Copyright discussion

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Unfortunately enforcement needs to be done, as if you do not enforce infringement, any patent or trademark you own can be overturned.

Half true. Patents don't need to be defended to be legitimate. You can selectively defend patents all you want. Trademarks... yes. Patents... no.

I'm still really curious how though you can patent a triangle with a bolt hole in it. Especially since Viewfactor did it first-- and there were literally hundreds of posts on REDuser asking for such an accessory, so it's not like the creativity was necessary. It would be like creating a ProRes module and then patenting it. At the very least 10,000 redusers deserve a royalty on contributing to the concept.

 

[Noel R.]

Half true. Patents don't need to be defended to be legitimate. You can selectively defend patents all you want. Trademarks... yes. Patents... no.

I'm still really curious how though you can patent a triangle with a bolt hole in it. Especially since Viewfactor did it first-- and there were literally hundreds of posts on REDuser asking for such an accessory, so it's not like the creativity was necessary. It would be like creating a ProRes module and then patenting it. At the very least 10,000 redusers deserve a royalty on contributing to the concept.

Was curious about that also, how else could you mount a REDMOTE. There isn't much room for improvement on the design of a triangle.

 

[Brad Webb]

Was curious about that also, how else could you mount a REDMOTE. There isn't much room for improvement on the design of a triangle.

Pythagoras would agree.

 

[Jarred Land]

Was curious about that also, how else could you mount a REDMOTE. There isn't much room for improvement on the design of a triangle.

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.

 

[ChrisLyon]

That's interesting. A lot of people have been asking about VF, and I feel confident that someone like Brook and the VF team would have entered such an agreement since they haven't shown up as of yet on anything I've seen. I'm glad I've only purchased one product from WC (the A-box), and I'm really really happy with the VF FMJ stuff. Hopefully this is all resolved swiftly and with a lesson learned by everyone.

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.

 

[Jarred Land]

We love Brook and VF... Yes we send them notices if they step on something but that goes back to the "protect it or loose it" formalities. A lot of this isn't personal. And we like to give the companies an opportunity to fix things no matter how bad they infringe. Some people don't take that opportunity.

Some people just think everything should be open and free and nobody should be able to protect ideas. Great social concept... but unfortuantely we don't live in a social economy.

 

[Noel R.]

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.

Well I appreciate RED's decision on using a V-lock for their batteries. It's always better to use standards when possible. V-locks have been around so long that I did assume anyone could use them. I just think that it would be nice to leave some things open, so that people can continue to innovate designs that will work for us.

 

[Jarred Land]

Well I appreciate RED's decision on using a V-lock for their batteries. It's always better to use standards when possible. V-locks have been around so long that I did assume anyone could use them. I just think that it would be nice to leave some things open, so that people can continue to innovate designs that will work for us.

On that same note, we worked with Anton to make sure they had a solution as well, even though they were "competitors" to our system.. but we knew it was best for the customer. We have no problem letting people innovate.. having options. This isn't what this is all about.. we are not bullying people around to "sink competition" We are protecting our inventions. Just like Apple does.. just like everyone else does. I'm not sure why that makes us the bad guys.... but o well.

 

[Gary Paul Walker]

Some people just think everything should be open and free and nobody should be able to protect ideas. Great social concept... but unfortuantely we don't live in a social economy.

I don't think anyone here would dismiss the value of protecting an idea - particularly when almost everyone on redusers.net is a creator of some kind of content. I think by-and-large the percieved good relationship between Red and Wooden Camera (illustrated by the open discussion of new products etc on these boards) perhaps suggested an open-economy in the accessories Ryan was creating.

Can I ask though - To what extent does this entire issue extend to RedRaw? I assume Adobe et al have all entered into an agreement, but if (for example) YouTube suddenly allow the uploading of RedRaw files for viewing without approaching you guys, would that infringe on a patent?
(apologies if the question seems stupid, I'm just thinking down the line when OpenSource editors / creative suites might try to develop something similar to the Adobe plug-ins)

 

[Noel R.]

On that same note, we worked with Anton to make sure they had a solution as well, even though they were "competitors" to our system.. but we knew it was best for the customer. We have no problem letting people innovate.. having options. This isn't what this is all about.. we are not bullying people around to "sink competition" We are protecting our inventions. Just like Apple does.. just like everyone else does. I'm not sure why that makes us the bad guys.... but o well.

Agree or disagree, I really do appreciate the fact that you guys listen to us, and in my book that makes you the good guys.

