The Polaroid iM1836 copycat camera is now gone

Nikon published an update on the lawsuit against Sakar over the Polaroid iM1836 digital mirrorless camera - the court issued consent injunction and both parties agreed that "Sakar will no longer manufacture, import, advertise, promote, offer for sale, sell, or ship the Polaroid iM1836 digital camera in its present configuration":

Court issues consent injunction in lawsuit against Sakar over Polaroid iM1836 digital camera

On October 11, 2013, Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc. ("Nikon") sued Sakar International, Inc. ("Sakar") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for design patent infringement and trade dress infringement arising from Sakar's "Polaroid iM1836" digital camera (Case No. 13-Civ-7228 (S.D.N.Y)).

Shortly thereafter, Nikon moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the sales and advertising of the Polaroid iM1836 digital camera. After appearing before the Court, Sakar and Nikon agreed on the terms of a preliminary injunction. The Court thus issued a Preliminary Injunction Order on December 4, 2013 (Eastern Standard Time).

As part of the injunction, Sakar will no longer manufacture, import, advertise, promote, offer for sale, sell, or ship the Polaroid iM1836 digital camera in its present configuration.

The above mentioned design patent and trade dress rights are related to the "Nikon 1" Advanced Camera with Interchangeable Lenses.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • What were they (Sakar) thinking – they did not even put out a fight…

    • Morgan Glassco

      Probably only sold 2 so far anyways

      • Then why did they produce this camera, just to promote their brand troughs this lawsuit? I really don’t get it.

        • Ronan

          Management at it’s best! LOL

        • NikonAngel

          I agree, it makes no sense. Methinks they intended to slide under the radar of Nikon’s patent lawyers, possibly hoping Nikon thought it not worth their time? Still, that’s some crazy stufffffff.

        • Spy Black

          Yeah, press maybe. I bet they’ll continue to sell in China regardless.

        • whisky

          why? probably because Nikon had compelling evidence that the molds were a direct derivative of nikon’s earlier J1 design.

          see here:

          • Global

            Admin was talking about Sakar, not Nikon.

            But of course, this was branded as a Polaroid, so its even more bizarre than simply a Sakar scandal. Its sorta like Sakar believed that Americans loved the brand Polaroid SO MUCH (and we, historically, did) that we would be willing to try a camera that used the Polaroid brand, but looked exactly like a top tier brand offering.

            They probably had consultants in the midwest do a survey with middle aged white people asking, “if these 2 cameras looked identical, which would you buy, a Japanese brand, or the Polaroid brand.”

            I think Sakar was severely misguided by negligent marketers or a negligent marketing firm.

            • whisky

              Sakar is, i believe, still just a distributor based in New Jersey that distributes and sells all manner of re-branded photographic product — including Vivitar.

              the camera itself is most likely made by another party in a country where it’s very difficult to prosecute for these kind of infringements. the “Polaroid” brand is licensed much in the same way “Singer” and perhaps soon “Kodak” is. i could be wrong, but i suspect Sakar was offered a “bargain” to distribute these w/o really understanding the implications and repercussions of what they walked into. they will be much more careful moving forward.

            • zoetmb

              Although I find it ridiculous, American consumers, especially older consumers, do seem to respond to known brands of the past. The Chinese recognize this and have for example, licensed the Westinghouse brand for TVs. What are you going to better respond to when you see a name on an appliance: “GE” or “Zhang”? And the reverse is true: Western brands change their brand name to sell in China: “Persevering” is the brand that BMW uses in China. Coke is called “Tasty Fun”.

              Many old brands are licensed. There is no “RCA” – any products branded with RCA are manufactured by third parties who license the brand name.

              This is true in restaurants as well. In New York, the old Nedicks brand has been revived for hot dog stands. I think it’s nuts because no one under 50 is going to remember Nedicks.

              As it turns out, there’s a law that says if a trademark hasn’t been used for three years, it is considered “abandoned” and anyone else can take over the trademark exclusively by filing for it. There’s a company trying to use the names of old stores that were taken over by Macy’s: Abraham & Strauss, Joseph Magnin, Robinson’s and Bon Marche, but Macy’s has sued and the case is in the courts.

              Sakar probably would have done okay selling to discounters and low-end stores if they hadn’t so directly stolen Nikon’s design.

