymore, I'm going to start a new company called Elite USFoV (Elite Unlocked Schmidt Field of View) that will specialize in removing the FOV limiting aperture rings from the US market S&B scopes that are affected by this patent. I'm actually already doing this for my DHS contacts, so feel free to ship me your S&B 6-36s.
On a more serious note, it would sure be a shame if S&Bs US service department somehow lost the field stop / aperture ring while they have your scope disassembled for that pesky "turret issue" you sent it in for...
Anything above a 5X erector seems to be affected if its made in Europe. Which ZCO glass is.
I'm not up to speed on international patent laws, but I wonder if shipping the parts here for assembly in the USA might be a workaround for S&B & ZCO, or if it's Swarovski's US patent only affecting scopes sold in the US regardless of country of origin.
I'm with Ilya in that the patent sounds far too vague and probably wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge... be nice to see someone take them to court and get it overturned, but that's easy to say when it's not my money on the line.
I was going to ask about the feasibility of jail breaking these things…
I know why - it’s fucking payback for ITAR.
You guys keep all the good tubes for yourself, while only exporting FOM reduced crap to the other side of the pond.
There you have it - it’s a FOM reduced scope.
Only the sophisticated parts of the world can handle the true power of S&B scopes.
You guys keep all the good tubes for yourself, while only exporting FOM reduced crap to the other side of the pond.
There you have it - it’s a FOM reduced scope.
Only the sophisticated parts of the world can handle the true power of S&B scopes.
A significant problem with the current patent system is that while patents are relatively easy to get they are unbelievably expensive to litigate. So a big company can get questionable patents fairly cheaply and then bully smaller players with the mere threat of dragging them into court. Also, if Swaro does have a US patent it can be used to stop importation of infringing goods as well as domestic manufacturing that infringes. Looks like we could be screwed unless Swaro goes after somebody big enough to fight back.
Depending on how S&B limited the FOV it may certainly be possible, but will undoubtedly require some special tooling to remove the lens fixing rings, then resealing, purging, etc.
I'd also want it done in a cleanroom. And keep in mind it would probably void the warranty.
If the S&B service department won't do it, I'd try to find a way to purchase an international model with the full FOV before having a third party tear into a US model, unless they were a *very* qualified third party. (Maybe we can start a Go Fund Me for Jerry @ S&B USA to set up a home shop...)
It's unfortunate that the FOV limiting feature for patent compliance isn't some feature that the purchaser could easily remove without requiring disassembly of the scope...
This issue makes me want to look at FOV specs for other high erector ratio scopes and see how many of them are at or just under that 22 degree FOV limit that Ilya mentioned is in the Swarovski patent. Be interesting to see if other scopes are being limited for patent compliance. So far S&B is the only manufacturer I've found with 2 sets of FOV numbers listed for their scopes, but maybe other manufacturers are limiting their scopes regardless of the intended market to avoid any litigation.
S&B could always make them in China... because China don't give a fuck about respecting patents, LOL
Last edited:
Why unfortunately? It is a really nice scope regardless of my irritation with the FOV throttling.
ILya
To re-iterate one more time: that's my guess. I am trying to get direct confirmation. Until then, it is only a guess, albeit a fairly educated one.
ILya
It should still be a great scope, so I'd use it and try not to dwell on the fact you got shorted a bit in the FOV department... but that might be easier said than done. Myself, I'd be thinking about it every time I used the damn thing.
On the other hand, the reduced FOV of the US 6-36 @ 6x is still greater than the FOV of my S&B 5-25s from 5-7.5x where they tunnel, so maybe I wouldn't complain at all, because I don't really complain about the limited FOV at low magnification on my 5-25s because I rarely use them below 9-10x.
Does your 6-36 have a thick black "ring" around the edge of the image, or is it a nice full edge to edge image?
right right lol, just saw red after hearing the patent stuff. Thats infuriating if it turns out to be that
If all that's different is the FOV in relation to the versions we get..then I still say it's a superb optic.
Honestly...if the versions I have had the same FOV as the US......I would still consider it the best optic I have...or have had.
Every time I go out and shoot at long range on a good day , the clarity still brings a huge smile to my face..
Very few optics have done this for me!!
Try living outside the USA, pretty much every manufacturer limits the exporting of product outside of their designated region. The main thing that drives my scope buying is whether or not I can parallel import certain models as I refused to pay local pricing.
The reason I never bought a Burris XTR3 is because no one was able to export one and the local price is 2.5x the price it is in the US. Burris XTR3s are more expensive the Steiner TX5s (despite being cheaper in the US) and I still can’t buy the new XTR3i models.
