Patent lawsuit...

[Phil Holland]

Our customers know what is real. We love our customers. And the best news... we know what the next step is.

It feels so good to know that the vision, attitude, and maverick behavior continues to pave the way.

I've always enjoyed and loved certain cameras and manufacturers. It's a totally different feeling believing in one.

Keep up the good fight.

 

[Bob Gundu]

It's either going to be awkward, or it's going to be frickin awesome at NAB this year. Obviously I'm hoping for the latter. So Jim/Jarred, how busy is the RED booth going to be this year? :smiley:

 

[Jannard]

I know that I will be there...

Jim

It's either going to be awkward, or it's going to be frickin awesome at NAB this year. Obviously I'm hoping for the latter. So Jim/Jarred, how busy is the RED booth going to be this year? :smiley:

 

[Bob Gundu]

Ha ha. Me too. See you there! Make sure that projector is working OK this time

I know that I will be there...

Jim

 

[brett ogden]

I know that I will be there...

Jim

Me 2! and i will add you to the list of Going reducer's Heh heh

 

[Evin Grant]

Having been part of a family that had a very early computer software patent (the first for software on it's own) blatantly stolen and exploited in the 1980s by one of the "Big Boys" of computer tech I know first hand what it's like to watch someone work endless hours and pour their entire being into an idea that everyone else thinks is silly, and then watch as the bigger fish swoop down and try to gobble up that idea when it turns our to be brilliant. Luckily we had the patent, and as any IP lawyer will tell you, you apply for the broadest possible patent you can get approved, because it makes defending that idea to judges who are not very well versed in our industry or in technology in general, much more realistic.

Now I do agree that lately the patents have been getting broader and broader and the trolls have made an impact on what we in the film industry have available but it is after all and industry. We have to make money and so does Jim, I'm an artist, but if I don't think about my business first then the only place my art will be seen is my parent's house.

I applaud Jim not only for defending his ideas but for going for the broadest brush he could with his patent. That protects my investment in my Epic and the film industry as a whole by forcing the rest of the field to innovate for real.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Are you suing because someone used an industry standard compression on industry ubiquitous data? Or is there some subtle detail that we're missing. I'm more than happy to see RED defend their IP if it's innovative (such as some new way of prepping data for compression that's non-obvious). I'm not happy to see the simple notion of "compressing an image" which is beyond trivially obvious get locked down in patents.

The DCI spec included JPEG2000 compression for the industry standard compression of cinema images. Bayer pattern is just another image. Patenting the idea of compressing a bayer pattern image sounds as silly to me as patenting making a jpeg of a photo of grass. "No more jpegs of grass! That was our idea!" Not to mention the fact that Cineform RAW was a commercial product before REDCode RAW was even a feature of RED.

Yup...
That was along my first thoughts.
But then I remembered that Cineform is credited in the RED patent.
Don't remember if Kinetta is directly credited, But I do remember from the early days that Jim was frequently crediting Jeff Kreines for what he did. (and in my world, Kinetta and SI/Cineform are much closer evolutional relations to RED than Dalsa and Sony/ARRI)

So...
(and this, Bruce - is all speculation)
But if Graeme and Jim "just" innovated what is today obvious (like saying that a wheel should be circular, not square or a hexagon or octagon), that is actually an invention. And inventing is about thinking "out of the box" and discovering "the obvious", and as such there are two ways to look at them. Either you put them into public domain, or you protect them.

And to me
Both of those aproaches have a lot of merit.
And I really can follow the line of thought and reasoning behind both.

Now... If this was about something that we all really "need to survive", like the pasteurisation of milk, it's really fortunate that the inventor chooses to put that knowledge and process into PD.

When it comes to stuff like image processing (which clearly doesn't really have any true existential value, even though it may feel like it for many of us, and thus is a thing we choose to involve ourself in or not, even when we think that we have no choice), I think we in many ways should apreachiate that someone bothered to spend that time thinking of "useless things" like image compression, and if they got it right (like Jim/Graeme obviously did), let's credit them and be happy to see their wallets fill!

Money is just that.
Gives one kind of freedom.
The fact that others have it, doesn't limit our own capacity at inventing.