              I could have sworn that when I attended the NYPhotoExpo recently, I saw Samsung products that also looked to be almost direct copies of the Nikon 1 series.

          • I know that and have reported it few times already here on he blog.

        • Morgan Glassco

          My thoughts are they probably thought there was a better market for it and could turn a buck. Similar to how Yongnuo’s speedlights are in the same body as a Canon 580ex and have a share of the market, I assume they thought they could do the same.

    • Marc J.

      Nikon has a LOT more money to throw into a court battle than Sakar does.

      Not surprising.

      • Spy Black

        You mean Mitsubishi.

        • Global

          Even Mitsubishi knows the US market is not friendly. Theyve been at the mercy of the top brands for as long as theyve existed. Also, these chaebol/zaibatsu conglomerates have a lot of overhead. They really arent that efficient and each division sinks or swims at the expense of many other divisions. Theyll easily cut off funding when it doesnt make sense.

    • Global

      Because, the camera wasnt selling.., they probably were not even going to make a second batch of these things for the US anyway. So its much easier to say, ok, whatever, instead of spending $500k on lawyers at a net loss.

      • Fair and OMG

        I want to sue Nikon for lousy warranty service…

        … but they have been good sometimes as well, i must add.

    • AnthonyH

      As I recall, the sensor is in the lens. They probably figured that was enough of a difference, but the physical similarity was too obvious a violation to overlook and likely to confuse a purchaser.

  • Zeke

    Weak. Nikon was granted a design patent on a generic box.

    • Timothy

      Yup. Sakar/Polaroid are just more victims of merciless monopolistic patent warfare.

      • Not really. All Sakar had to do was make sure their design wasn’t confusingly similar to Nikon’s.

        • Timothy

          Yes really. There’s nothing to Nikon’s design, it’s just a white box. I have a bunch of cameras that look just like it. Heck, even my old Walkman looks exactly like it, minus the lens (even down to the button placement). It’s as plain of a design as a plain and uninteresting object can be designed as. Patent law is shit and extremely regressive.

    • Michael Sloan

      Exactly, quoting Thom, a “bar of soap”. Besides, this is a preliminary injuction. This just means that until a decision has been made by a judge, Sakar can’t sell or market the product. I hope Sakar countersues Nikon for damages due to loss sales during the Christmas pre-season. It would serve Nikon right if they lost their asses on this one.

      • Ronan

        LOL LOL LOL

        Someone copies your design and they get sued.

        Why are people bitching and moaning? If the camera ACTUALLY looked different i would understand, but it’s a plane copy/paste and change the thickness of the dials (but don’t even move them!).

        That’s just BS.

        • Michael Sloan

          Take a closer look. The camera is shorter, the buttons ARE in different locations, the LCD IS BIGGER. The only thing they truly share is the camera strap eyelets. This same basic design, with same physical dimensions, have been used by most manufacturers for over a decade. It’s almost as ridiculous as television companies suing each other over flat screen televisions, because they share the same dimensions! Nikon has only achieved a delay of the product at a critical sales stage. Nikon should concentrate on building products people want.

          • Ronan

            So who do i believe, Nikon + a Judge + a panel of experts or you?

            I think i’ll go with the former!

            BTW just making something slightly smaller/larger is STILL an infringement on copyright and patterns!

            • Michael Sloan

              Don’t beleive me, beleive your own eyes. But to do that, you need to open them. This is my last reply to yours, because you are obviously inept to using logic and reasonable deduction. Besides, this is just a preliminary injuction; it is not over. If someone were to grab all small format cameras made in the last 10 years, I’m certain that many patent infringements could be argued. Nikon is just using its financial muscle to squeeze out a competitor through frivolous lawsuits. It appears to be working for them, but for many it just shows the desparation this company has to secure market share and not so much the protection of their intelectual property. Enuff said!

            • WDF??

              Yeah EOS M2! Nikon hateist loser

          • Actually, if you have to “take a closer look” to tell the difference between two cameras, then you’ve violated a design patent. Infringement is determined by “likely hood of confusion” with “normal care” of observation, not “if you look close enough you can find differences”. It’s kind of like trademarks, if one sounds similar to another, then it’s infringement.