 

[Detlev Eller]

We love Brook and VF... Yes we send them notices if they step on something but that goes back to the "protect it or loose it" formalities. A lot of this isn't personal. And we like to give the companies an opportunity to fix things no matter how bad they infringe. Some people don't take that opportunity.

Some people just think everything should be open and free and nobody should be able to protect ideas. Great social concept... but unfortuantely we don't live in a social economy.

... why do i LOVE this post ... ...

not that i would ever encourage or like to infringe on any matter, quite contrary ... guess it´s the spirit of this post, as awesome, as always ... ;-)
and a little bit of wisdom ... thanks!


Detlev

 

[Tim Morten]

On that same note, we worked with Anton to make sure they had a solution as well, even though they were "competitors" to our system.. but we knew it was best for the customer. We have no problem letting people innovate.. having options. This isn't what this is all about.. we are not bullying people around to "sink competition" We are protecting our inventions. Just like Apple does.. just like everyone else does. I'm not sure why that makes us the bad guys.... but o well.

Not sure Apple is the best example of honorable use of litigation, but the sentiment of wanting to do the right thing is definitely appreciated.

Though I have had a good experience purchasing Wooden Camera products, I feel genuinely indebted to Red for the generosity they have shown with their upgrade program.

My sense is that two things are at the heart of this dispute:
1. Red feels possessive of the V-Mount functionality
2. Communication broke down between Red and WC when Red contacted WC to address this

There have been a couple of comments about how Red is sensitive to being perceived as the bad guys, so I wanted to share my own perception for whatever that's worth. I recognize that neither Red nor WC is at liberty to discuss any details until the suit is resolved.

The desire to protect intellectual property is admirable, and I don't believe this suit was intended to be malicious. My sense is that Red sincerely feels that WC inappropriately copied its design for the V-Mount.

The portion of the complaint pertaining to the cage feels like a bit of a red herring, since there are evident visual and functional differences between Red's design and WC's designs. The similarities that do exist derive from both products serving the identical (and obvious/non-unique) purpose of providing a cage for Epic/Scarlet. None of the specific cage components appear to be direct copies, and indeed other vendors not referenced in the suit (VF, AP, ET, Gini, etc) provide comparable products that are arguably closer to Red's own design. The complaint references "RED design language", but it is not clear what this comprises of, what aspects are protectable, or in what ways WC has infringed.

The portion of the complaint that warrants deeper consideration in my opinion is the portion pertaining to the V-Mount. Similarities between WC's A-Lock and Red's V-Mount are apparent. However, the uniqueness and protectability of a triangular shaped latch-point seems questionable: clearly this is a concept that other companies (Element Technica and IDX to name two) established prior to Red's specific implementation. Indeed, Red's patent pertains to "ornamental" elements rather than to any specific functionality.

The size and perimeter shape of WC's product exactly matches Red, so the question is not whether WC copied these, but whether dimensions and perimeter shape are protected. The pictures associated with Red's patent depict a block module which includes a V-Mount, but it is not clear that this is covered as a stand-alone element, nor that it would qualify for patent protection had it been separately submitted. Specific dimension of the V-Mount as an ornamental element are not specified. It feels like what Red wanted to protect was the functionality of the V-Mount, but I honestly don't believe that's what the patent covers - the patent is explicitly categorized as "ornamental".

Legal analysis aside: is there a core idea here which Red originated that I believe other companies shouldn't be allowed to copy? With respect to many many many aspects of Epic and Scarlet, absolutely yes. With specific respect to the V-Mount? I have trouble with this one. It feels like one implementation of a general idea that precedes Red.

Obviously, all of the above are just my two cents. I'm not a lawyer; I have been a plaintiff and have some degree of experience with intellectual property protection. I understand where Red is coming from, even if I have some questions about the merit of this specific claim. I think Red is an exceptional company run by exceptional people, and I hope this dispute gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

- Tim

 

[Paul Ellington]

We love Brook and VF... Yes we send them notices if they step on something but that goes back to the "protect it or loose it" formalities. A lot of this isn't personal. And we like to give the companies an opportunity to fix things no matter how bad they infringe. Some people don't take that opportunity.

Some people just think everything should be open and free and nobody should be able to protect ideas. Great social concept... but unfortuantely we don't live in a social economy.

