Bad for the industry and Nikon.

I think that this is a bad move by Nikon. This, if successful will allow Nikon to monopolise the market thus giving them the ability to hike prices. It also means that the consumer will have less options available to them and Sigma I feel help consumers with tighter pockets than the pros have the option of a quality product at the fraction of an official branded lens.

Personally I feel that if Sigma are forced to no longer produce these lenses then Nikon may lose the bottom end of the market to their main competitior Canon.

I am a Canon user personally and I upgraded my kit lens to a Sigma lens. Since owning this lens and seeing the enhanced image quality I have since upgraded my zoom lens to a Canon L branded lens. I would never have considered spending that much money on a lens had it not been for my Sigma lens showing me the light of quality glass. I am now looking at purchasing more premium L lenses.

I fully agree that companies should be allowed to protect their intellectual property but I think Nikon should look at the bigger picture and see the damage that they could cause to their brand because it is these third party products that people WILL consider when looking to purchasing a camera body!

Bad for Nikon?

Seriously I have to take issue with Stu's comments.
The main reason Sigma can come in and undercut Nikon’s prices is they have nearly no research and development costs; as long as they are allowed to copy another companies products without regard for patents. Does the reader really expect Nikon to allow this?
Nikon must still remain market competitive with other higher end products or risk losing market share. Nikon services the higher end of the market and potential customers have a short memory; they will buy the best products when they are market competitive.
Sigma gained his business because it was a like quality to the Nikon using a Nikon patented technology at a lower cost. Again there is only one reason why it was lower cost. Nikon should go after Sigma if they in fact violated the patent and pay little attention to how some Sigma users may see it. After all the Sigma users have already told Nikon who they prefer.

but it would be worse for the industry ...

if companies cannot protect their R&D investment, because maybe they would no longer spent money on developing new designs.

The IT industry today it is full of companies suing each other over patent infringements - and only making lawyers rich.

Bad for the Consumer

Sigma are a professional optical Co who I'm sure have a lot of development costs and have innovative products. Many of their lenses are of equal optical quality to Nikon and not always cheaper at the high end.
The reason for Nikon prices being so high is that they are priced according to what the market will pay.
If Sigma are going to be sued for patent infringement in VR or Image Stabilization as I prefer to call it; then maybe Canon might consider suing Nikon for stealing their IS idea.
This legal minefield can only damage Nikons reputation.
If I thought I could only use Nikon lenses with Nikon bodies and be without any alternatives; I would use another system. There'[s nothing wrong with the Nikon system of course, but I'd want the choice.

IPR

Protecting IPR is key to being able to fund R&D and protecting revenue streams. I would have thought that photographers should have understood the need to protect IPR more than most.....

@ Tim

Yeah, Tim, you'd think that. But photographers consistently think the same way everyone else does:

IP is important when it makes ME money, but it's unimportant when it might SAVE me money.

Nikon v Sigma

The VR technology was first bought out in a Nikon point & shoot film camera yrs ago, Canon since have the IS system, but Nikon did all the R&D, so credit where it's due, they will sell their technology later under license,.

@ Stu

By Stu's logic, any time an unscrupulous publication/photo editor/organisation decides to use our images without permission and payment, we should be grateful because they are giving us "exposure" and driving customers to us.

Wow.

P.S. To think that Sigma lenses are cheaper purely because they are not paying for licensing Nikon's VR technology is simplistic and naive. Sigma lenses will not become as expensive as Nikons just because of a licensing fee, and will still remain cheaper.

Equal rights

@iIP is IP
"By Stu's logic, any time..."

Absolutely right!.
How we can fight for our rights as photographers and deny the ip for others? Anyway, independent manufacturers' lenses always will be cheaper. By definition.

IP is Important

I fully appreciate that people should be able to protect their IP and Nikon have every right to do so. I run a games company and IP is one of the most important aspects of our business and trust me we have to consider potential IP and Trademark Infringment on a daily basis.

What I have an issue with in this case is the fact that Nikon are suing Sigma over the fact they have a patent for Image Stabalisation in the SLR lenses. Why have Nikon not sued Canon, afterall they have IS on the SLR lenses? And why let Sigma release all their IS lenses over a long period of time before deciding to sue them? The answer is simple, Nikon (and I am sure canon are the same) don't want people to put third party lenses onto their camera bodies and this is an attempt to remove them from the market place.

If Sigma have blatently copied their system then Nikon do have a case as clearly they have stolen their design but I suspect that Sigma have developed their own system. I am basing my comments on the body of the article which suggests that they are suing Sigma because it was their idea and they have a patent not because they stole their design.

I absolutly agree that IP is very very important but I have to agree with what Dave said. For me I get tired of Large Corp A suing Large Corp B, its like Apple suing Amazon over using the term App Store, it just gets ridiculous and not once is the consumer needs considered.

PS - I totally agree that Copyright Infringement is a very serious issue and not once would I suggest that people should be able to use our photos without payment or permission. I believe this is a different issue entirely.

What is in the Patents

I think Stu has a point... I work in the telecommunications industry and patents are an important part in leveraging market share, putting competitors at a disadvantage and building the brand name. Apple would die if it did not have an army of lawyers. In many cases in my industry companies develop patents with no intent to deploy what they patent unless it can increase revenue or secure the brand. Many times the patents are used as a means of protecting oneself (armor) or as a means of attacking a competitor (weapon). When two companies both have patents on a similar technology there is a stalemate and life goes on. This happened when Apple threatened to sue Palm when the Palm Pre was introduced as an alternative to the iPhone. Apple fired a shot and Palm fired back (listing it own trove of patents that Apple may have violated). Suddenly Apple was silenced. Why... because a law suit against Palm could start an all out war that Apple may not be able to win based on patent infringement. It's clear to me that Nikon thinks that Sigma does not have strong enough patents to protect themselves or they are simply trying to damage the Sigma brand. In any case Sigma will counter sue if they have their own patent war-chest. Nikon did not sue Canon because obviously Canon has enough patents to protect themselves against a suit threat (stalemate).

Not bad for the photographer

If people were to steal our copyrights to our pictures (much the same a patent infringement) we would certainly start complaining. Nikon protecting its patents essentially protects future developments for us ''the photographers''. If Sigma have broken the law they they have to pay the cost. Simple !!!!

Well

Nikon has not commercialized Ultrasonic Motor before Canon did.
It would be a same nuance for Nikon and other companies.

ISO technology

Speaking as a pro photographer, I can see the constant improvements in ISO technology dwarfing the need for VR pretty soon anyway. I used to think my VR lenses were amazing, then I got a D3s...Different world.

Nikon has every right to sue if Sigma has indeed breached it's copyright.

No patents, no products.

People need to be more informed when giving their opinion.

Fact: Nikon is the inventor of image stabilization.

Fact: Canon paid Nikon for right to use IS technology.

Fact: Patents exist to protect research and development costs, otherwise it would be foolish to dump millions of dollars into new products only to have the competition copy your hard work and capitalize on it.

Fact: Without patents, improvements or replacement of existing products would not be carried out due to facts mentioned above. So let's stop crying about high prices and be thankful we have patents to protect our progress. It's that simple.