Red sue Sony

[Elsie N]

PARTIAL QUOTE:
--------------------------------
ROGER VALDES

"But requesting all produced cameras to be destroyed and halt production? You gotta be kidding me."
--------------------------------

I have in the shed a certain Kodak instant camera that went out of raw stock and product support very smartly after Polaroid laid about with a litiginous stick over an infringement of either patent or implementation of an emulative design.

If such a finding went all the way against Sony and I guess calling a jury in aims for that outcome on the surface at least, Sony might say "gnotted" and depart the US market. It might just withdraw all of its own licencing rights on a great many things, close down its service divisions. It could put quite a few people out of work in the US and that is not an issue to be lightly considered. This might leverage their bargaining power in any settlement deal.

To quote Roger in a previous post "no"... which he defended by claiming common sense. Not sure his idea of common sense meets the common sense test. But I will offer my own version of common sense and hope it will stand any and all challenges.

That is, I think it is common sense that SONY will not leave their biggest single market, i.e., the US, just because they perhaps lose a lawsuit. They aren't the type of company to cut off their telewacker just to practice safe sex. '-)

 

[Dr. Sassi]

If "you" don't like to fight for your patents, why filing them in the first place?
My respect to RED to not stop even against a large company like SONY.

Right or wrong -- in this case -- is certainly out of my reach to judge.

Good Luck RED!

 

[Roger Valdes]

To quote Roger in a previous post "no"... which he defended by claiming common sense. Not sure his idea of common sense meets the common sense test. But I will offer my own version of common sense and hope it will stand any and all challenges.

That is, I think it is common sense that SONY will not leave their biggest single market, i.e., the US, just because they perhaps lose a lawsuit. They aren't the type of company to cut off their telewacker just to practice safe sex. '-)

Why bother the risk when they could have simply bought an Epic-M themselves?
Corporate espionage doesn't work that way. :- )

 

[Robert Hart]

Elsie N.


Agreed entirely. I don't think Sony would actually leave. It would be a big nose they would be amputating. They might pull on a bluff citing oppression and impossibility to trade profitably with their professional division if penalised to the extent that the RED claim asserts. Have the higher-end Cine-Alta cameras yielded significantly profitable return on R and D or have they been more of a prestige loss-leader cross-subsidised by the consumer-prosumer range of products?

Sony really have too much to lose unless they have had clever lawyers firewall their separate enterprises into untouchable chunks. The ARRI outcome does not look like too much of an affirmed win to me. It seems more of a putting it on the public record and publicity exercise in its achieved purpose. This is fine, just as effective, has contained costs and conserved court resources rather than try the matter to its ultimate conclusion. Or did they knockdown dragout brawl it to the very end and then somebody blinked. I don't know but would be interested to. ARRI will be more careful in the US in future but this might also have repercussions for RED enterprise in the Eurozone some day down the track, a pyrrhic victory maybe.

 

[Elsie N]

Why bother the risk when they could have simply bought an Epic-M themselves?
Corporate espionage doesn't work that way. :- )

In hindsight, you are probably right. They should have just bought a license to RED's technology including ASIC etc, encased it in their camera bodies, and slapped a higher price tag on it for those who will pay for the brand. They could even charge for their updates in order to separate them from "being like RED."

'-)

 

[Steve G]

Elsie N.


The ARRI outcome does not look like too much of an affirmed win to me. It seems more of a putting it on the public record and publicity exercise in its achieved purpose. This is fine, just as effective, has contained costs and conserved court resources rather than try the matter to its ultimate conclusion. Or did they knockdown dragout brawl it to the very end and then somebody blinked. I don't know but would be interested to. ARRI will be more careful in the US in future but this might also have repercussions for RED enterprise in the Eurozone some day down the track, a pyrrhic victory maybe.

Not really a victory for anyone.

Depending on the country, a criminal proceeding which ends prematurely due to error, mistake, or misconduct, may end as being dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. If the case ends without prejudice, the accused in the case (the defendant) may be retried. If the case ends with prejudice, the effect on the defendant (for the purpose of punishment) is the equivalent to a finding of not guilty and they cannot be retried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(legal_procedure)

 

[Elsie N]

Elsie N.


Agreed entirely. I don't think Sony would actually leave. It would be a big nose they would be amputating. They might pull on a bluff citing oppression and impossibility to trade profitably with their professional division if penalised to the extent that the RED claim asserts. Have the higher-end Cine-Alta cameras yielded significantly profitable return on R and D or have they been more of a prestige loss-leader cross-subsidised by the consumer-prosumer range of products?

