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 Wooden Camera 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 Wooden Camera 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 Wooden Camera 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 wooden Camera 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.

 

[Paul Schneider]

Very interesting Steve.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

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.

IMHO You will stay in business by doing great cameras.

Now I don't know how much profit you make through your accessories but I bet it's not your core business (?).

To make sure something won't be copied do it better, cheaper (and faster) than your competitor...

Kind of the RED way...

Pat

 

[Terry VerHaar]

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

There will, of course, be many people who will quickly say "But that doesn't apply to my industry/product." But, a great many of them will be wrong. Most of the laws we have in this area are outdated. The hard part is to figure out which ones, and how to change them.

 

[George Tsai]

http://www.dilbert.com/2012-06-30/

hehehe

 

[Joe G.]

"I'm not saying there aren't improvements that could be made to the patent system. But the logic that "it's digital, therefore copying is fair since nothing is 'lost'" is simply not credible when given any kind of analysis."


Neither are the shrill screams of the industry lobbyists, that the earth is about to implode due to kids downloading. It leads to hilarious gibberish like the $8 Billion Ipod.

 

[Andrew Walker]

So how can RED tell Wooden Camera to stop selling Safety NATO rails when RED didn't come up with the idea for this mounting system. The Picatinny rail system was invented by A.R.M.S. back in the early 80's as a way to mount optics and other accessories on weapons. So in what mind set do they have the right to tell some other company to stop selling something they copied exactly from another manufacture. RED copied this exactly, Wooden Camera actually did something different and improved upon the original 1980's design that's more suited for mounting camera accessories on.

 

[Paul Schneider]

So how can RED tell Wooden Camera to stop selling Safety NATO rails when RED didn't come up with the idea for this mounting system. The Picatinny rail system was invented by A.R.M.S. back in the early 80's as a way to mount optics and other accessories on weapons. So in what mind set do they have the right to tell some other company to stop selling something they copied exactly from another manufacture. RED copied this exactly, Wooden Camera actually did something different and improved upon the original 1980's design that's more suited for mounting camera accessories on.

Sometimes (most of the time actually) a patent or trademark lawsuit is simply a game of chicken.
If it's a bogus suit it'll come out in the end...provided both parties feel they're in the right and willing to jump through the hoops to take the case to court.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

So how can RED tell Wooden Camera to stop selling Safety NATO rails when RED didn't come up with the idea for this mounting system. The Picatinny rail system was invented by A.R.M.S. back in the early 80's as a way to mount optics and other accessories on weapons. So in what mind set do they have the right to tell some other company to stop selling something they copied exactly from another manufacture. RED copied this exactly, Wooden Camera actually did something different and improved upon the original 1980's design that's more suited for mounting camera accessories on.

i wonder how Jarred gonna answer this

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Eric Raymond gets it perfectly and puts it perfectly:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/ar01s18.html

"If you are a hardware vendor, you may fear that open-sourcing may reveal important things about how your hardware operates that competitors could copy, thus gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Back in the days of three- to five-year product cycles this was a valid argument. Today, the time your competitors' engineers would need to spend copying and understanding the copy is a damagingly large portion of the product cycle, time they are not spending innovating or differentiating their own product.


This is not a new insight. Former KGB chief Oleg Kalugin puts the case well:


For instance, when we stole IBMs in our blueprints, or some other electronic areas which the West made great strides in and we were behind, it would take years to implement the results of our intelligence efforts. By that time, in five or seven years, the West would go forward, and we would have to steal again and again, and we'd fall behind more and more.


But Rudyard Kipling put it better in his poem The Mary Gloster, nearly a century ago. He wrote:



And they asked me how I did it, and I gave 'em the Scripture text, 

"You keep your light so shining a little in front o' the next!''"
They copied all they could follow, but they couldn't copy my mind,

And I left 'em sweating and stealing a year and a half behind.

Acceleration to Internet time makes this effect bite harder. If you're really ahead of the game, plagiarism is a trap you want your competitors to fall into!"

Gavin makes some excellent points re. standardization. I've said before, and make no apology for repeating, this should especially apply to media. 35mm film was the standard for years. Digital media is mature enough for similar standardization to take place. RDC, Sony, Arri, and the rest should compete all out on cameras and other tech areas - but sit round a table and agree on a common standard for media, so you can use RED SSD in a Sony cam, or Sony media in an Alexa etc. etc. Markets don't like, and won't tolerate, artificial technical barriers to interoperability. Protect the brain, make the interfaces open; it may astonish you what third parties manage to add to your product.

I love RDC and their products, but I'm honest enough to say 'huh? That's just wrong!' when something doesn't seem right. Here's a good example: EVF interface. There was a LONG period when the original EVF was out of production but the Bomb wasn't yet ready. RED had nothing to sell. Yet the R1 manual said the EVF interface was undocumented and the pinout was 'not published'. I asked RED for the pinout and signal information; no dice. That's secret. So RED had nothing to sell, but third parties were locked-out of building or modifying EVFs to work directly with the RED interface. *That's* the kind of 'closed' attitude I don't like when I see it.

Mike

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Mike - I don't always agree with your posts but this one is spot on. :thumbsup: There is no bigger fan of RED than me; and I am in awe of Jim Jannard's genius in matters both technical and business. But, sometimes I think too much money is given to the lawyers and not enough to the engineers. In general, I have been swayed by Lawrence Lessig's arguments over the years about opening up technology and changing our IP laws. The TED piece earlier in this thread is a good perspective on how our copyright laws can be stifling innovation. There is a better way than the "Disney" way. (A whole other discussion.)