M9 patented?

A "Digital RF" camera is a concept, just like saying "An electric car". You can not patent a concept, but you can patent all its unique and inovative features.
 
I would think DRF will be big, put some players there that can manufacture at reasonable cost and it will surely eat a lot of 4/3 and entry level DSLRs. I really can't believe what most people are saying that there is not enough market to warrant such a product. This is digital and not obsolete.
 
Problem is, the price Leica asks seems to be a reasonable cost, at least for this type of product for a small market. Apparently there is nobody out there who thinks it interesting or even possible to try and undercut Leica.
 
Any camera lacking autofocus will forever be a niche product.

Also, patents are usually about specific things. So Leica might have patented elements of the M9 (I doubt it though), but they couldn't patent the camera as a whole.
 
Errr.. most of those M9s are less than a few months old. They would have had to belong to a fairly dedicated camera-basher not to be mintish. It might be better to look at M8s, and those are mostly advertised "traces of use" (except certain e-bay sales, but those are often operated in Nigeria...😉)
 
AF is damn nice when doing fleeting events. Even if focus takes 1 sec, the composition, expression, or magic moment is gone forever.

It is difficult to focus on a moving subject with a rf. I can not. And I am never happy with hyperfocal distance settings.
 
acetonic said:
The president of CV says he is not interested in playing the digital game. The constant upgrading to new models would drive him out of business.
Click to expand...

The surest way out of business is not to 'play the digital game'.

Cosina is in no less position than Leica to make a digital RF camera. Quite on the contrary. As a Japanese company Cosina has access to wide range of - patents - that are not available for non-Japanese companies and which is vital to enter the digital camera market. Even finished components developed/financed by Japanese tax payers. Like a range of sensors. I am absolutely sure that Cosina will make a digital RF - sooner or later. We shall not reckon with that it will be cheaper than M9. Labour cost in higher in Japan than in Germany.
 
Olsen said:
Even finished components developed/financed by Japanese tax payers. Like a range of sensors. Labour cost in higher in Japan than in Germany.
Click to expand...

Two interesting statements (at least for me). Could you share some more information about it ?
 
jaapv said:
Hmmm... offset against the host of Internet complaints about the slowness of AF I would call that an argument against AF...🙄
Click to expand...
Dear Jaap,

Especially if you prefocus on a spot and shoot when the subject gets there -- NOTHING can be faster than not having to focus at all.

Personally, after 45 years practice with manual focus, I find the very best SLRs nearly as good in most situations; slightly better in a few (mainly follow focus); and bloody useless when they hunt. But the AF speeds of most cameras are a bad joke.

Cheers,

R.
 
Olsen said:
As a Japanese company Cosina has access to wide range of - patents - that are not available for non-Japanese companies
Click to expand...

Uh, where did you pick up that strange notion? A patent holder may only exploit his patent himself, license it exclusively or license it indiscriminately. If any company should get caught out refusing a patent license selectively it would be fined into oblivion at the request of the WTO. Not that it is relevant any more, greed has long taken over from isolationism, as seen by the impossibility to execute a humanitarian boycott even against Iran or North Korea.

Besides, Japan and Germany were in no position to be isolationistic about their patents ever after 1945, and it could indeed be argued that that forced concentration on product and production quality and being prolific about generating more and newer intellectual property rather than guarding a few ancient patents was what made them beat and destroy the US and UK camera industry...

In other words, Cosina has access to its own patents, and to whatever it licenses - and it has no privileged access to the latter compared to any international competitor.
 
Last edited:
sevo said:
Uh, where did you pick up that strange notion? A patent holder may only exploit his patent himself, license it exclusively or license it indiscriminately. If any company should get caught out refusing a patent license selectively it would be fined into oblivion at the request of the WTO. Not that it is relevant any more, greed has long taken over from isolationism, as seen by the impossibility to execute a humanitarian boycott even against Iran or North Korea.

Besides, Japan and Germany were in no position to be isolationistic about their patents ever after 1945, and it could indeed be argued that that forced concentration on product and production quality and being prolific about generating more and newer intellectual property rather than guarding a few ancient patents was what made them beat and destroy the US and UK camera industry...
Click to expand...

I fully take your point, but equally, most governments subsidize and protect their own industries, often on the grounds of 'national security', and selectively enforce penalties. That's before you start looking at 'cosy' regulators, in the pocket of the industries they're supposed to regulate. Look at the UK FSA or the Mediator scandal in France at the moment.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger is right, read up on the keiretsu system that divides and protects groups of Japanese industries. It is virtually impossible for any company outside a specific keiretsu to gain access to the expertise within.
 
jaapv said:
Roger is right, read up on the keiretsu system that divides and protects groups of Japanese industries. It is virtually impossible for any company outside a specific keiretsu to gain access to the expertise within.
Click to expand...

That did not help the optical industry that much, as there is/was no Keiretsu which was a heavyweight in optics - most have stakes in exactly one optical maker, and only a few pool(ed) two or three, to little success.

Indeed, there is no trace of shared intellectual property among the optical companies that are or were part of one Keiretsu - Konica Minolta and Yashica Kyocera positively did not do much to help each other, nor are there any visible traces of cooperation between Canon and Ricoh.

Besides, Cosina is a private founder/owner company - way outside the Keiretsu system.
 
Well, I've heard high-up Leica staff complaining that they were severely hampered by the system and the Japanese closed-shop mentality.Fwiiw. Otoh Dr. Kaufmann seems to have gotten Fujitsu on board.
 
Last edited:
Olsen said:
The surest way out of business is not to 'play the digital game'.

Cosina is in no less position than Leica to make a digital RF camera. Quite on the contrary. As a Japanese company Cosina has access to wide range of - patents - that are not available for non-Japanese companies and which is vital to enter the digital camera market.
Click to expand...


Could you be a little clearer Olsen? I have no idea what you might be thinking of.
Patents can be bought and sold, or licenced out, or simply not enforced against infringers. Why would Japanese companies have automatic access to patents that non-Japanese companies do not?
😕

Ah, okay I just read Sevo's comments about the keiretsu system. I need to look into this, but my first impression is that most of the big Japanese camera companies do indeed fall into different Keiretsu as Sevo said. Asahi and Nikon in Mitsubishi, Fuji in Mitsui with close ties to Sony, Canon and Ricoh in Fuyo, Fujitsu in DKB, Konika minolta and Hoya in Midorikai which now seems to be incorporated into the Mitsubishi banking group following the financial collapse.

No doubt we are talking about BIG companies being pooled together here.
But if holding companies of this size were to pool IP resources, I would be gravely concerned that anti-competetive behaviour was occuring, and they would certainly fall under anti-trust legislation.
 
Last edited:
myM8yogi said:
Could you be a little clearer Olsen? I have no idea what you might be thinking of.
Patents can be bought and sold, or licenced out, or simply not enforced against infringers. Why would Japanese companies have automatic access to patents that non-Japanese companies do not?
😕

Ah, okay I just read your comments about the keiretsu system. I need to look into this, but my first impression is that it is anti-competetive behaviour at a national level. Does this not fall under anti-trust legislation?
Click to expand...

Yes. Are you going to sue personally? Do you trust your government to do so for small, not-very-important industries?

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom