Thread: Apple seeks to invalidate Red's Raw patent claims

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59
  1. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Veen View Post
    Back on the topic as a whole, this seems less to do with the year-and-a-half old ProRes RAW codec and more with something else, as you'd think if Apple's original intention was to make ProRes RAW compressed similarly to REDCODE, they would have filed their Patent Appeal long before May. If we go strictly that this was a company formality route, maybe it's as simple as something to do with Apple's upcoming Afterburner FPGA.
    That might be a part of it (perhaps Apple want to license internal ProRes raw to cam manufacturers, or use it in iPhones, who knows). Also, if a company has a patent which they have sought to enforce against other companies (in this particular case, Sony, Arri, Atomos, BM for its use of CineformRaw...etc), then the natural reaction will be that someone will question its validity. I think this is the consequence to all of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Macau
    Posts
    2,473
    I would say what if the patent becomes invalidated?

    One thing for sure is that Redcode Raw is here to stay. Others might bring to the field similar codecs. But we would keep having our Redcode Raw, Red Color Science, the amazing sensors and technology Red introduces and makes. Not having Redcode Raw didn't stop Alexa and other manufacturers to succeed in the marketplace. Not having an exclusive to something that works like redcode Raw will not- at least in this day and age- be a big impact for RED. Nowadays, Red is much, much more than the Redcode Raw workflow.
    Sérgio Perez

    Weapon Monstro #03294 "Amochai" in Macau

    Video Director/Creative/Producer


    http://vimeo.com/user1503556

    https://www.youtube.com/user/spzprod..._as=subscriber
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio Perez View Post
    One thing for sure is that Redcode Raw is here to stay. Others might bring to the field similar codecs. But we would keep having our Redcode Raw, Red Color Science, the amazing sensors and technology Red introduces and makes. Not having Redcode Raw didn't stop Alexa and other manufacturers to succeed in the marketplace. Not having an exclusive to something that works like redcode Raw will not- at least in this day and age- be a big impact for RED. Nowadays, Red is much, much more than the Redcode Raw workflow.
    +1
    Invalidation of the patent would make it easier for other cam manufacturers to implement their own forms of internal raw recording without the need to pay Red licensing fees or worry about being sued. That would generally be a good thing for the industry. How would it actually affect Red? I don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,474
    FYI, I removed the documented series of events as Andrew has updated the title with the correct information for his article. FUD really needs to be stopped regarding any of this. Stick to the actual information.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,898
    I think even Red is arguing about the prior art claim.
    Compreed RAW recording already existed at the time of the patent (Silicon Image using Cineform codec)
    Bayered sensors obviously already existed.
    4k sensors already were used (Dalsa Origin)
    JPEG2000 compression already existed.
    So, these are the elements of Red RAW. What Red had done is to COMBINE these existing technologies used for INTERNAL recording.
    I think, that was the RedRAW patent.
    Obviously, the standard disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, so I have no idea, if I am even close to what Apple is arguing, but to me, it seems, that both invalidating reasons may be in play here- prior art and obviosness.
    Will see...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    Compreed RAW recording already existed at the time of the patent (Silicon Image using Cineform codec)
    Bayered sensors obviously already existed.
    4k sensors already were used (Dalsa Origin)
    JPEG2000 compression already existed.
    So, these are the elements of Red RAW. What Red had done is to COMBINE these existing technologies used for INTERNAL recording. I think, that was the RedRAW patent.
    That's generally the gist of the argument against the validity of the patent claims, but of course, it depends on how you look at it. The same set of facts can be used to support the exact opposite (that Red's patent claims are valid). We'll have to wait to see how this plays out to find out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Brandon Veen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Garcia-Diaz View Post
    That could be one of the reasons, but please read the analysis written by Apple's expert if you want to at least understand where they are coming from: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PT...on_Redcom_314/

    Several points.
    1. All of the claims in the original patent were initially denied (some for reasons specified in the link above), and the patent was eventually approved through extensions and supplemental materials that Red submitted in support of the patent over the last 10 years or so (read above for more detailed discussion of chronology).
    2. Specifically, there are two concepts in patent law that could invalidate Red's patent, prior art and obviousness. Basically, you can't patent something that already existed in some form (prior art) and you can't patent something that is an obvious extension of already existing technology (no novelty). This is what Apple is arguing. Now, I studied patent law about a decade ago (I am not patent lawyer) and so I am somewhat familiar with its concepts, but patent law is also highly technical, and this is where I have no clue (I know nothing about the tech, and this is there experts will come in).

    If I had to take an educated guess, the patent will eventually be invalidated (just my opinion, others will obviously disagree). Only time will tell what the USPTO eventually decides.
    Right, I'm more referring to the personal motivations behind what makes this group of individuals resentful and aggravated attitude toward RED. I feel that it's one thing to disagree with a company's practices, we're all free to do so, but to masquerade like it's a righteous crusade and the work/discussion you're doing is brave is an entirely different set of mentality. I'm curious of the sociological motivations behind their combined interests. Is it due to their belief that RED is behaving fraudulently to oppress the industry/the little guy and a drive to cause some change? Or are they all coming from a spot similar to Andrew Reis and JinniTech where they are bitter about RED for their own reasons? And just to what extent is mob mentality having on both sides of the coin?