            • Michael Sloan

              Mark, the small point and shoot format camera has become so prevalent, it has become like wheels on a car. Sure, you’ve got 15, 16, 18, inch wheels in steel or aluminum, with four, five, or six bolt patterns, but you have to take a closer look to tell them apart. You don’t see the wheel manufacturers suing each other over the same basic design. It’s not as if there is only subtle design differences between these cameras, there are several substantial differences between these “bars of soap”. Enough in fact that a four year old could tell you what they are. Besides, the people buying these cameras always ask, “How many megapixels does it have?” or “How many pictures can I take with it?” or some other question that has nothing to do with the external design choices. Apple lost their lawsuit to Samsung for their patent infringement claim on the tablet devices. Whether or not Nikon wins this all has to deal with how good the lawyers are in arguing their case and the judgement passed by the court. In today’s society, nothing surprises any more; this case could go either way. I just think it is a shame when a four year old can figure it out, but not a bunch of adults.

            • Michael,

              You may very well be right about how consumers choose a camera. For the record, however, there are hundreds of design patents issued on new car wheels every year. And yes, wheel manufacturers occasionally sue each other for design patent infringement. See the image below. We don’t hear about them since it’s not a subject of wide public interest. As for Apple “losing” its patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung, I’m not quite sure what you are talking about. In the lawsuit recently retried for damages, Apple walked away with close to a billion dollar jury verdict for design patent infringement on both iphones and tablets. I wrote a series of articles on how they built such a strong design patent portfolio. Here’s a link to the third article on their overall strategy.

            • Michael Sloan

              You obviously work in the legal arena, so I’m not going to try and argue with you. It is something you probably live for. I don’t doubt Apple was awarded damages in the USA, however the last I heard about their lawsuits in Europe was how unsuccessful they were. Again, I stand by what I said, if a small child can see the differences in a product, why then do adults stretch the reality until it is obscured beyond recognition? It is all about the frivolous lawsuits that lawyers put together in order to line their pockets and the pockets of their clients; although no doubt in rarer cases, their claims are justified and warrented. In this global economy, I would be interested in the number of patent infringement cases that are initiated just in the United States versus other courts around the globe. I bet you will find that many companies won’t even pursue the patent infringement

            • Yes, I am a patent agent so I tend to side with inventors and protecting their rights.

              That’s a great question you have about the number of patent infringement lawsuits in the US versus other countries. I don’t have any statistics, but the US does appear to offer the strongest protection of the countries that I know of.

              What’s new in this field is the battle ground is shifting from the national courts to the “courts” of the major on-line retailers. Amazon, eBay and even Alibaba in China take inventor rights seriously. If you can show them that a listing is a knockoff of your invention, they will take it down. See this article for more details. It tells the story of Olloclip, a 3-in-1 camera lens for iPhones. They raised $68k on Kickstarter to fund initial production. They were then picked up by Apple stores and grew to $10 million in sales. That’s when the knockoffs started. Fortunately Olloclip had a full arsenal of patents, copyrights and registered trademarks which they could use to show the on-line retailers that they owned their intellectual property. The on-line retailers respected Olloclip’s IP and pulled the knockoffs off of their sites.

              It’s not cheap, however, and it never ends. Knockoffs are continuously popping up and Olloclip is continuously taking them down. If they didn’t their market and their reputation would be destroyed by low cost and low quality imitations.

    • Jack S

      The polaroid is a more innovative camera than what Nikon’s been putting out. It runs Android, which is partially open source and makes it easy to mod for unlimited development by anyone with the will to do so. It also actually has a PASM dial unlike the J1.

  • Sundra Tanakoh

    Maybe Sakar will copy the D400 and produce it….oh wait.

    • Andobas

      The D400 has been rumored for so long time that now it’s obsolete.
      Where’s the D410?????

  • Spy Black

    Too bad. It had a PASM dial…

  • matt jones

    They’ll just sell it in China, no problem

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Yep, because here (China) copying is seen as an art form. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. They’re so used to it, that I haven’t really seen any nicely designed or innovative Chinese products here ever… That’s the downsde of copying. The Japanese started out doing the same, then improved quality and reliability first through superior electronics, then added some very beautiful design later. I somehow doubt China can make this leap, because – quite frankly – no one here seems to care about what they produce as long as it makes money.Yes, this is a sweeping generalization, but I’ve been living here for 4 years now and see it every day,

      • NoMeJodas

        There is nothing wrong with imitation. If everyone had to re-invent the wheel from the beginning every time they wanted to make something new then advancing technology would have been a very slow process.