Saaaaay…. We could invade Austria….
Oh, wait. That’s been done!
I reached out to Schmidt, FWIW.
Schmidt’s US data sheet doesn’t even have the right FoV, rather lists the EU spec FoV. I see now how wires got crossed and dealers here may have even got the wrong specs.
I am reposting the link to the patent that the Dark Lord of Optics thinks is holding back S&B:
I'm going to give it a read and post my opinion (I do patent eval for pharma/biotech products). Curious if anyone else has an opinion on this patent and potential infringement.
Right off the bat, I see this was registered in 2006. Patents typically expire at 20 years, meaning this patent is only enforceable for another ~3yrs. Sucks for the current market, but things open up soon for the field.
EP1746451A2 - Telescope with wide field of view and large magnification - Google Patents
A telescope or target telescope has a reverse system and an adjustable magnification optical system with more than four times magnification. The distance optical device has an optical beam deflection device (2) which provides, at all magnifications, a subjective field of view of the distance...
patents.google.com
I'm going to give it a read and post my opinion (I do patent eval for pharma/biotech products). Curious if anyone else has an opinion on this patent and potential infringement.
Right off the bat, I see this was registered in 2006. Patents typically expire at 20 years, meaning this patent is only enforceable for another ~3yrs. Sucks for the current market, but things open up soon for the field.
@koshkin Jerry Ricker confirmed its the Swaro patent.
OK, I have read over that patent.
IF I was the lawyer for S&B, I would advise that this is an enforceable patent and not to challenge it. Instead, approach Swarvo about paying a royalty for a license to use it. Or attempt to 'wait it out' (3 yrs at this point).
Why?
Patents are about the state of the art AT THE TIME the patent was issued. In this case, 2006. I was a precision shooter back in '06 and there were no scopes available on the market (at any price point) with these performance capabilities. This is not a definitive statement that the patent is novel and therefore valid, but its a good indicator.
Additionally, the patent lays out an optical system that advances the state of the art. It covers the old state of the art, see figures 1 and 2a-c. Then it illustrates a seemingly novel system in Figures 3a-c, with a new "optical beam deflection device #2" (as shown in Figures 3a-c). This new device apparently produces AFOVs of >22* with at least a 5 fold optical magnification system. Device #7, Figures 3a-c, is added to reduce CA.
So the issue becomes, is S&B building this new 6-36x56x scope with an optical system using the art covered in Figure 3, specifically that Device #2 and #7? I don't know nearly enough to answer that question. Legally, it might take a lot of time and $'s to disprove (remember, burden is on challenger, S&B). Also, damages are often awarded at 3x the nominal amounts (made $100 off this patent, you pay $300), meaning risks are high.
Now, the question is why hasn't Swavo taken advantage of their own invention? Why haven't they built such high performing scopes? If they can't, why haven't they monetized this patent by allowed others to license it, at a reasonable and fair price? I don't know why, but I imagine this patent has held back scope capabilities for a LONG TIME, not just this new S&B, but other S&B scopes in past, Premier's efforts, Leupy and NF, as well as all the Euro guys (probably most especially the Euro guys as this is a European patent and Swavo is European).
Don't like this? Well, welcome to modern capitalism.
IF I was the lawyer for S&B, I would advise that this is an enforceable patent and not to challenge it. Instead, approach Swarvo about paying a royalty for a license to use it. Or attempt to 'wait it out' (3 yrs at this point).
Why?
Patents are about the state of the art AT THE TIME the patent was issued. In this case, 2006. I was a precision shooter back in '06 and there were no scopes available on the market (at any price point) with these performance capabilities. This is not a definitive statement that the patent is novel and therefore valid, but its a good indicator.
Additionally, the patent lays out an optical system that advances the state of the art. It covers the old state of the art, see figures 1 and 2a-c. Then it illustrates a seemingly novel system in Figures 3a-c, with a new "optical beam deflection device #2" (as shown in Figures 3a-c). This new device apparently produces AFOVs of >22* with at least a 5 fold optical magnification system. Device #7, Figures 3a-c, is added to reduce CA.
So the issue becomes, is S&B building this new 6-36x56x scope with an optical system using the art covered in Figure 3, specifically that Device #2 and #7? I don't know nearly enough to answer that question. Legally, it might take a lot of time and $'s to disprove (remember, burden is on challenger, S&B). Also, damages are often awarded at 3x the nominal amounts (made $100 off this patent, you pay $300), meaning risks are high.
