Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Let's work together with and on Leupold

No kidding? Point is there is no lock on basic machining patterns especially when industry standards cause same diameter tubes to be used.

I suppose you think Mossberg has to pay Remington when they make 870 barrels or optics manufacturers have to pay when they make eyepieces to fit other brands.

Like camera lens manufacturers making lenses to fit a wide range of camera bodies, makes and models...

I don't see why mfg A can't make parts to fit mfg B's scope body as long as no brand misrepresentation is made.

Well, I'm not the professional arguer that SD is, but I can tell you Swaro won't stand for some other entity making parts for Swaro optics. An even better example of this is when Nikon introduced the fantastic Nikon EDG binocular, open hinge model with two hinges. Swaro got out of sorts about a glass being so closely manufactured to it's newly patented (at that time) Swarovision dual open hinge design and raised so much hell about it that Nikon had to do a redesign and make the EDGII a closed/single hinge design with the same optics.

Captain Obvious,
There is a huge difference between impinging on a patent and making aftermarket parts for something on the open market. Copying another design up to patent limits is SOP worldwide.

It is easy to win an argument when the other side cannot dispute the very basic points.

What if Swaro's eyepeice is patented?

One could make an eyepiece that attaches just fine but uses different design details.

And I thought I had Vanilla Icecube on ignore?

Swaro became a little unhinged when Meopta R2 was introduced as well.

Leupold makes an awesome Firedot! Wish SWFA would copy that biotch into the center of a MilQuad 3-9!

True Dat!

Combined with the Wind Plex, it's an awesome reticle. To my eyes and brain anyway.

I don't have a scope that isn't a Leupold. Never have had an issue with them. Hope I never do.

Well that will only fix part of the problem then. I appreciate the effort but why cherry pick what you send them. It doesn't fix the problems if you send 1/2 the issues.

You think they really want to read about dick measuring posts? A lot of guys jumped on this thread just to ramble, don’t see how Leupold needs to read that garbage.

Now we are on to something there... Maybe SWFA should get out their note pad and start writing some of this chit down...

I’m loving the vx3 2.5-8x36 I just zeroed on a Kimber Montana . Haters gonna hate

+ 1

That is broadly correct.

You can not copy protected intellectual property. Anything that is not protected is fair game.

Protected IP is things like patents, copyright and trademarks. The rest of it, is know-how, so if you are smart enough to reverse engineer it and make it fit, you can make stuff all you want.

Whether that is a good business practice or not is an argument we can have, but from a legal standpoint, it is perfectly legit.

With bayonet mount on the spotting scope eyepiece, there is no IP protection I am aware of. Swarovski may not like it very much that there are eyepieces out there which fit they spotters, but there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.

ILya

Seems like I spent hours reading this post most of it does nothing to help leupold and american company work on its issues. I was a fan boy for years and never had issues but of late I had issues with there scopes holding zero , not tracking correctly and over all durability. A durable scope that dials correctly with a windplex reticle thats aluminated would sell at least to me.

I thought they had alloy tubes? Not sure aluminated is more better.