This could set a precedent which could trickle over to our side, or rather, door. Tired listening to people argue ideas 'aren't protectable' -- they should be.

www.variety.com/article/VR1118056104

 

[Jason Diamond]

This could set a precedent which could trickle over to our side, or rather, door. Tired listening to people argue ideas 'aren't protectable' -- they should be.

www.variety.com/article/VR1118056104

Agreed but it's very rarely cut and dry as these things are very open to interpretation.

It's an argument over grey areas, almost never over black and white.

that being said it's, of course, very important to protect entities on both sides of the equation because innovation is crucial and inspiration from innovation is equally as important as this is what drives the leapfrogging and pushing forward for all of us to benefit from in the end.

 

[Jarred Land]

because innovation is crucial and inspiration from innovation is equally as important as this is what drives the leapfrogging and pushing forward for all of us to benefit from in the end.

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.

 

[Peter Osinski]

This could set a precedent which could trickle over to our side, or rather, door. Tired listening to people argue ideas 'aren't protectable' -- they should be.

www.variety.com/article/VR1118056104

I could easily see this come to play with non-fiction channels (discovery / history etc). I have heard far too many rumors of shows getting declined when pitched and then the networks creating their own show (sometimes seeking out the characters the original show was pitched to include) based on the same premisue

 

[Robert Hart]

I sincerely hope that the RED -v- Wooden Camera stoush can sidestep into mediation and become settled before the lawyers take too much of a harvest. There will have to be an awful lot of Epics and Scarletts and Wooden accessories sold to pay it all off.

There is also the moral obligation of two workforces to protect. That notion of course is moot if one or the other enterprise has exported jobs offshore. My personal favour then would come down upon the enterprise which has the higher proportion of in-country workers devising and making its products.

It might be that one or both principals of each enterprise want to go all the way due to dominent personalities.

It may be that the applicant in this matter has no choice other than apply provable vigor to the defense of a registered design, patent, work of art or whatever, so that the current action becomes evidence in itself to support future intellectual property rights action.

I was a fly on the wall to an intellectual property rights fight which went all the way via successive appeals to our High Court where the appeal was finally upheld. A bit like divorce or family law cases - both parties may lose in the end. Through escalation, it reached a point, as I understood it within my limited range of comprehension, that each of both parties was headed for ruin if found against.

That outcome did transpire for the complainant, a pity because it seems to have driven a genuine innovator and creator in the particular industry out of the game altogether.

It would be a pity if the prime hobbyist/enthusiast who started the RED thing off finds the enterprise has become no longer fulfilling and has morphed into a ringer's complaint that he just wants to be quit of.

To both parties, please research and think mediation if that option exists within the statutes you are operating under. High-end combative lawyers may be more inclined to operate within their comfort zone. It may not be in their interest money-wise to go the mediation route. Nor may they be effective in a mediation environment. Those practitioners who assist clients in mediations are likely to be found specialists in their niche. It is a different craft which is finding favour out here as it reduces court time and costs for the achievement of much the same outcome as if two parties duke it out in the court to the line and then one blinks and they settle. How it goes in the US may be something different again.

Seriously, both parties should take a look at the mediation option if this has not happened already. Smackdown in the playground may feel good but it may come at an unsustainable cost, even to the winner.

 

[Jaakko Rinne]

I could easily see this come to play with non-fiction channels (discovery / history etc). I have heard far too many rumors of shows getting declined when pitched and then the networks creating their own show (sometimes seeking out the characters the original show was pitched to include) based on the same premisue

That's pretty much the norm. Applies to game development as well.

 

[Iain Philpott]

You can post all the crap you want. I just want definitive lines drawn in the sand. Is WC ripping of RED or not? I as the enduser (love WC products) do not care who delivers the product I need. RED if you can't deliver a product that makes my Epic X work then you have an issue. If it's just companies hi-jacking RED than to hell with them.

Surely there is a middle ground?

 

[Marc Wielage]

You can post all the crap you want. I just want definitive lines drawn in the sand. Is WC ripping of RED or not?

It's interesting to note in the legal complaint that several times, Red cites Wooden Camera making sunglasses:

http://cinescopophilia.com/red-sues-wooden-camera/

I have to say, this is kinda waving a red flag (to coin a phrase), if this really happened as described. Jannard doesn't strike me as somebody you'd want to tussle with in court.

I can see where, on the surface, some people might think that Red was a big company trying to crush a little company. But I don't doubt there were a lot of behind-the-scenes discussions and warnings about this first. It's hard for me to believe why a reasonable licensing arrangement couldn't be worked out, especially if it was done ala Apple's "Made for iPod" certification program.