Now, the question is why hasn't Swavo taken advantage of their own invention? Why haven't they built such high performing scopes? If they can't, why haven't they monetized this patent by allowed others to license it, at a reasonable and fair price? I don't know why, but I imagine this patent has held back scope capabilities for a LONG TIME, not just this new S&B, but other S&B scopes in past, Premier's efforts, Leupy and NF, as well as all the Euro guys (probably most especially the Euro guys as this is a European patent and Swavo is European).
Don't like this? Well, welcome to modern capitalism.
Last edited:
The thing about the patent office is that the process isn't adversarial, the examiner isn't looking to tell you no. They are just going through the motions and making sure you look to be satisfying the basic requirements to get a patent. The system is set up so that the real test of how valid your patent is happens once you sue somebody for infringement and they spend millions of dollars for a real in depth examination by subject matter experts. Thus, this is how big companies use the patent system to crush little companies.
Due to there only being a few years left in the patent were stuck with it till it expires because waiting is a whole lot cheaper than fighting it.
I think i'll still get one. Jerry told me the example I looked through was the US spec one. The eye box was extremely forgiving and like multiple US owners have said, glass quality is unreal.
Maybe we'll see that elusive full potential one after the patent expires. Maybe not.
Maybe we'll see that elusive full potential one after the patent expires. Maybe not.
@TheOE800 and I are going to field test the FOV this afternoon on his US version. We are going to test it against his Vortex 6-36 and against the specs S&B is reporting. We will test it at 6x, 25x and 36x.
We will report back with results. I will also pass along my opinion of the GR2ID reticle, which I'm interested in seeing.
Noticed a sentence in the patent that's interesting...
I wonder if that's why we're seeing 36mm scopes. At the time the patent was written Swarovski was obviously trying to lock up the market for 30mm and 34mm tubes which covered pretty much every high magnification / high elevation travel scope on the market in 2006, but 36mm is obviously greater than the maximum 35mm outer diameter specified in the patent. So maybe ZCO didn't go 36mm for reasons of more elevation travel (although that's certainly a side effect of doing so) but rather to avoid patent infringement issues.
As mentioned above, be nice if S&B would unlock these things in 3 years when the patent expires.
Looking forward to the results, especially comparing it to the razor.
I have read my fair share of patents and companies always start with the broadest possible patent that then gets cut down by the patent office revision after revision. Also having blocking patents is nothing really new in any industry.
Either the patent is laughable at which point fighting it would be reasonable, or there is a reason that this patent was given and you have to deal with it. Circumvent it or come to an agreement with the patent holder.
The patent was challenged by Leica and invalidated in EU. It is an expensive process though, so I can see how many smaller companies would not want to deal with it.
The stuff about the lenses in the erector system is not really new. Most erector systems are build that way and best I can tell none of that is new or patentable. My best guess is that they added that verbiage to the patent application to make it look like there is something there and get it past the examiner. That's probably what Leica set out to prove false in the EU case, but I do not have the exact verbiage of how that went, even if it was in English (I do not speak German).
Leica did note that the patent was revoked in Europe: https://leica-camera.com/en-int/Com...evokes-Swarovski-Optik-KG’s-riflescope-patent, which is why S&B can sell the wider FOV version in Europe.
You are absolutely correct that it is a mess to prove in litigation.
Swaro's second focal plane scopes, Z6 and Z8 family have high erector ratios and wide AFOV without tunneling, so they are indeed building riflescopes within the performance envelope of the patent.
They have a US version of the patent as well, which is what is making problems for S&B at the moment and, presumably, other companies who are small enough to be intimidated by Swaro. You can see different version under worldwide applications.
US8054544B2 - Far-optical device - Google Patents
A far-optical device comprising a reversal system and an adjustable optical magnification means with more than fourfold magnification, wherein the far-optical device has an optical beam deflection means which at all magnifications ensures a subjective field of view of the far-optical device of...
patents.google.com
To the best of my knowledge, there has not been litigation over this patent in the US.
ILya
That is an interesting observation about the tube diameter, but oddly enough it has been reported that ZCO is also using a field stop and has limited their FOV, some have even questioned the FOV of the USA scope (vs. the spec).
In the Leica press release it says the patent dispute took 3.5 years to settle/invalidate.
With only 3 years remaining on the patent and assuming the US courts work at the same speed as the EU courts, the smart money is on installing field stops for now and waiting 3 years for the patent to expire rather than begin litigation.
Interesting if ZCO is limiting their FOV. Maybe their legal council advised they were still asking for trouble given the erector ratio and FOV even though they used a 36mm tube, and the field stop to limit FOV was a guaranteed way to avoid the possibility of expensive legal action.
