Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Red sue Sony

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's their fault; they should have paid attention when Red.com applied for the patent that went un-appealed! Now it’s too late. Now they will learn to live within the RGB Video World! Red will move on to the 6K Dragon Sensor and beyond with their R3D Files they're "Digital Cinema".

Humberto Rivera
 
A lot of the companies reverse engineer things by purchasing the camera and take it all apart. It is amazing that Sony packaged the cameras in such short period of time, but sad if they just rip off the patents.
 
Just thinking out loud here, but it would seem Red camera owners also have a case against SONY and the cameras mentioned if they lost a job to someone with one of these three cameras. If the job had a DP attached it could be argued that the job was given due to the DP's talents, but if camera choice only and one could get the production company to attest that the choice was made due to SONY's reputation as a camera maker or because SONY advocated for their camera model (in question) to be used it's not out of the realm of possibility (given today's legal test for litigation) to win a judgement.

Doesn't affect me AFAIK... just thinking aloud in reaction to the news. And of course, RED would probably have to win their lawsuit before anyone would have a valid grievance.
 
Last edited:
I noticed the article referenced the R-1. Does that mean that the SONY cameras are only up to copying the R-1 technology? Wow! They are behind in both their cameras and in their copying as well! '-)
 
While the infringement lawsuit seems to stipulate technology employed in the RED One... in light of Sony's F5/F55 if that original stolen Epic of Off-Hollywood's ever managed to make its way in to the hands of competitors.

-sc
 
Steven Caesare said:
That sounds authoritative. Mind letting on how you know for certain?

-sc
Click to expand...

Common sense tells me it's bullshit. :- )

This just seems like a lame Apple-esque attempt to frustrate the competition. They could go for a settlement.... But requesting all produced cameras to be destroyed and halt production? You gotta be kidding me.
 
Last edited:
Steven Caesare said:
While the infringement lawsuit seems to stipulate technology employed in the RED One... in light of Sony's F5/F55 if that original stolen Epic of Off-Hollywood's ever managed to make its way in to the hands of competitors.

-sc
Click to expand...

It was always my opinion that the original stolen RED stuff from way back when made it's way to European and Asian hands on the industrial black market. Shortly after the ONE was getting off the ground, there was a similar camera announced from a Russian company that seemed a little too good to be true given the name behind it and they never got it off the ground from what I recall because they were too early to the game and seemed to be under-funded. Over the past few years, there have also been several RED ONE knock-offs that sprung to life from foreign competitors that could have easily reverse engineered the various stolen RED ONE cameras and I've always had the opinion that many of those thefts were orchestrated through monitoring of this forum and the blogs of certain people who post here about their companies and the gear they get. That's why I plan on remaining anonymous if I ever buy a high-end RED product like the Epic-M. I simply won't put myself in the position of losing my investment.
 
I don't know if you remember Oakley suing the crap out of everyone and their moms non stop for the life of the business. This is their way of doing things, and the bull in a china shop approach works in corporate america. Especially when there are companies that will steal your patents and try to pawn them off as their own. These type of businesses are everywhere.

Roger Valdes said:
Because common sense tells me it's bullshit. :- )

This just seems like a lame Apple-esque attempt to frustrate the competition. They could go for a settlement.... But requesting all produced cameras to be destroyed and halt production? You gotta be kidding me.
Click to expand...
 
Jon Jones said:
I don't know if you remember Oakley suing the crap out of everyone and their moms non stop for the life of the business. This is their way of doing things, and the bull in a china shop approach works in corporate america. Especially when there are companies that will steal your patents and try to pawn them off as their own. These type of businesses are everywhere.
Click to expand...
Jon, to further make your point, Jim stated he has never lost a lawsuit, so he obviously does his homework before proceeding.
 
Oh yes, they are quite good at this. I am not saying that they don't need to litigate their claims on their patents and ideas, it's the opposite actually. They have to. No one is going to do it for them either; And if they don't, the corporate wolves out there will start picking them apart one thing at a time until there is nothing left of them.

Elsie N said:
Jon, to further make your point, Jim stated he has never lost a lawsuit, so he obviously does his homework before proceeding.
Click to expand...
 
Jon Jones said:
Oh yes, they are quite good at this. I am not saying that they don't need to litigate their claims on their patents and ideas, it's the opposite actually. They have to. No one is going to do it for them either; And if they don't, the corporate wolves out there will start picking them apart one thing at a time until there is nothing left of them.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that this is really a good move for RED's customer base. Most people have a sense of fairness built in and when a job comes open and the choice of camera is between one of the SONY's or one of the RED's, people may remember that SONY was the ersatz camera while RED cameras were the real deal... if SONY loses the lawsuit.

I don't know how many, if any, decisions to use RED over ARRI were made due to ARRI trying to catch up to RED using subterfuge. That is probably unknowable without extensive subjective and costly research. The ARRI lawsuit was probably about punishment for unfair trade practices.

The SONY lawsuit is more about discrediting an industry giant for trying to overtake an industry player by copying their lawful property, IMO.

Kinda like when a schoolyard bully who likes what's in your lunchbox better than their own and just decides to take it away from you. But unlike the schoolyard bully who can operate at will, SONY is limited by their ability to do this through legal defense.

Many of us here are underdogs in our everyday prosecution of our craft. We should be thankful that in some ways, RED is our champion for defending our use of their products against their (and therefore, our) competition.
 
Agreed... I don't agree with everything RED does, but they have to stick up for their brand, and we should be glad they do, because if it were up to Sony, the 4k cameras would still be 100k, and most of us wouldn't have one.

Elsie N said:
Not to mention that this is really a good move for RED's customer base. Most people have a sense of fairness built in and when a job comes open and the choice of camera is between one of the SONY's or one of the RED's, people may remember that SONY was the ersatz camera while RED cameras were the real deal... if SONY loses the lawsuit.

I don't know how many, if any, decisions to use RED over ARRI were made due to ARRI trying to catch up to RED using subterfuge. That is probably unknowable without extensive subjective and costly research. The ARRI lawsuit was probably about punishment for unfair trade practices.

The SONY lawsuit is more about discrediting an industry giant for trying to overtake an industry player by copying their lawful property, IMO.

Kinda like when a schoolyard bully who likes what's in your lunchbox better than their own and just decides to take it away from you. But unlike the schoolyard bully who can operate at will, SONY is limited by their ability to do this through legal defense.

Many of us here are underdogs in our everyday prosecution of our craft. We should be thankful that in some ways, RED is our champion for defending our use of their products against their (and therefore, our) competition.
Click to expand...
 
PARTIAL QUOTE:
--------------------------------
ROGER VALDES

"But requesting all produced cameras to be destroyed and halt production? You gotta be kidding me."
--------------------------------

I have in the shed a certain Kodak instant camera that went out of raw stock and product support very smartly after Polaroid laid about with a litiginous stick over an infringement of either patent or implementation of an emulative design.

If such a finding went all the way against Sony and I guess calling a jury in aims for that outcome on the surface at least, Sony might say "gnotted" and depart the US market. It might just withdraw all of its own licencing rights on a great many things, close down its service divisions and product support, requiring existing hardware to be sent out of the US for repair/service. It could put quite a few people out of work in the US and that is not an issue to be lightly dismissed. This might leverage their bargaining power in any settlement deal. I imagine a court will order mediation before committing parties to a trial.

Monopolisation and anti-trust may likely be thrown into the mix as dispensable points to muddy the waters. It might be to encourage RED's advocates to retreat out of any ambit zone and confine to a core argument by consent.

Then again I might be full of speculative rubbish. We do live in interesting times.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top