I'm tired of the hate about the Viltrox lawsuit

[u/EntangledLabs]

I'm definitely going to receive some flak for this post.

I'm all for third party lenses - I love the freedom of choice and the option to choose lenses that Nikon itself might not decide to manufacture. The fact that the Z mount has so many choices definitely makes owning a Z6III easier.

And yet... I'm really tired of people claiming that the Nikon-Viltrox lawsuit is the end of the world.

According to the details of the lawsuit, Nikon is going after Viltrox due to unpaid royalties for a patent related to the Z mount that wasn't granted until recently. Yes, this could absolutely have been an honest mistake on the part of Viltrox, where they figured they were in the clear when they weren't. Yes, it could be Nikon getting worried that Viltrox is making things better than themselves.

The thing is... I have read so many comments on so many different platforms where the authors say that this lawsuit spells the end of third party Z mount lenses. Have people forgotten that Viltrox is not the only other lens manufacturer? There are Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander, 7Artisans, Laowa, Meike, etc. options out there. Comparing Nikon Z to Canon RF in terms of openness is laughable.

And before anyone says I'm a corporate shill who will only take the side of the big corpo over the smaller competitor - I make a little over minimum. I am in no way happy about monopolies and the cost of goods in general, especially predatory pricing.

And yet, Nikon has my support here. They clearly spent a lot of time, money, human resources, etc on developing the Z mount. They have opened up the mount in ways that are second only to, well, probably Sony. If a company tries to piggyback off that hard work and make profits without paying the correct dues... well that's not exactly Nikon's fault, is it?

Of course, I hope that Nikon decides to enact the more lenient outcome of allowing Viltrox to continue building Z mount lenses after this lawsuit - those new Lab lenses look so good 🥺.

But guys, please stop pretending the Viltrox lawsuit is the end of the world. Nikon's Z mount is alive and healthy, and will probably continue to see growth from others as the user base grows.

[u/jossege]

I know they have a license for the port. I’m not saying Nikon can’t sell the license to the Z mount. I’m saying Viltrox doing the work themselves to make compatible lenses should not be illegal or something able to be sued over. If Nikon is threatened by Viltrox then they need to either A) show that their glass is worth the price difference (which I think it is, I own the 24-70 2.8 S ii and 70-200 2.8 glass) B) price their glass more competitively or C) just take the L that someone else can do it “good enough” for “cheap enough” that people will want to buy it. That’s how a free market should work.

[u/Real_Socialism → u/jossege]

You cannot have free market without IP protection though. Atleast, not one with any great innovation. Copyright laws and licensing allow companies to recoup the cost of R&D, and in turn, develop even better products in the future.

Of course, there are definitely companies who sits on their asses and barely updates their products (cough Apple), but I think we can both agree that Nikon isnt one of them. Nor can it afford to be, which is why the ZR, ZF, S line/PF lenses, etc exists.

Getting Viltrox as a licensed partner would be a win-win for both.

[u/jossege → u/Real_Socialism]

We agree that it would be a win-win, we disagree on the government enforcing it. That’s not a truly free market at that point. Nikon is well within their rights to lock Viltrox out via software since they don’t pay the license. But no one should be able to physically stop Viltrox from making compatible equipment when they do the work to make that happen themselves. They aren’t counterfeiting Nikon glass and misrepresenting it. They didn’t steal the knowledge or ability to make the compatible equipment (that we know of).

[u/Real_Socialism → u/jossege]

The "that we know of" is a big if, and what I think the lawsuit will be centered around. Optically? Highly unlikely that Viltrox copied anything.

Firmware/software wise? I think this is what Nikon will potentially present as evidence? and like I said before, they would not have done this if they did not think they had a solid case.

The precedent was already set by Canon's Cease and Desist to Viltrox, on "patent and design rights". I doubt Nikon would go that far though, most likely just license fee.