        The real problem lies in the patent lows that allow protecting such basic design shapes like the J2 or Apple’s iPhone.

  • Danonino

    Very good of Nikon to agree to just this action. They could have sued them all the way to hell for this so obvious copy-camera.

    • Global

      Exactly. Nikon showed that they are quite reasonable. Nobody likes Sakars camera. And its hurting Sakar itself to be in this form. If Sakar had a unique product, more differentiation would have been good for them, even if they were legitimately in love with the Nikon J1s looks. People had no impression of Fujifilm years ago, they basically associated it with Kodak and Polaroid. But look at Fujifilm now. A little differentiation goes a very long way if its coupled with innovation. If Sakar had anything unique in this camera, it got completely obfuscated by its poisoned looks. No one could ever get past the fact that it looks like a crappier version of a J1 (christ, they could have at least made it look nicer).

  • sddf

    stupid simple generic designs on so many products being patented…and yet Monsanto is patenting life itself…what a disgusting corrupted world

  • josh

    It’s available “in stock” on Amazon – but has anyone *actually* bought one??

  • broxibear

    It’s not as if Nikon would try and “copy” anything another camera manufacturer made…what do you mean the G12 and P7100…they look nothing like each other, lol….
    Image from ©

    • Global

      Nikon and Canon actually love each other and their employees cross communicate quite often and with good attitudes. Only their idiot fanboys on each side cause rifts.

      But Nikon and Canon both know that they own the market and for better or worse in this year or that year, this duopoly has been very, very good for business and has pushed them to improve, but not so quickly that its robbed them of vast wealth.

      By contrast, both Nikon and Canon realize they are under immense threat from Sony and Cellphone manufacturers (Samsung/Apple) in the US, from a LONG term market share perspective in the US, and even more threat from various Mirrorless manufacturers especially in Asia.

      While Nikon or Canon might steal 5% of each others sales in this year or that year, they understand all markets want at least 2 major choices and have even seemingly coordinated their releases for several years. But what Sony, Samsung/Apple and the Mirrorless gang represent is the potential to lose up to 30% of dslr sales in the Medium-term…. and even much more of the P&s market.

      Its funny that some people dont consider Samsung or Apple as dbeing camera companies. But I can 100% guarantee you that more people use Samsung cameras today than Nikon and Canons combined. Its a new world.

      • Spy Black

        “Nikon and Canon actually love each other and their employees cross communicate quite often and with good attitudes.”
        You’re misinterpreting Japanese culture for corporate attitude. Nikon and Canon are two competing corporations.

        “Its funny that some people dont consider Samsung or Apple as dbeing camera companies.”

        Apple doesn’t manufacturer cameras. Samsung has made the cameras for Apple.

        You’re correct that MORE competition is affecting Nikon, but it’s not simply Samsung, and certainly not Apple. The companies that MANUFACTURE digital camera equipment are the competition, and that includes more than just Samsung. The rapidly evolving mirrorless industry by far is the largest competition for actual camera products (versus cellphones), and they are the ones that affecting Nikon on their own turf.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Actually, Global is right. Most market leading brands need a competitior at their own level, it may sound strange, but it actually improves things for both brands in many ways. It is a well-documented economic um… thigy. Google it.
          Coca-Cola has Pepsi. McDonalds has Burger King. Nike/Adidas. BMW/Audi. Nikon/Canon. Xbox/Playstation etc. Brands that lead in their segment without a direct challenger are often ‘hated’ by intellectually challenged smurfs because of their perceived monopoly (see Apple, Leica etc.) and accused of selling overpriced crap (this is just petty jealousy). Leica had – for a while- Contax trying to rival it but they sadly failed. Apple and Leica receive much abuse along the lines of being overpriced elitist crap, but if there were 2 or 3 companies offering very similar products at a very similar price point, you couldn’t really claim that anymore.

