Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Patent lawsuit...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that it was clesr, compressed RAW at framerates higher than 23fps and higher than res 2K.

Now that seems bloody clear to me.

I like the Canon C500 recording on a Gemini, that's 4K uncompressed and therefore outside the scope of this action.

It seems very simple...
 
Tom Lowe said:
I actually remember Jim talking about Red's patent on REDCODE RAW a couple years ago on this forum, and basically predicting that someone would try to copy it ... he was essentially warning other companies not to try it. Jim has always clearly understood the value of Redcode RAW, and knew someone would try to cut corners and use his advancements without paying the piper. This actually surprises me not at all, and I doubt seriously that it surprises Jim, maybe aside from the fact that he might not have foreseen a company as large and established as Sony as being the ones who would violate his patent.
Click to expand...

Been thinking about those patent posts from a few years back myself.

Anticipation...

Jim seems to be very good at that on many levels.
So when I sometimes go into the 4k+ delivery-discussion with him, it is with the knowledge that he WILL be right.

That's not the background.
Hiring seems to be another strong side of him. That being Graeme (patentholder of RedcodeRAW) or lawyers.

I read the patent documents back then, haven't bothered now, but remember the crediting of cineforms wavelets/RAW codec back then, so the issue is probably not Wavelets in themselves, as Graeme hardly invented that despite all his skills.
But he may well (I don't understand neither patent lingo or "engineer") have invented a very effective and smart way to apply wavelet compression to high resolution linear RAW images. Guess what... RC28 in 4k on (what was standard Lexar) 8GB Lexar CF cards, is pretty much the ultimate proof for that... Yup... Patents were issued, RAW was compressed, wavelets in play (which is all credited) but then:
add magic pixies.

And all in all, that's the small guys we love, and I would guess this is all about.
And if it is - totally independant of the compressed vs uncompressed discussion currently ragingf on some boards - RED MUST defend that IP...
Because whether you like the RedcodeRAW or not, THAT is in many ways pretty much what makes RED RED.

And if Sony DID copy the magic pixies, and that way managed to change their path from the F35 to the F55...

well... actually...

I generally hate the idea of destroying good equipment, but I am unsure which would be the most damning for the Sony Pro division.

1. Publicly crediting RED for their new codec
2. Destructions of their cameras.

But if they tried to steal the magic pixies, one of those are not unlikely to happen, and rightfully so.

I was so glad to see Sony join the 4k club and having a shot at a full 4k ecosystem with distribution and the playstation and new panels...

I still think that is a good idea...
 
Curious as to why you filed a patent case in a District court rather than a 337 case at the International Trade Commission? Or is a 337 case the sound of the other foot dropping?
 
Almost all lawsuits never go to trial and this will be no different. They will settle for an undisclosed sum. The threat of destruction of cameras is merely a threat the motivate litigation but won't happen any more than the countless other people who sue movie studios just weeks before a movie release over some alleged ip infringement will stop the release of a AAA blockbuster. Also it'll likely take a least a year before they settle.
 
Bruce Allen said:
I am not coming to conclusions or mixing stuff up. I am just asking Jim a simple question:


Jacob, you seem to be jumping to conclusions that RED is suing Sony for something more specific - specifically "copying some kind of wavelength Compression math". What do you mean by that exactly?

BTW I have read the patents. Where in the patent is this unique and specific algorithm that Sony is supposed to have copied?

If they have copied REDCODE exactly... sure, sue them! But what if they used their own-developed compressed raw format?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Bruce,

Jim said that the lawsuit is in regards to REDCODE which is the "wavelength Compression math" i was speaking of. So when you asked Jim about if this is about something more specific he had already answered your question and said "This is a REDCODE RAW issue" so i was simply trying to explain to you that this is not about RAW compression and wanted to give you a little background about the technology. Now i have not looked at the patent, but i'm sure there are a lot of equations and diagrams that i won't understand and maybe you don't either.

