Copyright discussion

[Jason Diamond]

heh heh that is usually the opening line of a defendant's speech in these type of cases. " We must freely open technology to allow innovation or we all die ! " Viva la revolution! "

Unfortunately it is a pile of bullshit.

Nobody is stopping innovation. We are stopping stealing. We work with a ton of people and open our technology to them. But there is a discussion there and an agreement.

Leapfrogging is great.. we do it all the time. but we aknowlege that to leapfrog usually means stepping on someone else's back to get somewhere.. and there is a right way and wrong way to do that.

Jarred, I agree with you. I was not saying that innovation was predicated on stealing or impropriety. If you read it that way then I wasn't clear.

The marketplace would be completely different if not for RED's innovation and invention and your acknowledgement of the V-lock scenario speaks to the leapfrogging and pyramid of innovation that, when properly achieved, makes a consumers wet dream full of choices and forward momentum.

Also I am not speaking specifically about the x issue as thats not my business or place to comment on. I am friends with both parties and use both parties gear and hope for a resolution that, in the end, benefits me the consumer since I like and appreciate both vendors.

[Paul Schneider]

Jarred, I agree with you. I was not saying that innovation was predicated on stealing or impropriety. If you read it that way then I wasn't clear.

The marketplace would be completely different if not for RED's innovation and invention and your acknowledgement of the V-lock scenario speaks to the leapfrogging and pyramid of innovation that, when properly achieved, makes a consumers wet dream full of choices and forward momentum.

Also I am not speaking specifically about the x issue as thats not my business or place to comment on. I am friends with both parties and use both parties gear and hope for a resolution that, in the end, benefits me the consumer since I like and appreciate both vendors.

I agree with Mr. Diamond on this point. I find companies like x make it easier to be a RED owner, but if there is a belief toes are stepped on then sometimes things need to be worked out.

However I will add that as an owner and ubiquitous user of RED commercially I'd prefer my vendors to keep these things on the down low. The ability to solve differences smoothly and privately is the hallmark of seasoned institutions... and such maturity and tack also makes it easier to own a RED and confidently recommend it for productions.

[Thomas Koch]

I love x products and wish they would have worked with RED from the beginning so we wouldn't be at this stage. Without WC products, I wouldn't have an epic or a scarlet.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Think about the battery V-Lock as something similar, which Sony invented and is patented. . When we were making batteries, we had a decision to make. Spend the money to develop our own battery mounting system, or use someone else's invention.

We chose the V-Lock, for numerous reasons, and a little bit of every sale goes to them for every one we sell. Element Technica uses that same V-Lock to mount stuff with, and they as well, pay a license fee to Sony built into the sale of the product. And that, we believe is the right thing to do . So when someone comes along and just steals the idea... even if it seems like its a "simple" idea, its not fair to the company that made the "invention" , or any of the licensees that are paying royalties to use the invention. Pretty simple to understand.

For the REDMOTE.. we needed to make something different.. so we developed our own. As simple as you might all think that it is to make a quick release triangle, it involves alot of mechanical engineers, alot of testing, mold costs, prototypes. etc. etc. etc... you end up spending alot of money on just that simple triangle..

And you all need to stop thinking " well he did it so why can't he do it " or " he did it first so why not him " etc etc etc.. as there is so much you dont know about our relationships with all these companies. Some companies ask us if it is ok to use something we designed.. (which you would expect would be an obvious, courteous thing to do ) and we sometimes say yes and enter an agreement with them. sometimes we say no.

I agree that innovation is important. But the innovation was in order to make red motes work for your customers. It seems like a bit of a dick move to create a proprietary plug and then sue everyone who makes accessories for said plug. Apple is great example of this. When there is a standard available--they'll often make it arbitrarily proprietary not for the good of the customers but in order to extract third party accessory licenses. Engineering to help customers is one thing. Engineering to create revenue streams strikes me as a little sour. If for some reason WC was releasing a product which used the same mount for something other than an accessory which *requires* a red purchase (a red mote) I would look at it differently. But it feels more like creating a new bolt size for the dovetail and then suing everyone who makes a tripod that has that sized bolt. Or making a screw with a patented head and then selling screw drivers.

[Jarred Land]

. Engineering to create revenue streams strikes me as a little sour. .

Your post was great.. except this line above. I guess we need to put a donation can instead of a cash register at checkout? Engineering MUST create revenue.. or we would of been out of business before we even started.

I have no idea how people do not understand that to stay in business you need to make money. To make a money you need to make a product. To make a product you need to engineer it.

simple stuff.

[Pawel Achtel]

I totally agree with Jarred here.

As an inventor and manufacturer of RED accessories I can relate to the situation that RED has been faced with.

Unlike competitors, we spent a lot of money on R&D and we publish our results. In fact, we are the only underwater housing manufacturer publishing the optical performance of our products. It costs real money. It takes a lot of time and effort.

We have the only solution for high resolution, non-distorted images underwater: for the first time in the history of motion picture. Finally!

And, as exciting as this is, it is very unfortunate when competiotors, after unsuccessfully trying to bad-mouth our design, shamelessly try to copy it and offer a knock-off at a lower price. It's just not right. In order to maintain the patent (and continue innovation) we have no other option but to enforce the patent against anyone that violates it.

Of course, we are open to enter into discussions about licensing.

As Jim often says: it is very easy to understand.

It is not about stopping progress or innovation. It is about maintaining and encouraging it.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Your post was great.. except this line above. I guess we need to put a donation can instead of a cash register at checkout? Engineering MUST create revenue.. or we would of been out of business before we even started.

I have no idea how people do not understand that to stay in business you need to make money. To make a money you need to make a product. To make a product you need to engineer it.

simple stuff.

You misunderstand. I completely agree that people's labors should be compensated. Labor of the mind deserves as much protection as labors of the hand. But what should be avoided is building a wall in order to charge to use a gate.

To me interfaces should be open and standardized. Proprietary connectors should be free to use just as plugin sdks are free for software. Yes it costs the host product dev time but it should pay itself off in spades from a thriving third party community. Everybody wins and the whole ecosystem prospers when the interfaces are open. I would for instance be more likely to buy red accessories if they mix and match with both VF and WC accessories. I'm less likely perhaps to buy a full loadout from one company but I think we all benefit from standardization like an informal agreement to expand the NATO widget selection.

[Jarred Land]

You misunderstand. I completely agree that people's labors should be compensated. Labor of the mind deserves as much protection as labors of the hand. But what should be avoided is building a wall in order to charge to use a gate.

To me interfaces should be open and standardized. Proprietary connectors should be free to use just as plugin sdks are free for software. Yes it costs the host product dev time but it should pay itself off in spades from a thriving third party community. Everybody wins and the whole ecosystem prospers when the interfaces are open. I would for instance be more likely to buy red accessories if they mix and match with both VF and WC accessories. I'm less likely perhaps to buy a full loadout from one company but I think we all benefit from standardization like an informal agreement to expand the NATO widget selection.

No worries.. your perspective is noble. Living in this country must really piss you off though.

Even just using your analogy.. in a very literal, physical sense, I can't think of a single venue in this country who relies on "gate" profit to survive who does not have walls on both sides of their gates.

And you cannot.. absolutely cannot... relate software licensing to hardware licensing. 2 completely different beasts. Which is why we can afford to give our software away for "free".

We just have different ways of looking at things i guess. Which is why I guess lawyers are brought in to become the equalizers.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

No worries.. your perspective is noble. Living in this country must really piss you off though.

Even just using your analogy.. in a very literal, physical sense, I can't think of a single venue in this country who relies on "gate" profit to survive who does not have walls on both sides of their gates.

The difference is 'Gate Profit' is often in order to gain access to a product. So for instance if I put up a wall to a concert venue so that a musician can control the sale of their product (music) then a product is being offered and a gate is being used to extract compensation. If a city builds a bridge then you can put a toll gate on it so that they can recoup the costs of the product (the bridge). That's different though from the wall serving no purpose except to extract profit. For instance building a bridge where none is needed for the sole purpose of justifying a toll. The perfect example would be using a proprietary cable not for speed or any benefit to the customer or even manufacturer but purely in order to be an exclusive supplier of said cable (I'm looking at you sony and apple).

The one area I would really hope that all companies are exceedingly cooperative is on accessory interfaces. We have 15mm rods, 19mm rods, dovetails, Rosettes, NATO and a variety of other standards which are beneficial to all manufacturers and who RED profits from as well. Thankfully RED's gear can use 19mm rods and be instantly compatible with a huge variety of other accessories without paying a license fee. What if OConnor wanted to use 18mm rods so that only OConnor follow focuses worked with OConnor baseplates and mounts. Not a good situation for anybody.

This is actually how Oakley got their start. What if the diameter of motorcycle bars was patented so only Yamaha could sell grips that were compatible with Yamaha bikes? Keep the engine patented. Keep the interfaces open. In fact in the case of mount bikes almost all of the various components are standardized and multiple vendors can offer drop-in replacements. Want a different brand of brakes? Just use the standard mount points. Want a new seat post? Just use the standard diameter. Someone could make a non-standard brake component and lock-in customers but it's not good for anybody in the long run.

[Steve Marshall]

This all reminds me of a TED video I watched recently.