Graeme was just "another weirdo" back in the days, before he became a semi-God.
Jim wa "just" an inventor of sunglasses that I hadn't even heard of before RED. (frankly, I wasn't even aware of the Oakly brand before RED, my respect for the brand is 100% from my knowledge of what he has done done with RED... My admiratrion for Graeme is much longer, but was in no way relevant before I swapped my own focus from audio to images)

point is...
There are two kinds of inventions/concepts.
Some are "really" existential.
Like "Eating", or in the modern world "http"
I am very glad these kind of concepts are not lisenced (even though the latter could have been, and we would all have NOT met, and RED would never have happened)

Others just feels like they are exitential, like
"Master Primes", "that new car", "transistors", "semiconductors" etc...
And those are inventions that really change our lifes, but out of choice for focus. They are important, but not exitential if we don't choose them to be.
And I have no problem in accepting that those kind of "pass time" inventions should be notoriously protected. These are things we do out of desire to (fill in whatever), not existential needs (it might feel like they are, but people have and still do obviously live just fine without them)

Henry Ford didn't invent "cars", his invention was "how to make many cars at a cheaper price".
And my guess is, that all those guys who got access to a "T", would rather have a "T", than not a car at all.
RED is (in some respects) the "T" of digital cinema...
But that does NOT make that NOT an invention...

It's like a piece of music or a painting.
It doesn't really have to be "advanced" to matter
and it can well be to connect pre-existing dots in an unheard ow way. most "inventions" are just that.
It just is "right" for the purpose. and Redcode is just that, in some respects.
Recording 4k 444 video (that is the result, not what is actually captured) to an off-the-shelf CF card.
You have to be pretty dement - if you're in this business - to NOT appreachiate what kind of wonder that was!

But even if that was done through connecting the dots in a new way and not through creating/discovering the dots themselves, that doesn't mean that it's not an invention and shouln't be protected and respected.

so...
best of luck to red.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Compressed RAW for video was obvious back in 2002 to me and anyone else who was paying attention.

Who cares. What is current is boring. I am onto new things.

Maybe RED will win this ridiculous battle of patenting obvious stuff RE bayer sensors and RAW... but the war is bigger than that one battle. Hopefully this stupidity has woken the right people up.

My focus is now on making sure that the future light field stuff (that is currently obvious to me) does not follow the same fate.

Gotta stop doing 80 hour weeks on movie trailers and document it.

Thank you RED for accidentally showing me the true peril that lies ahead.

I don't want to live in a filmmaking future where basic, obvious ideas are owned by any one company.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Detlev Eller]

... defend their IP if it's innovative ...[ ] ..... that's non-obvious). I'm not happy to see the simple notion of "compressing an image" which is beyond trivially obvious get locked down in patents.

The truth of the matter in any invention is, that it SEEMS to be OBVIOUS in retrospect. It takes the genius to get there.
Depending on the invention, it may only take the average, educated mind to read the map, once it is drafted. That´s the work. that´s the purpose. that´s the merit. Providing access, making it simple.

Simplicity rules.
----------------------
A simple idea is so powerful, that it ripples trough all iterations of any given invention, device, technology and its power grows exponentially, because it is so good - because it is so simple. it is so obvious!

that is EXACTLY what is worth patenting. This is IT.

;-)




LEGACY, TRAJECTORY, GENETICS.
---------------------------------------

Betting on an idea vs. the other, has huge effect on efficiency, cost, ability to improve the technology and so forth.
Some technology are on a dead end, because of a "dead end" in thinking.

The merit is, to re-think. to put stuff into a new order. to make sense.
Again - simplicity in retrospect.

If everyone could do this, wouw! ... we would live in a truly wonderful world!!!!


LOL

... we need patent laws.
Only trouble with the current system is, it is so expensive to file for patents properly (due to research cost).



The customer choice
-----------------------
So, if any inventor or company comes up with a superior solution, at a price making him profits, even obscene profits, it is still the customers choice to go for the cheaper, inferior solution ---- right? .... ;-)

But since customers often like to get the better product, that someone has created, worked out, brought to market, advertised .... it is only right to honor this with money. exclusive money!

no gatekeeping.


People don´t get this.


Self promotion / parallels: (hehe)
-----------------------------------------
In my case, i have created the first solution generating superior HTML and CSS code, something the "experts" deem impossible. Their thinking is flawed, from generation to generation. In hint sight, it will make sense to everyone, because it is simple.

Source code is protected by IP law, this one is so fundamental, so effective, it solves a couple of "riddles" in the industry. And i tell you, it is for its simplicity.

People have a choice to go for the current market leaders with complex, super expensive, hidden legacy costs attached and trouble shooting, fixing for years .... or pay license fees. not cheap. I can clearly see, people complaining and trying to talk their way out of why this is not right to protect and so on and so forth - i repeat: industry experts often say, the stuff "invented" is impossible!! ... LOL

fools. blindfolded fools.