          That’s why I need JoeMcNally. 😛

          • Spy Black

            My point was that it’s not a Nikon-Canon thing, it’s a Japanese culture thing. Nikon and Canon people will be just as “friendly” to Sony and Panasonic people as well.

            I don’t see where anyone would see a company like Apple having any semblance to a monopoly, unless you consider it a monopoly of overpriced, inferior products, something you could not say about Leica. At least Leica makes (some) products of a caliber worth the price.

            Ultimately it’s simply the changing consumer camera landscape that’s affecting Nikon and Canon, and both companies have to get off that asses and start making competitive instead of products like the Rebel SL1 and Nikon 1.

          • Kelby

            How does Joe McNally fit here?

          • Lord V

            Harry Potter/You Know Who …. uh, is that right?

        • Sony has made most of Apple’s cameras, not Samsung. (Apple, in partnership with kodak and fujifim, was of course a digital photography pioneer with the Quicktake, but got out of that business pretty quickly.)

          • Spy Black

            My mistake, Samsung made most of the phone IIRC. The main point was that Apple never made jack.

            • Well your main point is also wrong. Samsung makes chips for Apple, but Apple designs the chips itself (one of the reasons it has cost and power economy advantages over rivals). Whose assembly line is used is pretty much irrelevant. Apple made digital cameras (in partnership with Kodak and later Fujifilm) five years before Nikon. Apple partnered with Sony to make Trinitron displays (they shared the patents). Apple has built operating systems from the ground up (Apple DOS, Mac OS, AU/X, OS X if you include NeXT’s achievements, iOS), something almost no other company has done (Microsoft bought DOS, and Windows NT was essentially a clone of Vax VMS), designed new languages (Dylan, Newtonscript, Hypertalk, AppleScript) and underwritten the development of major pieces of open source infrastructure (e.g. LLVM, Webkit — oh yeah MPEG4 is built on top of QuickTime’s architecture). What has Samsung done except taken other people’s ideas and imitated them, and a bit of process optimization here and there?

            • gr8fan


              I agree with most of your post, namely the lack of true innovation at Microsoft.

              However, I beg to differ about your statement : “Apple made digital cameras (in partnership with Kodak and later Fujifilm) five years before Nikon”.

              Kodak created the KODAK DCS in 1991 using a 1.4 megapixel CCD with a color-filter array invented by Bryce Bayer, based on a Nikon F3 body (source: Popular Photography, Nov. 2013).

              I doubt that was was in the business of “cameras” in 1991…

            • gr8fan

              PLease read: “I doubt Apple was in the business of “cameras” in 1986…
              and not
              “I doubt that was was in the business of “cameras” in 1991…


            • What’s wrong about my statement. Nikon’s first digital was the 1999 D1, Apple’s first digital camera was the 1994 QuickTake 100 (built in partnership with Kodak). Kodak used Nikon bodies for its $28,000 DCS (which was a frankenstein’s monster of a device) but that’s like claiming Intel made the iMac because USB controllers were made by Intel.

            • Spy Black

              Apple did not build Mac OS, they literally ripped it off from Xerox. Several operating systems were already existing before Apple, such as Unix variants as well as Digital’s VMS. Apple hasn’t innovated anything:

            • You’re not even wrong 🙂

              Xerox’s stuff was built on top of Smalltalk, didn’t have drag-and-drop, required a three button mouse that cost a hundred bucks and broke down every few weeks. Apple saw demos of Xerox’s stuff that’s it. No code. No APIs. Mac OS was written in 68k assembler, ran fast on cheap (relatively) hardware, had many UI innovations beyond what Xerox showed them, and used a one-button mouse. For that matter Xerox borrowed as much stuff from Englebart (et al)’s work as Apple did from Xerox (Englebart demoed mouse, light pen, GUI, collaborative text editing, vector-drawing, in “the mother of all demos” back in the 60s.)

              Smalltalk, by the way, was based in large part on ideas “stolen” from Simula (which people always forget). Nothing wrong with that, but everyone gets their ideas somewhere.

              “Several operating systems were already existing before Apple”

              Of course. Did I claim otherwise? Congratulations on skewering a point I did not make.

