Movie-Camera Maker Red Accuses Rival Arri of Corporate Espionage

[Vance Colvig]

Innocent until proven guilty? Often misunderstood. Guilty when committing a crime. Guilty when there is an admission of guilt. In the US, jury's are frequently instructed that defendants are not to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but to evaluate the facts as presented to determine guilt or innocence. It is the State that is obliged to presume innocence, not the jury or anybody else. MB pleaded guilty. He is morally guilty and now legally guilty. Arri sanctioned his behavior by not only accepting his emails before he was employed by Arri, it appears that he was rewarded by Arri by being hired by them. Furthermore, Arri did not instruct MB to cease the email hacking after he was working for them. Those are the facts. How much damage was incurred, that will be for the jury to decide.

 

[Jose Alejandro Acosta]

Fascinating discussion.
I suppose one of the possible results of all this, is that the courts may block ARRI products from the US market, if they are proven to violate RED patents, trade secrets, etc. That would be a sad state of affairs, but possibly justified.
It would be more fun to see RED win back market share based on the superior features and value of their products. I sense that RED is still focused on healthy competition, and sees the lawsuit as an unfortunate distraction.

 

[Philip Powell]

Bottom line, these were private business communications, they should not have been acessed by anyone else. Whether anything of value was derived from these communications, something that gave somebody an advantage is also kind of beside the point. My opinion is that they only reason you would read such private emails, is that you were HOPING it would.

 

[Bob Minervini]

Mr. Jannard go 'gett them an make them see RED!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Bottom line, these were private business communications, they should not have been acessed by anyone else. Whether anything of value was derived from these communications, something that gave somebody an advantage is also kind of beside the point. My opinion is that they only reason you would read such private emails, is that you were HOPING it would.

The important point though is that in this case Bravin was absolutely guilty. So guilty that he was tried and punished for his misdeeds. RED is attempting though to establish whether or not they were also involved in that case. Which was my point about just because you commit one crime does not make you automatically guilty of other greater crimes. The reward to risk ratio is just way way too low for me to expect Arri to have actually committed espionage in such a fashion. A slightly better marketing campaign just doesn't seem worth jail time and huge lawsuits. So is logging into your boss' email but being angry and feeling perhaps personally slighted falls outside of rational Risk/Reward into a completely separate emotional motivation which is more plausible. I don't think a marketing exec who had been working for a company for less than a month would feel such an irrational and personal motivation to risk extreme personal jeopardy. It seems implausible to the point of near absurdity. Maybe if his job was precarious at some point and he was desperate then such a high risk action would override good sense but again, he had been employed for what a month or two? Brand new job, no potential yet for failing performance metrics or employment jeopardy. To risk jail for... what?

It's a crime with no motive. Opportunity yes, but no motive that I can see. Arri can certainly profit, but Bravin? He *ONLY* loses. There is absolute no upside for him. Why on earth would he risk jail, professional suicide and shame for a company which he was just barely settling into? Breaking the TOS to use a psuedonym on REDUser is slimey marketing but it carries essentially no risk except for embarrassment. Unlike RED Arri is a corporation. I can see why Jim or Jarred etc, would be personally offended by a slight against RED, they live and breath that company. I don't expect that from a marketing exec of Arri. He picks up his paycheck either way.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Gavin - I guess I'll admit to be befuddled by your persistent defense of Arri. Even if, as you say, it is "a crime with no motive" is is still, nevertheless, a crime. Motives are almost always implicit or interpreted by an outside source. Even when one admits a motive, who, except the criminal, really knows the truth. But, does it really matter what the motive was? If you rob a bank, whether it's to feed your starving family or just for fun, it is still a crime. You seem to be saying that it is illogical for Michael Bravin or Arri to have committed the "crime" but that doesn't seem to square with the facts that are known; nor is it relevant. And again, even if they didn't use the information, it may still have been a crime to acquire it.