Hope that clears things up, but again i was just trying to answer your question.
 
Yeah Gunleik - that's the real question.

Is this about

"compressed raw video cameras are RED's patented brilliant concept mwahahaha"

or

"Sony stole very very specific magic pixies related to raw video compression"

I would love to hear some clarification from Jim on which one it is.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
The world of inventions and ideas is in danger, if someone has to explain him/her-self owning rightfully a patent.

Sony should know better. ... much better.
 
In the case for Red, I hope it's an amicable resolution with a reasonable licensing fee for both parties.
It would also be good if the defence has to publish a report in major trade magazines of an amicable resolution.

I don't pretend to know whether 1080P is/was a licensed product, so I can appreciate Red's defence.
However, opening it up for everyone can only proliferate it as the standard.

On a similar note, I am sick and tired of the litigious nature of big companies that are using patent protection as
a means of revenue and competitive destruction.

Long Live Red.
l
 
I'm with Bruce. I would love to know if Sony took specific compression implementations invented by RED, or if RED is trying to prevent Sony from compressing RAW in a way that would be obvious to any skilled software engineer.

One scenario has RED defending their work, the other has RED preventing progress.

We all build off the knowledge of others, and the American patent system has become notoriously broken, so the first reaction for many is to be skeptical.
 
Which is why they will probably never say either way.
 
Considering the cameras prices were dropped in half days before Sony announced their cameras, hasnt the damage already been done in terms of protecting consumers investments?

After this lawsuit, does it not seem like Sony's cameras were the reason for the drop in price and not the 'we are better at what we do so we want the customers to benefit from the savings' statements?

If Sony really stole something SPECIFIC from Red then I hope Red gets paid, but it sure feels like a lot of double speak and makes me wonder if Sony just really nailed it with the F55 and F5 cameras.
 
geoffboyle said:
I thought that it was clesr, compressed RAW at framerates higher than 23fps and higher than res 2K.

Now that seems bloody clear to me.

I like the Canon C500 recording on a Gemini, that's 4K uncompressed and therefore outside the scope of this action.

It seems very simple...
Click to expand...

It might be except for the fact that Canon Raw is NOT uncompressed. It is compressed using "lossless" compression, whatever that means this week.
 
I don't know but I have seen images off of the F65 and they blow RED away BIG TIME! But then again so does the cost of the dang thing, lol.

Paul Harb said:
Considering the cameras prices were dropped in half days before Sony announced their cameras, hasnt the damage already been done in terms of protecting consumers investments?

After this lawsuit, does it not seem like Sony's cameras were the reason for the drop in price and not the 'we are better at what we do so we want the customers to benefit from the savings' statements?

If Sony really stole something SPECIFIC from Red then I hope Red gets paid, but it sure feels like a lot of double speak and makes me wonder if Sony just really nailed it with the F55 and F5 cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Gundu said:
It sold brand new on ebay for 30K.
Click to expand...

Seen them go in that segment too, from what seems to be finance institutions.

The F65 may be excelent, but it seems to have a few issues gaining ground. At least around here. Not so with the f55...
 
We must also keep in mind that while pending litigation is underway, Red will be informed not to divulge info regarding specifics to the case. They will not be in a position to defend themselves. Let's not confuse this silence with any weaknesses regarding the merits of their case. We are accustomed and quite fortunate that Red has always been very forthcoming and as transparent as they are. I was quite surprised when Jim started this thread, and everyone who has ever been personally involved in litigation knows, regardless of whether you're a plaintiff or defendant, it can be a very sensitive topic.
 
Bruce Allen said:
BTW I have read the patents. Where in the patent is this unique and specific algorithm that Sony is supposed to have copied?
Click to expand...

The patens are rather informative. For example, they explain how the green channel is exploited (in a clever way) in debayering and there are sketches of how the real time debayering for monitoring is arranged. Such solutions are not obvious and have taken a mental effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top