              You can hate Apple for suing companies over rounded rectangles, you can hate their pricing policies, but there’s a reason almost every computer in the world is an imitation Mac (not an imitation Xerox Star — I used one of those and it sucked); there’s a reason every laptop is an imitation Powerbook 100; there’s a reason every smartphone is an imitation iPhone. And if producing stuff that gets so widely imitated isn’t innovation, what is?

            • Spy Black

              “And if producing stuff that gets so widely imitated isn’t innovation, what is?”

              Marketing. If there’s one thing Jobs could do right, it’s marketing. He could sell you dogshit and you’d probably buy it. People don’t realize that Jobs was the son of a salesman, and it showed in everything he did. That’s how he sold junk for years and made everyone believe it was superior. That’s what the “Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field” was about. He then simply proceeded to create the computer as fashion statement. That’s why it was copied, not because it was good, but because it was fashionable.

            • You’re right. I surrender. Everyone has simply been deluded by Steve Jobs’s svengali-like powers into using inferior, overpriced products. You, one of the few intellectual giants on the planet sagacious enough to see through this veil of deception have enlightened me. Thank you.

            • Spy Black

              You’re welcome!

            • mikeswitz

              Apple has innovated anything?
              1. The Newton first tablet, way ahead of its time so it sell well.
              2. The original I-Mac , so easy to use my other could do it and she had a hard time with a toaster.
              3. The iPod. Changed the people listened to music forever and ultimately changed the whole music industry a and the way music is distributed.
              4. The iPad. And with it face time. Big improvement on Newton. I’m typing on one now at 30,000 ft. Would not have happened without the iPad. Everyone is still trying to copy it. Samsung has lost numerous patent lawsuits and they still haven’t gotten it right.
              5. OS 9&10. No operating systems come close. Microsoft just waits for an update of OS 10xxx and then tries to copy it but can never get it right. If you’ve tried post production for either stills or video on both systems you know what I mean. Avid gave up on Microsoft a long time ago.
              I could go on and on but if you haven’t got the idea by now it would be pointless.

            • Spy Black

              You haven’t been around, have you?…

            • mikeswitz

              around what? the above comes from flying while drinking or drinking while flying. you pick…

      • Mansgame

        The point is Nikon is not one to throw stones about copying.

        • Andrew

          Cynicism aside, good riddance Polaroid!

    • Martin

      They are probably made by the same sub-vendor. It is very common to see compacts being very similar in design and at times in lenses, since both bodies and often also lenses are made by a few sub-vendors which have a few ‘standard platform’ designs on offer where you add or subtract details and then add your own firmware (often enough made by another sub-vendor).

      Look at the waterproof compacts, you think it is a coincidence so many of them look more or less exactly the same and have very similar lenses? 🙂

      Most of these sub-vendors are pretty anonymous companies, but there a few well known brands too: Sanyo has made a lot of compacts for all camera brands, and Tamron make many of the lenses.

      • NoMeJodas

        Sounds like BS from fanboys that don’t want to hear that their holly Nikon could have copied something from someone else 😉

        Yes it is usual practice for big companies to source out manufacturing of some components of a product or even the whole thing to another company. But when they choose to do so they provide strict specs and design guides for the sub-contractor to follow. Cosina for example do the manufacturing of most of Zeiss ZM lenses (except the 15mm which Zeiss choose to manufacture themselves in Germany) and they do also their own line of M-mount lenses marketed under the name Voigtlander. Now despite the fact that both Zeiss ZM and Voigtlander VM lenses are made by the same company, Cosina, there is really nothing shared between the two lines except, of course, the M-mount.

        • Grevture

          It is not BS, it is a pretty well know fact, and it is how compact cameras have been manufactured for many years now. It is not very hard to see if you actually look around – so many compacts from different vendors look very much the same and/or have very similar lenses because they are made from the same base designs from which you can make some minor variations. You choose a housing, you choose a sensor and a lens, and you add your specific firmware to the mix.

          Why would anybody be a fanboy to point out that all camera manufacturers outsource most or all of their compact camera manufacturing?