One other thing; of course, RED is a corporation just like Arri. And just like at RED, I suspect there are many employees at Arri that have an emotional connection to the company and its products. For those folks, its not just about a paycheck. I don't think you can assume the Arri employees are innocent, or lack motivation for doing misdeeds, just because Arri doesn't seem to have the "start-up" culture of RED. Sometimes people get caught up in competing; sometimes they just make mistakes when face with a particular opportunity and think they won't get caught. Who knows why these things were done. But, if they were done, they are quite probably worthy of some sort of sanction.

 

[Emanuel A.]

(...)

It's a crime with no motive. Opportunity yes, but no motive that I can see. Arri can certainly profit, but Bravin? He *ONLY* loses. There is absolute no upside for him. Why on earth would he risk jail, professional suicide and shame for a company which he was just barely settling into? Breaking the TOS to use a psuedonym on REDUser is slimey marketing but it carries essentially no risk except for embarrassment. Unlike RED Arri is a corporation. I can see why Jim or Jarred etc, would be personally offended by a slight against RED, they live and breath that company. I don't expect that from a marketing exec of Arri. He picks up his paycheck either way.

"Without motive"? I can't believe what I am reading right on the spot What we do have on here... Agatha Christie?

I believe at a certain point of the road, we just must accept it and realize. There's no other choice. It is useless to try to defend the undefendable. IMO, the case is much more serious with the other corporation than the individual. Anyone of us can commit an error, but a bunch of them with the green light of several others?

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Why on earth would he risk jail, professional suicide and shame for a company which he was just barely settling into?

That one is easy. Because he didn't expect to get caught.

Just as he didn't expect to be outed as Ed Carlton, even though it was a rather stupid thing to do. Anyone who has ever moderated a forum knows how easy it is to identify multiple names issuing from the same IP account. Even I know this, and I'm about as dumb as they come in the networking department.

People do sneaky shit because they can. No assignation of a higher motive is necessary. Maybe he wanted to be a big man to his new bosses, who knows, who cares and ultimately...his motive doesn't matter. What matters is that the action may (or may not, wait and see....) have had some costly unanticipated consequences. That is what the court will decide.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I believe at a certain point of the road, we just must accept it and realize. There's no other choice. It is useless to try to defend the undefendable.

We must simply accept it? Why? There is another choice. Nothing happened. That's the other choice.

And of course you don't expect to get caught, but we always subtly balance risk and reward. "I don't think I'm going to get caught by speeding 5mph over, and I think the risk of getting caught is worth it." If the punishment was jail time for speeding I wouldn't speed even though I don't expect to get caught. If he didn't think he could get caught and was simply malevolently spying he would have continued to do so for more than 1 proven incident in January. It would have gone on for years. Why stop?

I'm not defending Arri for Arri's behalf, I own nothing they make. Nor am I doing it to rag on RED, I am a RED customer and generally like RED (even though I've heard rumors that they once suspected me of corporate espionage as well ). I am simply on the side of fairness and reason. And my perspective which is obviously limited is that the claim being advanced simply doesn't fit the data. But what is known to me tells a very different story than RED rightfully is concerned about.

I mean anything is possible, there might be murder and real intrigue that will come out as well, or soviet spies may have brainwashed someone but that's beyond the evidence that's been disclosed. Simply saying "Well they must be guilty, they've done bad things in the past and so-and-so has evidence they haven't shared yet which they tell me will close the deal" is how we got into Iraq. Until evidence is shared with me, I assume it doesn't exist, a perspective in life that has served me well.

I think RED is taking the correct course of action in this instance. They've done what they need to do to discover the extent of damages if any that might have occurred and they are quietly awaiting the results of that motion.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Jim has some of the best legal advice in the world - their interns would frighten you - and they are proceeding from an advantaged position.
We know very little other than the charges laid out in the court document - and that does not tell us a thing about any damning evidence that Jim's team might have.
Just a hunch, but I believe there will be startling revelations made during this proceeding. Remember how Watergate unravelled? Well, this might be a Redgate. ( ;

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Line 75 is kind of funny. Since every frame of that movie passed through me, I can confirm that it indeed was shot on RED Epic.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Just a hunch, but I believe there will be startling revelations made during this proceeding. Remember how Watergate unravelled? Well, this might be a Redgate. ( ;

I would call it Arrigate.

