New Kahles 328i FOV

[Article 4]

I have a few on heavy magnums, 338 Norma Mag Improved, 30 Nosler, 7-300 PRC, and even my 6.5 GAP, and a few others on a 6mm and some small ai's. They all run perfectly.

FOV has never been an issue with them, in fact, on longer shots I enjoy the FFP view and relatively smaller (to the new 328) FOV; although tend to not shoot critters on anything above 20x so that the dot is relatively smaller on the animal.

 

[JohnJohnson]

This post is more about FOV

Alright I'm game. I think the FOV patent that Swarovski (which owns Kahles) has is unethical and they should be shamed for how they bludgeon other European companies who sell in the US with it. Even they know it's transparently garbage given they don't enforce it on any US-based companies, where it would get laughed out of court. All of this is why Schmidt has to sell 2 different versions (FOV-wise) of their 6-36x56. One with a limited FOV for the US, and one with the full FOV for Europe.

 

[Article 4]

Alright I'm game. I think the FOV patent that Swarovski (which owns Kahles) has is unethical and they should be shamed for how they bludgeon other European companies who sell in the US with it. Even they know it's transparently garbage given they don't enforce it on any US-based companies, where it would get laughed out of court. All of this is why Schmidt has to sell 2 different versions (FOV-wise) of their 6-36x56. One with a limited FOV for the US, and one with the full FOV for Europe. Isn’t that what we also call innovation and good business practices?

Patent protects all the R and D, $$$$$, and intellect investment. That’s why we have them.

If I had an industry changing idea, such as a carbon bbl wrapping technology or other innovation, why wouldn’t I patent it?

I agree with you and your last sentence. I agree with having a novel idea that ensures profit; it’s a very capitalistic business practice. Bravo!!!

 

[JohnJohnson]

If I had an industry changing idea, such as a carbon bbl wrapping technology or other innovation, why wouldn’t I patent it?

I agree with you and your last sentence. I agree with having a novel idea that ensures profit; it’s a very capitalistic business practice. Bravo!!!

If I had a patent I actually believed could hold water in a US court, why would I not enforce it on US companies who are violating it (Vortex comes to mind)? Why would I only enforce it on European companies that are much smaller than mine and can't afford to fight it in court? Makes you think that maybe they don't believe in it either.

I think it's bad to get stockholm syndrome for a company that is trying to limit the quality of European scopes (like Leica, S&B, etc) sold in the US. We (I think you're from the US) are the ones losing here when this stuff happens.

 

[Article 4]

If I had a patent I actually believed could hold water in a US court, why would I not enforce it on US companies who are violating it (Vortex comes to mind)? Why would I only enforce it on European companies that are much smaller than mine and can't afford to fight it in court? Makes you think that maybe they don't believe in it either.

I think it's bad to get stockholm syndrome for a company that is trying to limit the quality of European scopes (like Leica, S&B, etc) sold in the US. We (I think you're from the US) are the ones losing here when this stuff happens.

Ok. Agree to disagree
Sounds like if everyone else had issues perhaps a class action is the way to go. Unless perhaps they know it’s not winnable.

Cheers!!

 

[fwafwow]

Is it possible the patent/technology is being licensed to some companies?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Is it possible the patent/technology is being licensed to some companies?

Nah the patent expires in 2-3 years if I recall right and the European companies are just waiting it out. Big US companies like Vortex, Nightforce, and others which are "violating" it know that they have the money to actually fight it in court and would win. Plus the legal battle would probably take so long the patent would be expiring shortly after it or even before it ended. Swarovski knows it too, which is why it doesn't bother them.

Smaller US companies which might not be able to afford to fight Swarovski for years in court may be getting around it by using tubes exceeding 35mm. Companies like ZCO that use 36mm tubes also have crazy FOV but in Swaro's patent it specifies tubes between 30-35mm. I'm looking forward to getting a selection of European scopes that aren't restricted in the US market when it runs out. I hear the European version of thst S&B 6-36x56 is crazy.

 

[Xycod]

I don’t get swaro though, the older Zeiss diavari vmv’s all had 24 degree fov’s and that’s from as far back as 2004, same for the older Schmidt’s, the Leica magnus also has a great huge fov yet others in their line up don’t. When the Zeiss conquest hd came I thought it’d be like the one inch diavari victories years ago but instead had a terrible fov followed by the German v6.

These scopes by comparison had fov’s more like a 90’s leupold yet the v8 continues to have the same 24 degree fov as swaro’s z8. Strange deal imo, is it a patent on only certain scopes.