History
-----------
I hear history ringing in my ears. RED. .... wasn´t it rumored to be the biggest scam in history. Wasn´t it impossible to move such high data rates back then .... wasn´t it impossible to substitute the organic look of film .... LOL

The minute i heard the rumor, i was sold! I saw the spark of genius.


There. Innovation. Made. Reality. Possible.


thanks for reading.
To a better future, full of innovators!!!!!

cheers,
Detlev

 

[Peter Majtan]

Compressed RAW for video was obvious back in 2002 to me and anyone else who was paying attention.

Who cares. What is current is boring. I am onto new things.

Maybe RED will win this ridiculous battle of patenting obvious stuff RE bayer sensors and RAW... but the war is bigger than that one battle. Hopefully this stupidity has woken the right people up.

My focus is now on making sure that the future light field stuff (that is currently obvious to me) does not follow the same fate.

Gotta stop doing 80 hour weeks on movie trailers and document it.

Thank you RED for accidentally showing me the true peril that lies ahead.

I don't want to live in a filmmaking future where basic, obvious ideas are owned by any one company.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Bruce (and that goes for everyone else here and elsewhere) - you should reserve your judgement or hasty comments until you know all the facts. As it was pointed out before - this is ongoing litigation and as such many details (understanding of which is elemental in making up such a judgements and therefore an opinion and related comment) will not be known for a while, if ever. I can completely see where you are coming from, and to certain degree I agree with the principals on which you are founding your opinions. All I am saying is that you (as well as the rest of us) do not know all the details of this litigation...

This reminds me of a wonderful TV campaign...:

A young boy sitting on a bus while an elderly woman stands next to him. A man sitting just across starts yelling at the boy for not giving up his seat to the woman.
So the boy stood up - revealing one of his legs has been amputated - and offered the seat to the woman...

Hint, hint...

Peter

 

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce (and that goes for everyone else here and elsewhere) - you should reserve your judgement or hasty comments until you know all the facts. As it was pointed out before - this is ongoing litigation and as such many details (understanding of which is elemental in making up such a judgements and therefore an opinion and related comment) will not be known for a while, if ever. I can completely see where you are coming from, and to certain degree I agree with the principals on which you are founding your opinions. All I am saying is that you (as well as the rest of us) do not know all the details of this litigation...

This reminds me of a wonderful TV campaign...:

A young boy sitting on a bus while an elderly woman stands next to him. A man sitting just across starts yelling at the boy for not giving up his seat to the woman.
So the boy stood up - revealing one of his legs has been amputated - and offered the seat to the woman...

Hint, hint...

Peter

You're totally right, Peter.

But you can understand if I now make it a priority to ensure that future filmmaking advances don't fall under the same cloud, right?

RED is perfectly welcome to dispel this cloud at any time by saying "of course we're not going to sue you just for making a compressed raw camera, you have to actually copy some specific stuff we're doing."

The fact that they haven't done that pretty much gives me enough reason to be wary... and begin documenting the heck out of what's obviously coming next so that some asshole doesn't patent it.

Can't hurt, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Dmitry Burenok]

...Sony is literally the giant and RED is the little guy with a slingshot...

How dare you are saying that! SONY is literally sleeping relaxed for years and RED is working hard to make a progress in motion picture industry! RED is not the little guy! RED is big and scary! Cause they care about picture quality.

 

[Jon Jones]

Jim is doing business Bruce. If your going to be all butt hurt about how he does business, then send your camera back in like that one photographer guy. Big deal if he patented RAW image acquisition. It's too bad someone else didn't do it first, or else RED is the one that would be getting sued, then what would you say? You obviously don't understand American free market strategies. Do you feel like you are the one who is wearing the white "clean" hat, and somehow RED is wearing the black or "dirty" hat? Do you feel like you are next on the hit list to get sued by RED? Are you about to come out with some new and innovating product that may or may not be based on some of RED gear? You work primarily in editing/VFX right? How come you aren't down the throat of APPLE or Windows for being evil and patenting new and innovative software? People patent things Bruce, it doesn't make them evil or dirty, or immoral. And when someone else using the patented stuff, they get to deal with the legal ramifications just like anyone else.

You're totally right, Peter.

But you can understand if I now make it a priority to ensure that future filmmaking advances don't fall under the same cloud, right?