          • NoMeJodas

            So you are telling me that Nikon’s P7100 is “by accident” very similar in design to Canon’s G12 just because they happen to be built by the same manufacturer? LOL

            • Grevture

              There is nothing “accidental” about it. They used some of the same design options as Canon when they commissioned a camera from the same sub-vendor. My guess is there is not a whole lot of compact camera body designs which includes the possibility of a optical viewfinder, so they ended up using a body very similar to the one Canon was already using 🙂

              Again, look around among compact cameras, it is very common to see several cameras from different manufacturers being very similar in design. The third party manufacturers have a few base designs to choose from which is why you often see the same design shared between several cameras.

              What is it about this which surprise you so much? The fact that our camera manufacturers outsource manufacturing of compacts? It has been a common practice for a long time now.

            • NoMeJodas

              In this case I wished Nikon had outsourced the manufacturing of the Df to Fuji. I would have loved the D4 sensor in an X-Pro1 body. “Sorry Nikon, this is the only housing we can offer at the moment. Mirror? Don’t worry we’ll get rid of that for you” 😀

            • The flangeback distance of a fuji rangefinder body wouldn’t accommodate F-mount lenses so you’d have a very weird product.

            • NoMeJodas
            • raxel

              you peoplr dont know sh!t. If you dismantle a a pro canon dslr, you will find a d4 inside it and vice versa. End of discussion! It is the consumers that is being fooled with your hard earned cash!

            • NoMeJodas

              And you obviously don’t know what we are talking about here. What is inside doesn’t matter as long as the products are distinguishable and unique. If you dismantle a Mercedes and a BMW you’ll find the same components that were built for both companies by the same suppliers. But you will NEVER mistake a Mercedes for a BMW or vice versa! This is obviously not the case if you look at the G12 (the successful product) and the P7100 (the copy?).

            • Grevture


              Well, it is not as far fetched as you might imagine, we have had a few Fujifilm sensors in Nikon bodies in the past – look at the Fujifilm S5 Pro. A D200 body with a Fujifilm sensor and firmware.

              But I think many people would rather want it that way around: A Fujifilm Xtrans sensor in say a D7100 body. Or better still, a full frame Xtrans sensor in a D800 body.

            • NoMeJodas

              Yep. And the Kodak DCS bodies where also based on Nikon.

              The Xtrans sensor is really good and innovative, but still has some disadvantages (at least with my X-E1), which makes me wonder why someone would want to use that (yet!) over the great sensors Nikon is using in the D600, D800 and D4:
              1) In some situations, e.g. a scene with much foliage, the results are less than optimal. But this might be as well a raw converter issue.
              2) The raw converter choices are fewer and less mature compared to bayer-sensors.
              3) The highest native ISO supported by the sensor is about 4000. Fuji claims 6400 but in my experience Fuji is “cheating” by about 1/3 in lower ISO to 2/3 stops in the high ISO range.

              4) No Push-ISO for RAW nor RAW+JPEG (but I never go that high anyways)

              To be fare, the APS-C X-E1 sensor outperforms the D7000 and is on par with the FF-D600 sensor up to ~2500 ISO (on the D600) in my eyes. So the technology is very promising!

              OTH that D4 sensor with its range up to crazy 204,800 ISO in an X-Pro1 style body would make a perfect low-light street photography system 🙂

            • Neopulse

              “A Fujifilm Xtrans sensor in say a D7100 body. Or better still, a full frame Xtrans sensor in a D800 body.” That would kick ass.

              Fuji also made sensors (or still does can’t remember now) for medium format Hasselblads.

            • Grevture

              Fujifilms subsidary Fujinon makes the lenses for Hasseblad since 2002, and in the past years Fujifilm are also heavily involved in designing and building the actual cameras. But the one thing Fujifilm does not seem to be involved in are sensors 🙂


            • Neopulse

              Ahhh thanks for clearing that up then. Knew I had some dodgy memory there. Lenses though sound pretty good.

    • Ronan

      You have NO IDEA what understandings both companies have with each other.

      In this case, someone (Sekar) did copied something enough that Nikon felt they needed to warn them.

      Sekar ignored the warning and kept going, then received a C&D. Sekar just kept on going until they were sued.

      If anything, Nikon played real nice with them. They were even willing to sit down and talk about this (i think they tried twice!!!) and Sekar refused!

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Alright kiddies, see how many beers it takes to make the cameras look the same…

      • Ronan


      • 103David


  • Global

    Everyone mentions this camera because it has a passing resemblence to the Nikon J1, but the weirdest part about this camera is that the body has no sensor….. the sensor is built into the lens and yet it was marketed as m4/3rds, and it is not at all that.