I think all manufacturers should list their apparent fov in degrees like swaro does. Looked through a beautiful glass today from a manufacturer mentioned above and the fov just killed it, made for a no go for me. A large apparent fov gives an immediate impression to most and I guess swaro knows it.

 

[JohnJohnson]

the Leica magnus also has a great huge fov yet others in their line up don’t

I can't say for the others you mentioned but if I'm correct, you can't buy the Magnus in the US though you can still get it in Europe.

 

[Xycod]

I can't say for the others you mentioned but if I'm correct, you can't buy the Magnus in the US though you can still get it in Europe.

Yeah for whatever reason they decided to stop importing them for the more American style scope I’m assuming, aka the tactical Christmas tree ret with smoke stack turrets on top.

Still they’re an incredible glass and the best thing they had going imo, reminds me a little of the older Schmidt’s as to how they’re built, very solid with tier one glass. Classy looking scopes.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Yeah for whatever reason they decided to stop importing them for the more American style scope I’m assuming

I suspect it has more to do with the enforcement of Swaro's patent on scopes made in Europe and sold outside of it. Maybe instead of making a version of Magnus scopes that's patent-compliant for the US (like S&B did with the 6-36x56), they're just waiting it out. It's a shame since I've heard the Magnus scopes rival the S&B Polar lines for low-light performance, best in the market according to optics people I trust. I look forward to maybe an updated even better version of Magnus scopes being re-released into the US when it expires.

 

[Article 4]

I suspect it has more to do with the enforcement of Swaro's patent on scopes made in Europe and sold outside of it. Maybe instead of making a version of Magnus scopes that's patent-compliant for the US (like S&B did with the 6-36x56), they're just waiting it out. It's a shame since I've heard the Magnus scopes rival the S&B Polar lines for low-light performance, best in the market according to optics people I trust. I look forward to maybe an updated even better version of Magnus scopes being re-released into the US when it expires.

Huge fan of pushing the envelope in FOV, brightness and function...will be happy frankly when that does run out...however you have to respect a patent. I often find myself relying on Kahles FOV and clarity when it comes to trophy size estimation when I don't run my spotter - being able to turn up a rifle scope to 25 or 28 and see more in perfect focus without losing brightness at higher definition is a huge benefit.
As it pertains to LEICA, i have had a few pairs of the binos and rangefinders and find them to be top notch optically. There does seem to be a bigger push for innovation with the European brands

 

[JakeM51]

Huge fan of pushing the envelope in FOV, brightness and function...will be happy frankly when that does run out...however you have to respect a patent. I often find myself relying on Kahles FOV and clarity when it comes to trophy size estimation when I don't run my spotter - being able to turn up a rifle scope to 25 or 28 and see more in perfect focus without losing brightness at higher definition is a huge benefit.
As it pertains to LEICA, i have had a few pairs of the binos and rangefinders and find them to be top notch optically. There does seem to be a bigger push for innovation with the European brands

The patent doesn't have any technology, they patented specs on FOV which you cannot patent specs.
That would be like patenting cars that go above 60 mph, that's not something you can patent and it was already stuck down in the EU but it took several years to do so.
If it was challenged here by the time the case would be over the patent would be expired so that's why nobody in the US is doing anything about it. They would just be wasting time and money.

 

[Article 4]

The patent doesn't have any technology, they patented specs on FOV which you cannot patent specs.
That would be like patenting cars that go above 60 mph, that's not something you can patent and it was already stuck down in the EU but it took several years to do so.
If it was challenged here by the time the case would be over the patent would be expired so that's why nobody in the US is doing anything about it. They would just be wasting time and money.

A patent has been granted so saying that it cannot be patented is a non-starter

You can patent it under statutory regulations, which is how the patent was granted.
“Statutory” simply refers to the question of whether the invention involves subject matter that can be patented. Among the subject matter that can be patented are processes, machines, manufactured articles, and compositions of matter.

Certain inventions are not patentable under the Patent Act and would not meet the requirement that the invention be “statutory.” Examples of clearly non-statutory inventions are data structures, nonfunctional descriptive material like books or music, electromagnetic signals, laws of nature, and other abstract ideas.
You can patent an item that performs a function. A design: You can patent the look, form, and structure of a functional item. A few things you could patent include designs for jewelry, clothing, furniture, a beverage container, even a computer icon.

Take music for instance, you cannot patent a particular note, however you can patent and trademark very specific ways of making that note especially if the note is part of a structure of commerce that is specific to the person or entity that produced it. Same with FOV and the function of attaining it.

