TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I can promise you that having been on the inside of the largest IT companies in existence, the quarterly performance, which is typically reflected in the stock price, is of paramount importance to management. Not only does it reflect the financial well being of the company, it affects their ability to hire and retain talent (a substantial percentage of compensation is from stock options in high tech companies), and it affects customer’s perception of the reliability of the company as a long-term and supportive supplier.

There are also some very serious secondary effects on a company resulting from stock price declines. Remember, a company's stock can be used as a sort of currency. Companies can sell additional shares of stock, for instance, to buy other companies.
When a stock price falls, that means the company must sell additional shares of stock to raise the same amount of proceeds. That means when a stock price is depressed, doing stock-based deals gets more expensive. Meanwhile, companies can sell additional shares of stock to raise cash for various purposes, including to expand. When a stock price is falling, the company must sell more shares to raise money. If a stock price falls by a large amount, a company might be forced to borrow to raise money instead, which is usually more expensive.

There's also some personal fortunes of company executives tied to the stock price. Executives' pay and performance are often linked, at least in part, to the stock's price. If a stock price is falling, they may miss out on bonuses or might suddenly find their jobs on the line. And that's enough to prompt many CEOs to keep an eye on the ticker tape.

Red6

No arguments there. However, the stock price is not the final word. Deeper investigation into a company's financials would most likely indicate that the move in the stock price may have been due to other issues, too many to list here. Certainly fear is often the reason coupled with human psychology.

For example Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), and other S&P 100 companies, stock prices dropped up to 15% over the last few weeks. Are they less of a company now than they were a month ago? I would say no. All of them are still dominating their sectors and making profits for the shareholders. If stock prices in the market are dropping as a whole, the companies are most likely still sound and as profitable as they were before the drop. People will still want to work for Amazon, Apple, Meta, IBM, Verizon, Lockheed Martin, etc.

If the prices are dropping due to a recession or other economic issues, the better managed and financially sound companies will survive and possibly even prosper, depending on their products or services. But this discussion is more for the economists. That is if you can find more than two that agree on anything.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

Being a retired software sales exec I certainly do not miss Quarterly Business Reviews. I once flew to US military base on Christmas because my boss believed I pull in a last-minute purchase order even though I told him they'd we're gone until January 3rd. I had projected it as a Q1 deal all along. So glad this guy went away.

There are certainly patentable things in RF lenses. I suspect it is likely the electronics. All of these 3rd party lenses have reverse-engineered the RF lenses. They even warned buyers that it was possible they might not work in the future. The larger 3rd party companies like Sigma and Tamron never came out with RF lenses probably for that reason. I do wish Canon would release the specs.

Barbonbrown

To be patentable an idea or a product has to be new and original. Simply to change the size of a mount, or vary the bayonet lugs etc. is not new or original. If it were doing something in a new way, or doing something in itself itself new that could be patentable. But simply to make a mount slightly different but doing the same job in essentially the same way, that is not patentable. I don't know enough about Canon's mount to comment, but I've yet to be told it does anything more than most existing digital camera mounts.

It may be open to copyright protection though.

A bit like someone making a bicycle wheel 15mm larger, patenting it and saying no one else is allowed to make tyres in this new size!!

User ID

You cant trust third party coffee. Its reverse engineered by trial and error.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If it ain't Canon, it's crap.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Again... It *IS* patented.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10036935B2/en?q=mount&assignee=Canon&oq=Canon+mount

You can download the patent file from that link and be amazed at the complexity of that "simple" thing, as you describe it.

I highly recommend that you revise your misconceptions about patents and intellectual property

I find your lack of respect for modern engineering... ah, disturbing.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You're enlightened.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Now you're getting into it!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Getting into it?! I can't get out of it!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I never thought Canon was "evil" for sending Viltrox a cease and desist letter over patent infringement. They are completely within their right to do so. And they HAVE done the same to at least one other company: Samyang (aka Rokinon). No doubt Canon's actions against these two have also served to warn all other 3rd party lens makers to stay clear, or get sued!

It appears to only apply to autofocus lenses, so the patent infringement must have something to do with the electronic protocols. Checking on B&H Photo there are currently 29 autofocus lenses listed for RF mount and all of them are Canon lenses. In contrast, there are 67 manual focus/manual aperture lenses listed for RF mount, only one of which is Canon. The rest of those fully manual lenses are from a dozen assorted 3rd party lens makers (even one Rokinon).

This suggests it's not the patent on the physical bayonet mount itself, but the patent(s) on the electronics that Canon is defending aggressively. Further, it seems to specifically be lens AF/aperture/stabilization tech. There are a number of 3rd party EF to RF adapters, speed boosters and macro extension rings, some of which are directly competing with Canon OEM products, all of which simply "pass through" the electronic communication between camera and lens. Canon doesn't seem to by trying to stop the manufacture and sale of those.

Again, it is certainly their right to protect their patent(s), if they wish.