The real question to me is "how much did Arri corporate know about this, and when did they know it"? That will be the harder thing to prove. I don't expect this to happen quickly -- civil cases like this can take years and years to wind through the courts.

 

[Jannard]

Watch this one carefully...

Jim

 

[Emanuel A.]

(...)

I believe at a certain point of the road, we just must accept it and realize. There's no other choice. It is useless to try to defend the undefendable. (...)

We must simply accept it? Why? There is another choice. Nothing happened. That's the other choice.

(...)

Because facts are not choice(s), just facts.

That's what happens when we have no choice unless to face them «at a certain point of the road»...

E

 

[Evan Starkey]

I would call it Arrigate.

All the president's men ...lol how ever i feel this needs the Columbo approach

 

[Stephen Webb]

Watch this one carefully...

Jim

I'm watching with interest, but one thing I don't understand. I've read your filing against Arri, Inc and you've had some harsh things to say about Arri on this site. But (as yet) you're not suing Arri GmbH.

Arri, Inc is not "Arri". Arri, Inc did not develop the Alexa. I can see why you would be upset at Arri, Inc but (Like Arri Media and Arri Lighting here in the UK) they are a separate entity from the camera manufacturer. If Arri, Inc were passing the info they got from your e-mails to Arri in Germany then I'd agree that "Arri" had some explaining to do. But you don't seem to be claiming this, either in your suit or on here.

If Arri, Inc have been engaged in corporate espionage then give 'em hell. But how have Arri GmbH been involved and how have they benefited?

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Can you imagine choosing to shoot with an Alexa only to be ordered by the court to cease and desist halfway through your shoot? That would suck.

 

[Emanuel A.]

Watch this one carefully...

Jim

I'm watching with interest, but one thing I don't understand. I've read your filing against Arri, Inc and you've had some harsh things to say about Arri on this site. But (as yet) you're not suing Arri GmbH.

Arri, Inc is not "Arri". Arri, Inc did not develop the Alexa. I can see why you would be upset at Arri, Inc but (Like Arri Media and Arri Lighting here in the UK) they are a separate entity from the camera manufacturer. If Arri, Inc were passing the info they got from your e-mails to Arri in Germany then I'd agree that "Arri" had some explaining to do. But you don't seem to be claiming this, either in your suit or on here.

If Arri, Inc have been engaged in corporate espionage then give 'em hell. But how have Arri GmbH been involved and how have they benefited?

A legal claim is built brick to brick. Evidence in evidence. IF there will be material, factual material, condemnation in US Courts (as it seems the Bravin case is already done) this can be quite useful for german lawyers. More than a juridical question, that's the juris road.

Morally? Well, that is another realm. And this company's owner knows it quite well ;-)

 

[Jay Birch]

Arri, Inc is not "Arri". Arri, Inc did not develop the Alexa. I can see why you would be upset at Arri, Inc but (Like Arri Media and Arri Lighting here in the UK) they are a separate entity from the camera manufacturer.

It's an interesting point. Much like the hacking scandal in UK, "News of the World" were one subsidiary of News Corp. Can you tar the whole corporation with the same brush?

 

[Emanuel A.]

It's an interesting point. Much like the hacking scandal in UK, "News of the World" were one subsidiary of News Corp. Can you tar the whole corporation with the same brush?

Jay,

It depends on the criminal responsability of the deeds imputed to the authors. But, if they are not responsible strictly under the point of view of criminal jurisdiction, they can be under the civil angle anyway. Until to fulfill their participation on the subsidiary corporation or entity (if it is not the case of a corporation, an individual for example). There's also a subsidiary civil responsability beyond the criminal domain.

Saudações para a terra Natal se é o caso de estares em Portugal (Algarve?)

Emanuel