    As for partially understanding why this appeal specifically fuels them, I can understand that it's because it offers a more compelling case than the Jinni video on why the patent should be thrown out. It being brought on because of one of the world's biggest companies, with the help of Cliff Reader, stands a fairly compelling case. I agree that only time will tell with this though. If the verdict does fall in Red's favor, I'm sure it won't be too long until one of the other camera companies attempts to get it invalidated as well. 8 years is a long time, after all.

    Additionally, I do understand how despite JinniTech's clear bias, some of the discussion that's happened on here so far is that he might be right.
    I'm sure quite a few of us, myself included, probably should learn a bit more about patent law to better understand the argument that's being made to better gauge it's validity.
    Ultimately though, I'm not sure how many people are actually interested in the arguments over the fact that it was filed in the first place.

    I, myself, am mostly curious in theorizing what a pro-Apple outcome would look like for the industry as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos Garcia-Diaz View Post
    That might be a part of it (perhaps Apple want to license internal ProRes raw to cam manufacturers, or use it in iPhones, who knows). Also, if a company has a patent which they have sought to enforce against other companies (in this particular case, Sony, Arri, Atomos, BM for its use of CineformRaw...etc), then the natural reaction will be that someone will question its validity. I think this is the consequence to all of that.
    I agree. If Apple's interest isn't as simple as it seems, to me them trying to get compressed RAW on a future iPhone feels like the most sense. This last quarter, iPhone sales represented 48.29% of Apple's Sales. I don't think it's too much of a leap to imagine they might want to try and throw a huge wrench in what's possible with smartphone video to try and get ahead of their competitors. And I don't really think it's because of filmmakers, but rather would be presented in a fairly no-nonsense set of simple editing controls for the everyday person to use. That would be far more huge than a triple lens setup, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio Perez View Post
    I would say what if the patent becomes invalidated?

    One thing for sure is that Redcode Raw is here to stay. Others might bring to the field similar codecs. But we would keep having our Redcode Raw, Red Color Science, the amazing sensors and technology Red introduces and makes. Not having Redcode Raw didn't stop Alexa and other manufacturers to succeed in the marketplace. Not having an exclusive to something that works like redcode Raw will not- at least in this day and age- be a big impact for RED. Nowadays, Red is much, much more than the Redcode Raw workflow.
    I think you're right. Now, if this was 2008 and RED's patent was thrown out, that would have been a far bigger blow for them to lose, but now RED cameras have reached the point where that's just a single piece of the puzzle.
    Regardless of invalidation, I can really only see REDCODE going the wayside in-turn for a more lightweight revision of the codec (if that's even possible without loosing quality).
    Brandon Veen | Digital Curator at Hedderich's
    Epic-X Dragon #08127 + Fujifilm GFX50R + Leica BLK360
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Veen View Post
    I'm curious of the sociological motivations behind their combined interests. Is it due to their belief that RED is behaving fraudulently to oppress the industry/the little guy and a drive to cause some change?
    Hi Brandon: Great points.

    I can't speak about other people's motivations in this particular instance, but I can tell you that in my law school IP classes there were a lot of policy debates about what should be patentable to begin with (arguments for/against whether software should be patentable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate). I personally do not agree with the view that software should not be patentable, but the debate has been going on for ages: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/b...4/05/05_jones/

    Also, unlike copyright law, which requires a tangible form of expression (s102(a) > an actual product), it seems that you can patent pretty much anything (resulting in a lot of patent holders with weak/dubious patents using them for the sole purpose of patent trolling). Don't know whether any of this will ever get resolved.

    Also, I'm not too current of Civil Procedure/Evidence, but I am pretty sure that the presumption is that Red's patent claims are valid and the burden is on the party seeking to invalidate them to overcome this burden. So, the patents are presumed valid until/unless proven otherwise by Apple.
    Last edited by Carlos Garcia-Diaz; 08-15-2019 at 09:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,773
    "There is no such thing a bad publicity"

    Slashcam had the best one with "RAW WARS"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    68
    Apple is a hardware company. I agree they will be looking at Prores Raw for iPhones.
    They have invested a lot to bring the MacPro line back to Pros. They are going big with Pro.

    They just spent $1bn on Intel's 5g modem business.

    Be on lookout for a camera company acquisition. Red? Maybe, a bit "Too Pro" and vertical. Big Blue? Unlikely. Sony? No. Panasonic? No.
    BlackMagic? :-) Could be. But more likely, Grant won't be happy till he buys Arri. Then he will sell to Apple.

    Red can thwart all of this by selling to Apple first. iDrogen anybody?
    I mean... hey... Apples are Red.

    Enough FUD for thought?
    S-W #6350 "Moonshot"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts