Red sue Sony

[Brandon J.F.]

Except at this point there is no evidence of theft. The ARRI case was settled, there were no winners.

How do you know there were no winners? The case was settled not thrown out, no?

 

[John DeBoer]

If RED thinks these cameras will hurt their business then they must be good cameras. Ironically we purchased an F5 yesterday and will see if they are available on the 23rd. They have already been delivered in Canada.

It hurts everybody the less competition out there, we all know how this goes. Surprised at the comments.

Hmmmm.......I know none have been delivered in Canada yet.....

John DeBoer

 

[Ash Worth]

How do you know there were no winners? The case was settled not thrown out, no?

Just study the legal language.

 

[Elsie N]

...

Bill Maher had a great quote about the legal system last week but I won't share for obvious reasons.

This speaks volumes about your mindset. I understand your position better now. Thanks for the insight. '-)

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Just study the legal language.

I did

 

[Vince Doran]

How do you know there were no winners? The case was settled not thrown out, no?

No winners, both parties had to pay for their own legal costs....The only winners were the lawyers on both sides that most likely got a nice payment

 

[Brandon J.F.]

No winners, both parties had to pay for their own legal costs....The only winners were the lawyers on both sides that most likely got a nice payment

The terms of their settlement are not known publicly. Typically when the plaintiff agrees to settle a case they are paid by the defendant. The judge didn't throw the case out as many seem to think. Rather all parties agreed to settle. The fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice likely means there was in fact a monetary settlement of some sort since this is a typical requirement of the defense when they agree to a settlement since it prevents the plaintiff from filing the case again. The fact that neither party has commented publicly likely means they are not allowed to as a condition of their settlement which further supports my speculation that some sort of monetary payment was involved.

 

[Vince Doran]

The terms of their settlement are not known publicly. Typically when the plaintiff agrees to settle a case they are paid by the defendant.

What does this mean then?, I'm no lawyer

From Document 47 case No. SACV1101972 CJC (ANx)......2. Each party shall bear its own costs, fees and expenses

 

[Scott Summers]

The terms of their settlement are not known publicly. Typically when the plaintiff agrees to settle a case they are paid by the defendant. The judge didn't throw the case out as many seem to think. Rather all parties agreed to settle. The fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice likely means there was in fact a monetary settlement of some sort since this is a typical requirement of the defense when they agree to a settlement since it prevents the plaintiff from filing the case again. The fact that neither party has commented publicly likely means they are not allowed to as a condition of their settlement which further supports my speculation that some sort of monetary payment was involved.

I just wish we could find out exactly WHAT was ripped off, and whether now they have to give RED a percentage of the profit (royalties?) every time they sell an Alexa.

 

[Curtis Stanton]

What does this mean then?, I'm no lawyer

From Document 47 case No. SACV1101972 CJC (ANx)......2. Each party shall bear its own costs, fees and expenses

That statement, by itself, does not exclude the payment of damages nor does it exclude a restraint on the actions of either party.

 

[M Most]

I just wish we could find out exactly WHAT was ripped off, and whether now they have to give RED a percentage of the profit (royalties?) every time they sell an Alexa.

Why? What can any of that possibly mean to anyone other than the two companies involved?

 

[Marc Wielage]

That statement, by itself, does not exclude the payment of damages nor does it exclude a restraint on the actions of either party.

True, but I would think if it was a clear-cut victory, then the losing party would have to shoulder the burden of the other company's legal bills.

I'm very curious to see what Arri will have to show at NAB.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Its pretty easy stuff to understand and ... RESPECT!!


No one in the right mind would be coming out with a "AVENGERS" story line movie... Unless they first went to "MARVEL" and got their "Permission/Approval" to use the name and story line of each and every single one of their characters...

.. And for this they need to play by the rules, and pay "Royalties" to the creator.

As simple as that, same as any Copyrighted material a "Patent" protects one's invention, and if any one else's wishes to use it and or replicate it in part or in all, the "LAW" says they should do so only by prior "Approval" of its "Patent" holder, and obviously they will be an agreement were the "Patent" holder will receive "Royalties".

In the case of RED vs. SONY is seems prety clear that this is exactly what it is about, were SONY Electronics seem to have borrowed some of the tehcnology within the REDCODE Raw without permission, and RED is fighting to protect the rights given by such "Patent".


Pretty simple to understand really...


I like Sony same as I do like Red and have gear of both companies, and even so I surely will never buy any of current Sony's cameras, I do respect the choices for any one else to be able to buy them, and it is in this spirit that I don't wish upon them to loose in such a way to have to eliminate from the market all of their F65, F55, & F5 cameras, but I sure strongly support Jim and RED and wish they win this Law Suit and Force Sony in to submission for their wrong doing, were they come to an agreement for Sony to pay "Fair" Royalties on any product sold that makes use of the technology borrowed out of RED's hard and expensive R&D.

 

[Andy Corleone]

My understanding here is RED was the first company to copyright Raw for video and now other companies are creating video cameras with RAW capabilities. If this is the case I don't agree with RED. the roots of this tecnology was invented by someone else and used in digital photography and just because RED was the first to patent it for video (similar tech been around for a while just at faster frame rate) dosen't means they own it. I didn't pay too much atention to the sony F5 and F55 but now that RED is so upset about it I think something important is going on there.

 

[Bob Gundu]

My understanding here is RED was the first company to copyright Raw for video and now other companies are creating video cameras with RAW capabilities. If this is the case I don't agree with RED. the roots of this tecnology was invented by someone else and used in digital photography and just because RED was the first to patent it for video (similar tech been around for a while just at faster frame rate) dosen't means they own it. I didn't pay too much atention to the sony F5 and F55 but now that RED is so upset about it I think something important is going on there.

The infringement isnt about RAW. It's about REDCODE.

 

[Lau Ho Ming]

My rep told me the 48GB works without issue that's why I decided to buy it in the first place.
Yes Red cameras are so powerful and affordable. But Red cameras were known to have minor stability issue and little glitches here and there you can get angry or disagree with me for "dissing" the Red camera(Don't forget I have one too I'm not rich. I spent almost ALL of my money on it) but you can not deny that fact.

I appreciate for their effort on the digital cinema revolution. But I can't agree with their over confidence arrogant attitude and underestimate every competitors.
Perhaps Red surpassed big companies like Sony and Arri in the resolution war for few years. What about 10 or 20 years later? Will Red defeat Sony and Arri? I don't think so. Arri has already built an invincible image during past 100 years in cinema history. Just like Apple can't defeat Microsoft.

And yes. I'm believing the F55 will be reliable based on my previous experience of working with Sony cameras e.g. PD150, DSR-300P, V1, Z1, Z5, Z7, EX3, VG10, VG20, FS100, FS700, F3, F900, F65 etc....I can't recall when was the last time a Sony camera failed me. So based on these experience, I mean, when the job is critical where a camera system crash or glitched is not tolerable on set. I will trust the Sony/Arri camera over Red camera. I own cameras from both Sony and Red. I'm just giving my person opinion.

How do you know the F55 is reliable? How many months have you used one?

I used a 1 Scarlet for a 113 day shoot, no crashes, no problems, ten hour days. Its still running now with over 1,000 hours just fine, total work horse. I know the R1 might of has issues at times when it first came out, but for me 0 issues on DSMC yet.

Also I bet had you checked with your rep he would of known about the issue and told you not to get the 48gb mags. I have had nothing but great help from my rep and others. I am sorry your experience hasn't been as excellent as mine. If reliability is key hire a good DIT and it doesn't matter what camera you shoot, he/she will get you home on time with the footage

 

[peter roehsler]

The infringement isnt about RAW. It's about REDCODE.

As we can see with various makers 2K and 4K cameras writing DNG or other uncompressed data are - politely put - somewhat impractical.
REDCODE is the key to a useful workflow, cost wise and quality wise. Any manufacturer who could come up with a similar efficient lossless codec will find it´s costumers. To shortcut and/or bypass D&R of their own by reverse engineering somebody else´s IP calls for legal action, just like showing your movie (and/or taking money for it) without your permission and your knowledge would. Therefore I strongly support any action against software piracy RED sees fit to take.

 

[Andy Corleone]

is not redcode RED own name for Video RAW?

The infringement isnt about RAW. It's about REDCODE.

 

[peter roehsler]

is not redcode RED own name for Video RAW?

No: REDCODE is a highly efficient (visually lossless) compression codec for raw sensor data output which enables RED cameras to write and store image data on SSD cards onboard versus having to use external recorders for uncompressed raw data.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

My rep told me the 48GB works without issue that's why I decided to buy it in the first place.
Yes Red cameras are so powerful and affordable. But Red cameras were known to have minor stability issue and little glitches here and there you can get angry or disagree with me for "dissing" the Red camera(Don't forget I have one too I'm not rich. I spent almost ALL of my money on it) but you can not deny that fact.

I appreciate for their effort on the digital cinema revolution. But I can't agree with their over confidence arrogant attitude and underestimate every competitors.
Perhaps Red surpassed big companies like Sony and Arri in the resolution war for few years. What about 10 or 20 years later? Will Red defeat Sony and Arri? I don't think so. Arri has already built an invincible image during past 100 years in cinema history. Just like Apple can't defeat Microsoft.

And yes. I'm believing the F55 will be reliable based on my previous experience of working with Sony cameras e.g. PD150, DSR-300P, V1, Z1, Z5, Z7, EX3, VG10, VG20, FS100, FS700, F3, F900, F65 etc....I can't recall when was the last time a Sony camera failed me. So based on these experience, I mean, when the job is critical where a camera system crash or glitched is not tolerable on set. I will trust the Sony/Arri camera over Red camera. I own cameras from both Sony and Red. I'm just giving my person opinion.

I don't think you understand what's going on here at all.

Sony are the arrogant ones here, having believed they are big enough to use a smaller companies technology without licensing it.

if RED tried the same thing with Sony, Sony would be doing exactly the same thing as RED are doing here.

all RED is doing here is saying, you are using our tech to create your camera, and have not paid or otherwise sought permission to.

the patent in question isn't all that broad either, and there are solutions that don't involve ripping of RED's code, Though REDs code is an elegant solution.

This isn't about some total defeat of Sony as a whole it's about forcing Sony to follow the rules and develop their own solutions. The rather grand looking aim of destruction of all cameras that infringe it also isn't the likely aim either, its about posturing, and also about aiming to high so that a judgement or settlement arrives in the ballpark of what they actually want.