It's too bad Leica didn't go after the Swarovski patent in other markets given they have case precedent on their side, but in the video I believe Ilya said Leica tried to get it invalidated in the UK but the UK upheld the Swarovski patent.
Last edited:
For me, the biggest draw with the Schmidt 6-36x56 was having the huge FOV of the initial specs, so I understand if I was an early adopter I'd be pretty furious after getting the scope and seeing that FOV was tighter than my TT 5-25x56 for instance. Given the current situation of the limited FOV Schmidt 6-36 here in the USA I will not be ordering one as it offers me nothing more than the similarly priced Tangent 5-25x56 and ZCO 5-27x56. For me personally, FOV plays a big role in the scopes I choose as being able to see more at any given magnification is a definite advantage as long as edge to edge sharpness is within reason.
Is it though? After the tunneling the Schmidt 5-25 actually does really well increasing FOV. If I'm not mistaken the TT 5-25x56 has greater FOV than the USA neutered Schmidt 6-36 for any given magnification.
Good question...
Based on my read through of the spec sheets for both last night that was conclusion as well.
I’m not seeing a huge black ring when compared to the Razor side by side, but I can easily tell the Razor’s FoV is larger.
I asked Leica if they pulled Magnus from the US market due to Swaro patent and they said "no" and that they resolved that issue.
My best guess is that it was an expensive litigation in Europe and neither party wanted to do it again in the US.
It is a shame they pulled it. To date, Magnus is still my favourite SFP hunting scope I have ever seen. I used to have a 1.8-12x50 Magnus that was just stunning.
To re-iterate one more time, Swarovski is not doing anything illegal in this patent. They are well within their right to try to patent anything they want and defend whatever patents they have in any way they see fit. Swarovski makes excellent products.
However, I do not have to like their business practices. I am not a fan of the business practice of using questionable patents to intimidate competition.
I will modify my recommendations accordingly and this is where my coverage of any and all Swarovski and Kahles products ends.
ILya
I wouldn't quite go that far. It is a very very nice scope.
That's how I felt - Swarovski didn't do anything "wrong", but clever patent writing that holds up the market is frustrating.
If Swaro filed this in 2006, strange that it has really reared it's head before now, at least not that I can recall. Maybe because no one has limited their FOV for the US market before, or at least advertised that they did.
It is unfortunate because it is not Schmidt's fault. But the US version of the Schmidt 6-36x56 has little value to me with restricted FOV. Yes, it is a very nice scope... a very nice scope that has FOV limitations which hinders the experience behind the scope - that is what I was most anticipating with this scope.
Why would I choose the Schmidt 6-36x56 over a TT 5-25x56 when I don't care much about magnification above 25x to begin with? I realize this is for me personally, but FOV with superb IQ is what I'm after and I really thought this Schmidt was going to give me just that.
On the flip side, now we (Americans) know what it feels like sometimes to live outside the USA and have only neutered products available
Does the patent only affect rifles scopes or is it applicable to binoculars as well? I've noticed Swaro has some of the widest FOV offerings with Bino's and curious if this patent might be why.
Last edited:
I bet other manufacturers have limited their FOV to avoid legal issues involving this patent and none of us were the wiser because they never advertised/disclosed it.
S&B on the other hand chose to be 100% honest about the reduced FOV in the US market for these 3 new scopes (full disclosure about this was the right thing to do IMO) and they've opened a can of worms by doing so.
I'm not disappointed in S&B at all as they are only following the law and letting customers know about it, but it does make me reconsider buying one as I know I'm not getting the most scope for my money. Previously I was pretty anxious to buy a 6-36 to try, and the large FOV was one of the main specs that interested me... but at this point I'm leaning towards waiting 3 years until the patent expires to be able to buy one with a full FOV.
If S&B were to issue a statement that they would restore these scopes to the full FOV once the patent expires for only the cost of shipping or for a minimal fee, I'd probably buy 2 of them in the next 6 months.
I do not envy the position S&B USA is in right now; they have 3 new scope models they want to sell but had to throttle them for the US market, and chose to be honest and disclosed the reduced FOV for the US models... unfortunately for them that performance reduction won't sit well with many current or potential customers.
The real issue is when did they update their website, as some folks might have gotten hosed if they compared specs and purchased the Schmidt.
Of course, I rarely use a 36 mag… and the scope is highly usable at 25x
That's the correct reaction image for the European market, unfortunately the US market image looks like this:
This patent is specific to riflescopes.
Yeah, I do not think me drawing attention to this will endear me to anyone at S&B or Swaro. It is what it is and I certainly commend S&B on being transparent with the specs.
ILya
Similar threads
