[Wheatfield]

I know the answer, but am looking for some documentation to prove it.
Thanks

[FozzFoster]

https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/c1800/PU/JP-2018-024300/1FA7D70C9E489EE1CC...B386161A/10/en

The patent for the Pentax HD FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW lens was filed by Ricoh - Pentax Rumors


It's under a Ricoh patent.

[Wheatfield]

???????? (Maintenance information) | J-PlatPat/AIPN

The patent for the Pentax HD FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW lens was filed by Ricoh - Pentax Rumors


It's under a Ricoh patent.

Thanks. I take back all the bad things I've said about Alberta.
Except for the parts about the Stampeders.

[awscreo]

I know the answer, but am looking for some documentation to prove it.

Thanks

Dpreview users questioning Pentax?

[Wheatfield]

Dpreview users questioning Pentax?

Yup. What else? It seems to be their national sport.

[awscreo]

Yup. What else? It seems to be their national sport.

Ignorance is bliss! If they knew how awesome Pentax cameras are they'd be selling their puny canikonsony's and losing money in the process)

[RobA_Oz]

Ignorance is bliss! If they knew how awesome Pentax cameras are they'd be selling their puny canikonsony's and losing money in the process)

Any camera that can’t pass the meandering bicycle test just doesn’t cut it, apparently.

???????? (Maintenance information) | J-PlatPat/AIPN

The patent for the Pentax HD FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW lens was filed by Ricoh - Pentax Rumors


It's under a Ricoh patent.

But that does not say who developed/designed the lens. It only says that Ricoh holds the patent. Suppose that Ricoh asked a third party to develop a certain lens and that in the agreement it is stated that Ricoh owns the design and has the right to patent the design but that third party may use it to develop a lens under its own brand and is not allowed to market that lens in a K-mount? It is not uncommon to have such contracts. It is frequently used in the IT-world. So why not in developing lenses.It is just a thought and I may be far off the mark, but it is a possibility. It saves Ricoh a lot of R&D money. With advantages for both companies. Ricoh owning the design and the third party the only one that is allowed to use that design. Nice way to sell your lens to people that use camera's by Canon, Nikon or Sony and at the same time preventing those three to make fully or partially use of the design. As I wrote, I could be off the mark, but it is a means to survive in this hectic economy.

[angerdan]

I know the answer, but am looking for some documentation to prove it.
Thanks

All links are to find at wikipedia:
Pentax D FA* 50mm lens - Wikipedia

Pentax did announce the D FA* much before Tokina did.
The D FA* has been available earlier.
Tokina don't tell anything about their part of the development. Pentax dedicated an own page for the development story of the D FA*.

[monochrome]

But that does not say who developed/designed the lens. It only says that Ricoh holds the patent. Suppose that Ricoh asked a third party to develop a certain lens and that in the agreement it is stated that Ricoh owns the design and has the right to patent the design but that third party may use it to develop a lens under its own brand and is not allowed to market that lens in a K-mount? It is not uncommon to have such contracts. It is frequently used in the IT-world. So why not in developing lenses.It is just a thought and I may be far off the mark, but it is a possibility. It saves Ricoh a lot of R&D money. With advantages for both companies. Ricoh owning the design and the third party the only one that is allowed to use that design. Nice way to sell your lens to people that use camera's by Canon, Nikon or Sony and at the same time preventing those three to make fully or partially use of the design. As I wrote, I could be off the mark, but it is a means to survive in this hectic economy.

Dude. Stop inhaling. Pentax licensed the design to Tokina. Full Stop.

You are Ignored.

[Wheatfield]

Dude. Stop inhaling. Pentax licensed the design to Tokina. Full Stop.

You are Ignored.

The point he is making is pretty much what I ran into on the other forum. That’s why I was hoping to find some ironclad, unarguable documentation about where the design came from.

---------- Post added Jun 26th, 2020 at 04:30 PM ----------

All links are to find at wikipedia:
Pentax D FA* 50mm lens - Wikipedia

Pentax did announce the D FA* much before Tokina did.
The D FA* has been available earlier.
Tokina don't tell anything about their part of the development. Pentax dedicated an own page for the development story of the D FA*.

Thanks Dan.

[ffking]

But that does not say who developed/designed the lens. It only says that Ricoh holds the patent. Suppose that Ricoh asked a third party to develop a certain lens and that in the agreement it is stated that Ricoh owns the design and has the right to patent the design but that third party may use it to develop a lens under its own brand and is not allowed to market that lens in a K-mount? It is not uncommon to have such contracts. It is frequently used in the IT-world. So why not in developing lenses.It is just a thought and I may be far off the mark, but it is a possibility. It saves Ricoh a lot of R&D money. With advantages for both companies. Ricoh owning the design and the third party the only one that is allowed to use that design. Nice way to sell your lens to people that use camera's by Canon, Nikon or Sony and at the same time preventing those three to make fully or partially use of the design. As I wrote, I could be off the mark, but it is a means to survive in this hectic economy.

Are you suggesting this as a possible weakness in the proof supplied or as an actual possibility? The first might hold water, the second doesn't.

[gatorguy]

But that does not say who developed/designed the lens. It only says that Ricoh holds the patent. Suppose that Ricoh asked a third party to develop a certain lens and that in the agreement it is stated that Ricoh owns the design and has the right to patent the design but that third party may use it to develop a lens under its own brand and is not allowed to market that lens in a K-mount? It is not uncommon to have such contracts.

Huh? Companies don't negotiate who owns the patent. The company inventing and filing for one owns the patent. It would be very UNcommon IMO for it to be otherwise, bordering on unheard of.

But no doubt you have lots of examples of it to offer that suggest I'm wrong? I'm happy to reconsider it if you have anything.

[robbiec]

But that does not say who developed/designed the lens. It only says that Ricoh holds the patent. Suppose that Ricoh asked a third party to develop a certain lens and that in the agreement it is stated that Ricoh owns the design and has the right to patent the design but that third party may use it to develop a lens under its own brand and is not allowed to market that lens in a K-mount? It is not uncommon to have such contracts. It is frequently used in the IT-world. So why not in developing lenses.It is just a thought and I may be far off the mark, but it is a possibility. It saves Ricoh a lot of R&D money. With advantages for both companies. Ricoh owning the design and the third party the only one that is allowed to use that design. Nice way to sell your lens to people that use camera's by Canon, Nikon or Sony and at the same time preventing those three to make fully or partially use of the design. As I wrote, I could be off the mark, but it is a means to survive in this hectic economy.

You could be off the mark? You're not even in the same venue.
When Ricoh / Pentax say it is a Star lens or a Limited for that matter, that means they researched, designed, patented, built and own that lens full stop. Always have, are now and will always class themselves as an optical design house. The cameras are made so we can use the lenses, not the other way round. It would be like calling Zeiss a Sony lens maker.

[monochrome]

So Ricoh and another company conspired to make it look like Pentax designed a lens they didn’t actually design? Seriously, what’s the motivation?

Some people are so feverswamp warped they’ll believe any crazy, irrational theory to justify their Anti-Pentax bias. Or some desperate mirrorless manufacturer is paying them to be a Social Media Negative Influencer - and yes, that is a real social media marketing tactic.