I'm just not sure it's a good marketing move. They've probably analyzed it and concluded it will be most profitable to monopolize AF lens production for the new mount, at least for the first years while they're building the system. But I suspect they will change their minds eventually when they start to see people moving to Sony and Nikon where there will be much greater choice of lenses.

For example, B&H lists 172 autofocus lenses currently available for Sony E-mount cameras, 63 of which are made by Sony themselves. The rest are being being sold under 22 assorted 3rd party brands. Sony has been developing their mirrorless system a lot longer than Canon, so naturally has a much deeper system of lenses now. But Sony started out way, way behind... has one of the smallest camera market share of any manufacturer, when they bought the Konica-Minolta system in 2006. By opening up their system to and even welcoming 3rd party lens makers they have grown into the 2nd largest camera maker in the world, surpassing even Nikon a year or two ago. A large part of that growth was thanks to the availability of 3rd party lenses, filling the gaps in the system or offering a cheaper alternative that got people into the E-mount system and earned their loyalty.

Nikon is also opening up their Z-mount to 3rd party lens makers. This will undoubtedly help them regain some of the glory they lost with a rather rocky transition to mirrorless (among other factors). Interestingly, there are actually slightly fewer Nikon OEM AF lenses (27) than there are Canon RF (29).... but because 3rd party lens makers are starting to release AF lenses for Z-mount, four have already done so and B&H shows there are 37 AF lenses total for Z-mount. Without 3rd party participation, Nikon is a little behind Canon developing their respective systems. But once you add the 3rd party to Nikon, they are well ahead of Canon (at least in sheer number of lenses to choose among). Among the 3rd party lenses for Z-mount, eight are from Viltrox! Among those, four are APS-C primes, which are something Canon sorely lacks in spite of just (finally) launching their first two APS-C cameras in RF-mount. Whoops!

You could say those other companies are working from a position of weakness, while Canon is working from a position of strength. Although the overall camera market has shrunk greatly, Canon still has a very dominant share of the market. In fact, Canon's current share is greater than Sony, Nikon and Fujifilm combined.

But will they maintain that share? I predict not if they insist on a monopolistic approach that prevents 3rd party lens makers from developing products for their cameras. They might get away with that for a year or two, but I suspect they will start to see some erosion of their 20+ year market dominance unless they change their tact. New customers looking for a camera system will see greater selection of lenses in other systems and might opt for them instead. Current customers may get frustrated waiting for things to come available, not entirely happy with what is offered or upset about paying premium prices just for a brand name and jump to another brand. Brand loyalty is usually bolstered by the high cost of switching brands. But if one is transitioning from DSLRs to mirrorless, at a major tipping point already, it would also be a good time to also switch brands if need be.

We'll see how this works out. Maybe Canon is doing the smart thing. Maybe they aren't and will change their minds or come up with a middle ground such as selectively licensing their tech to other manufacturers.

It's interesting that Canon announced selling their sensors to other makers for the first time just a year or two ago. Plus, there's been no similar patent defense of the EOS M-system for the past 8 or 10 years... Or for that matter of the EOS EF/EF-S system for the 30+ years it's existed. You can argue the M-system simply never got any traction... 3rd party makers didn't jump aboard because Canon themselves didn't appear very strongly committed to it. But the opposite is true of the EOS/EF/EF-S SLR and DSLR system. It's what made Canon what it is today.

lbrande

The patent is describing an image device (camera), the interchangeable lens, number 700, is described in passing. The main purpose of the patent is to describe the camera and the adapter to mount the lens, probably a non-RF lens.
Here is the abstract of the disclosure:
"A body of an imaging apparatus comprises a mount section
on which an interchangeable lens and a mount adapter can
be mounted . A contact unit is movable in the direction of the
optical axis by a moving mechanical unit and has a first
contact portion composed of a plurality of contact terminals . If the interchangeable lens is mounted on a body via a first
mount adapter , the first contact portion is movable to a first
position that contacts a second contact portion formed in the
interchangeable lens . If the interchangeable lens is mounted
on the body via a second mount adapter , the first contact
portion is movable to a second position that contacts the
second contact portion of the interchangeable lens . "

jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon

I think the patent has to do with the lens mount as well.

jack

All1317

Their.is a reason we don't buy from them

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

This was a very entertaining read, with many demonstrating their complete lack of knowledge. As usual, Jerry fits that category as he has no concept of business, the camera industry or the auto industry. Many countries, including the USA, have patent offices, and for good reason, as some have explained quite well. The Chinese are famous for disregarding international laws, and are generally, but not always the culprits. I do not hate the chinese folks, just some of their corporations business practices. A patent is a patent, period, whether you agree or not. Without patent protection, development of new technologies would slow to a crawl. As far as the auto industry goes Jerry, all the repair information on most any vehicle IS available, it's just on line and you would need to subscribe to it. Auto makers stopped selling printed copies when their market for them dried up, and have long ago switched to digital. We subscribed to a service where I used to work and it was pretty expensive. Many vehicle repairs today need special tools and training. Best of luck.