    Its some kind of Ricoh Nikon 1 m4/3rds idiotic poser. I dont know if this camera has redeemable features or not, it certainly different than most cameras… but one thing is for sure, its physical designers and marketing team need to entirely 100% be fired, and probably sued by Sakar itself for just flagrant negligence.

    I dont know if Sakar is a good company or a bad company, and i wish any of their honest employees the best.. nbut thanks to this episode, i will forever remember the SAKAR brand as a COMPLETE and utter joke. Does Sakar mean “Sucker!” in any language??

    Truly bizarre camera marketing.

  • PeterO

    Damn, I was just going to buy one of these to go with my new 800mm f5.6.

  • Neopulse

    So will they remove support also and/or replacements for their camera under warranty also? And yeah, like someone said here. Chances are it will sell in China.

  • Aldo

    collectible item…

    • dj

      I hope someone walks into Les Gold pawn shop (Hardcore Pawn) and claims that while they’re filming; would enjoy seeing his response after looking it up.

  • Mansgame

    It’s not like Nikon’s version is selling anyway. If someone had a mac clone, I can see why Apple would get mad, but if you started cloning the K-Pro II with the 2.5 MHz Zilog Z80 microprocessor, nobody would care because it’s already a clone, just as this garbage camera was a clone of the Sony and Fuji cameras.

    And really Nikon, do you think this is going to save your company’s reputation? (standby for strawman argument). You should not have dust on your D600 sensors and if you do, you should stand by your cameras and either fix them or replace them.

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    Somebody get me to the office. I’m going to patent a brick…

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      And then I’m going to get a design patent on my monitor. I don’t want any other monitors looking like my monitor.

      • If you create a new style of monitor, I would be happy to help you get a design patent on it.

  • Krystal Meth

    Nikon said in their court papers…We at Nikon are the only ones who produce a really crappy camera and not Sakar. We feel…we produced a very under achieving camera and no one should copy our crap!

    • S.Pliff

      Or at least make it look even crappier

  • Photomic F 1968

    Nikon was the greatest most innovative camera company in the world. They’ve now slid into a 2nd rate “me too” company that goes after 3rd rate “me too” companies. Meanwhile they cannot even deliver the products that people want and concentrate on products that won’t sell. Sad. There was a time when they were King.

  • Orfeu

    Oh good! I’m sure Nikon was loosing a lot of business given how popular the Nikon 1 is…

    • mooh

      It indeed is popular in Japan.

      Cameras sell as long as they come in white.

  • Nikon’s
    design patent D692,044 has nothing to do with button placement or
    camera color. It’s focused (pun intended) on the overall shape of
    the camera body. See the image below. This is what makes design
    patents so strong. You can identify a particular design element,
    protect that, and forget about the rest. Here’s an article on how
    Apple used this strategy to protect the iphone. “Strong Design
    Patents: The Power of the Broken Line”.

  • gimar bazat

    nikon should focus their time and energies in making very good cameras and let other companies make whatever cameras they want. By the way who has the patent and copyright for “the wheel”?

  • whisky

    why file a patent if your intention is not to defend it? why invest in a factory, if you intend on giving away your work? perhaps Sakar didn’t know their manufacturer acquired Nikon’s property, or perhaps they were persuaded that Nikon wouldn’t come after them — but on the strength of Nikon’s play … Sakar folded.

  • Adam

    That’s just ridiculous!! In that case Leica should sue Nikon for copying their bauhaus minimal design sense. Heck, Leica could use the money to buy some more factories, I say they do it.

    • You make a good point about Leica. The key test in design patent infringement is you compare the accused device to both the patent and the nearest prior art. If it’s confusingly similar to the patent in light of the prior art, it infringes. Here is how the Nikon (patented), Polaroid (accused) and Leica (prior art) compare.

      • Captain Megaton

        The white Leica is a very long distance from the other two. I mean, nice try and all, but no.

        • That’s why the Polaroid infringes the Nikon design patent. In order for it to not infringe, it has to be as far away from the Nikon as the Leica is. Given the range of styles that are out there, the Polaroid is just too close.

  • Back to top