RED is perfectly welcome to dispel this cloud at any time by saying "of course we're not going to sue you just for making a compressed raw camera, you have to actually copy some specific stuff we're doing."

The fact that they haven't done that pretty much gives me enough reason to be wary... and begin documenting the heck out of what's obviously coming next so that some asshole doesn't patent it.

Can't hurt, right?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Peter Majtan]

RED is perfectly welcome to dispel this cloud at any time by saying "of course we're not going to sue you just for making a compressed raw camera, you have to actually copy some specific stuff we're doing."

For the record - I honestly think this actually is very obvious to be the case. While RED certainly has some muscles to throw around - SONY is also certainly not an amateur when it comes to legal stuff and retains the same caliber of lawyers/law companies representing it. And while Jim (and almost everyone else at RED) is positively mad (in the best sense of the word) - he is not dumb to sue someone like SONY for "nothing". Another fact that indicates this (what you've quoted) is that RED is not suing other companies that make cameras capable of recording 4K digital cinema imagery in a compressed RAW format - such as ARRI and CANON...

:sifone: Peter

 

[Patrick Grossien]

such as ARRI and CANON...

or Blackmagic or Digital Bolex... (as far as we know)

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Jim is not going to go into specifics because it is a case before the courts. He won't give away anything that may impact Sony's ability to fight them.

 

[Brian Boyer]

I think the argument is whether obviousness precludes uniqueness.

In other words, saying "Of course that's how you'd do it." doesn't make an idea any less unique if no one else thought/acted/bothered to do it before you.

My dad invented and received a patent on a system for deep-frying large amounts of food at one time using an already existing (and patented) piece of cookware as its base. It cuts down cooking time considerably for family functions and other events.

As obvious as it seems now, apparently no one else had ever thought to do it, not even the people who invented the existing cookware. The obviousness of the concept and design may seem to some like he's somehow cheating but that's not the case.

The method he employs is simple and the best way to do it. But, it took him months to realize it and he spent a fair amount of time and energy trying to employ other methods.

People have a hard time visualizing how it works when he describes it but after they see it, especially in action, they see just how simple, ingenious and useful it is and they want to buy his prototypes..and two of them, at that.

To the best of my knowledge, the patent isn't so broad that it excludes others from trying to achieve a similar outcome but just broad enough to cover the simplest and best way to do it. It's part of the design and the patent name.

He took an already existing concept, saw how he could repurpose it in a very effective and seemingly self-evident (despite never having been done before) manner, and received a patent that would make it difficult not to infringe upon if others wanted to do a similar thing well.

I guess my point is RED combined existing concepts, compression and raw capture, in a unique way for a specific purpose when others thought they knew a better way to do high resolution, if they were even bothering with higher than 1080p or 2K at all.

Trust me, you use something every day that was patented under similar circumstances.

 

[George Butterfield]

RED is perfectly welcome to dispel this cloud at any time by saying "of course we're not going to sue you just for making a compressed raw camera, you have to actually copy some specific stuff we're doing."

There's no "cloud" Bruce, RED will not sue you unless you infringe on one of their patents.

so that some asshole doesn't patent it.

It's the US Patent Office which issues patents, if you disagree with a patent ... sue them.

Can't hurt, right?

Definitely can't hurt, would be a colossal waste of my time, but can't hurt.

 

[Detlev Eller]

I think the argument is whether obviousness precludes uniqueness.

In other words, saying "Of course that's how you'd do it." doesn't make an idea any less unique if no one else thought/acted/bothered to do it before you.

My dad invented and received a patent on a system for deep-frying large amounts of food at one time using an already existing (and patented) piece of cookware as its base. It cuts down cooking time considerably for family functions and other events.

As obvious as it seems now, apparently no one else had ever thought to do it, not even the people who invented the existing cookware. The obviousness of the concept and design may seem to some like he's somehow cheating but that's not the case.

The method he employs is simple and the best way to do it. But, it took him months to realize it and he spent a fair amount of time and energy trying to employ other methods.


..... (shortened) ...

There!


Sometimes it takes the best years out of ones life to invent something, to right an utter wrong, to simplify and achieve the obvious ... and huge amounts of cash ... sometimes even cash that is borrowed, who would have thought! ... LOL ... which makes it tripple painful when the invention and inventor are not treated with respect and taken the right to cash in on the license fees and product sales - exclusively ...

Patents are good.

 

[M Most]

Patents are good.

The IDEA of patents is good. But an awful lot of patents that are issued are pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying that's the case here. But it is often the case.