 

[JakeM51]

A patent has been granted so saying that it cannot be patented is a non-starter

You can patent it under statutory regulations, which is how the patent was granted.
“Statutory” simply refers to the question of whether the invention involves subject matter that can be patented. Among the subject matter that can be patented are processes, machines, manufactured articles, and compositions of matter.

Certain inventions are not patentable under the Patent Act and would not meet the requirement that the invention be “statutory.” Examples of clearly non-statutory inventions are data structures, nonfunctional descriptive material like books or music, electromagnetic signals, laws of nature, and other abstract ideas.
You can patent an item that performs a function. A design: You can patent the look, form, and structure of a functional item. A few things you could patent include designs for jewelry, clothing, furniture, a beverage container, even a computer icon.

Take music for instance, you cannot patent a particular note, however you can patent and trademark very specific ways of making that note especially if the note is part of a structure of commerce that is specific to the person or entity that produced it. Same with FOV and the function of attaining it.

Except you’re wrong, simply because some gov worker signed off on it doesn’t make it within the rules.
They didn’t patent any new technology like a new eyepiece design, they just said you can’t make a scope above 4x zoom that has x amount of FOV and some idiot singed off on it. That’s not something that can be patented and that’s why Leica won a 3.5 year legal battle over it.
Most companies don’t have the money to challenge it though and because of that we get worse FOV in the same optics than in the EU. They didn’t patent a design and that’s why it’s BS.

European Patent Office revokes Swarovski Optik KG’s riflescope patent | Leica Camera AG

leica-camera.com

EP1746451A3 - 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

 

[fwafwow]

Most companies don’t have the money to challenge it though and because of that we get worse FOV in the same optics than in the EU. They didn’t patent a design and that’s why it’s BS.

I don’t have a dog in this fight and I don’t know if the parent is valid or not. But if a US company thought it was invalid, wouldn’t they just manufacture a scope without regard to the patent? I think, but could be wrong, that the burden is on the patent holder to go after an alleged infringing company. Or is there some sort of “challenge” procedure?

 

[JakeM51]

I don’t have a dog in this fight and I don’t know if the parent is valid or not. But if a US company thought it was invalid, wouldn’t they just manufacture a scope without regard to the patent? I think, but could be wrong, that the burden is on the patent holder to go after an alleged infringing company. Or is there some sort of “challenge” procedure?

Long drawn out legal battle that they would be fighting in court after the patent has already expired if Swaro decides to sue.
So what they are doing is making scopes that break the patent but then install field stops that artificially restrict the FOV so that they don’t have any trouble with Swarovski.
ZCO is doing this, and I think some of the Japanese OEM scopes just blatantly ignore it.
The most obvious is Schmidt and bender, they have regular models and then “US” models which have the field stops that restrict the FOV even though the scope has more FOV. Kahles did this in the 525i and the 318i, no idea why but they did and you can see the extremely huge field stop in them when you look through them.

 

[Article 4]

Except you’re wrong, simply because some gov worker signed off on it doesn’t make it within the rules.
They didn’t patent any new technology like a new eyepiece design, they just said you can’t make a scope above 4x zoom that has x amount of FOV and some idiot singed off on it. That’s not something that can be patented and that’s why Leica won a 3.5 year legal battle over it.
Most companies don’t have the money to challenge it though and because of that we get worse FOV in the same optics than in the EU. They didn’t patent a design and that’s why it’s BS.

European Patent Office revokes Swarovski Optik KG’s riflescope patent | Leica Camera AG

leica-camera.com

EP1746451A3 - 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

To the first line of your argument. That’s exactly what it means. Period.
Everything after that is non sequitor. End of story

 

[Article 4]

I don’t have a dog in this fight and I don’t know if the parent is valid or not. But if a US company thought it was invalid, wouldn’t they just manufacture a scope without regard to the patent? I think, but could be wrong, that the burden is on the patent holder to go after an alleged infringing company. Or is there some sort of “challenge” procedure?

True

 

[JohnJohnson]

To the first line of your argument. That’s exactly what it means. Period.

I don't want to beat a dead horse but government workers do things all the time that are outside the scope of the law. Hence why we have courts to correct them. Otherwise why would the patent have been struck down in the European court he linked?

But if a US company thought it was invalid, wouldn’t they just manufacture a scope without regard to the patent?

Some companies do that. I believe a few Vortex/NF scopes are above the 22 degree threshold but they have enough money to go toe-to-toe with Swarovski and beat their ass in US courts so Swarovski doesn't bother them. I think an example of this is the Vortex Razor G3 6-36x56.

ZCO is doing this

I think ZCO got around the patent by using a 36mm tube.