Sony really have too much to lose unless they have had clever lawyers firewall their separate enterprises into untouchable chunks. The ARRI outcome does not look like too much of an affirmed win to me. It seems more of a putting it on the public record and publicity exercise in its achieved purpose. This is fine, just as effective, has contained costs and conserved court resources rather than try the matter to its ultimate conclusion. Or did they knockdown dragout brawl it to the very end and then somebody blinked. I don't know but would be interested to. ARRI will be more careful in the US in future but this might also have repercussions for RED enterprise in the Eurozone some day down the track, a pyrrhic victory maybe.

Yes, I think you've assessed the ARRI suit perfectly. But I think your idea of a bluff is unjustified since a court of law probably only deals with the facts of a case, and while a jury trial might seem to be something that could be influenced by such threats as you describe, I believe a judge would instruct a jury to just deal with the legal questions at hand.

But you could be right. Having no legal ground to stand on, attorneys could play the economy card.

 

[Steven Caesare]

Common sense tells me it's bullshit. :- )

This just seems like a lame Apple-esque attempt to frustrate the competition. They could go for a settlement.... But requesting all produced cameras to be destroyed and halt production? You gotta be kidding me.

Ah, it's a guess then. OK.

-sc

 

[Mike P.]

Settled. Dismissed with prejudice.

All parties meet own costs.

http://cinescopophilia.com/red-vs-a...-court-case-settled-dismissed-with-prejudice/

http://ia700800.us.archive.org/5/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.520148/gov.uscourts.cacd.520148.47.0.pdf

Not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem like a win. You pay your own expenses and nothing changes? I kind of thought it wouldn't take simply because Arri would disassociate themselves with the guilty Bravin and because I didn't think he (bravin) was in any way involved in engineering...

As for Sony vs RED case; does anyone know what the patents in question cover? Is it something stupidly broad or incredibly proprietary? Something tells me there's nothing overtly proprietary about the design of cameras other than the codec. I mean there are obviously little things, but the bones I would think are generally the same.

 

[Steven Caesare]

It was always my opinion that the original stolen RED stuff from way back when made it's way to European and Asian hands on the industrial black market. Shortly after the ONE was getting off the ground, there was a similar camera announced from a Russian company that seemed a little too good to be true given the name behind it and they never got it off the ground from what I recall because they were too early to the game and seemed to be under-funded. Over the past few years, there have also been several RED ONE knock-offs that sprung to life from foreign competitors that could have easily reverse engineered the various stolen RED ONE cameras and I've always had the opinion that many of those thefts were orchestrated through monitoring of this forum and the blogs of certain people who post here about their companies and the gear they get. That's why I plan on remaining anonymous if I ever buy a high-end RED product like the Epic-M. I simply won't put myself in the position of losing my investment.

It shouldn't surprise me. It appeared to be a rather "targeted" theft.

-sc

(Where abouts in the NoVA area are you at? I live in Ashburn)

 

[L. Langer]

I'm right outside Springfield in the suburban area of south Fairfax. Not too far from the horrible atrocity that is the "Beltway Mixing Bowl". I remember your awesome HT setup from AVSForum and I think I remember seeing a picture of your in-home networking lab as well. Like you, I work in the local IT field but I never got into networking, which I kinda now regret because I had free access to Cisco training as a kid.

 

[Steven Caesare]

I'm right outside Springfield in the suburban area of south Fairfax. Not too far from the horrible atrocity that is the "Beltway Mixing Bowl". I remember your awesome HT setup from AVSForum and I think I remember seeing a picture of your in-home networking lab as well. Like you, I work in the local IT field but I never got into networking, which I kinda now regret because I had free access to Cisco training as a kid.

Ah... you must be an AVSer as well? That's probably why your name looks familiar. OK, no more derailing this thread...

-sc

 

[L. Langer]

Indeed I am. :emote_hippie:

 

[Mike Harrington]

Not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem like a win. You pay your own expenses and nothing changes? I kind of thought it wouldn't take simply because Arri would disassociated themselves with the guilty Bravin and because I didn't think he (bravin) was in any way involved in engineering...

As for Sony vs RED case; does anyone know what the patents in question cover? Is it something stupidly broad or incredibly proprietary? Something tells me there's nothing overtly proprietary about the design of cameras other than the codec. I mean there are obviously little things, but the bones I would think are generally the same.

ya, I wouldn't call that a win either...
more of a stalemate

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Regarding the Arri case it sounds like to me like both parties agreed to a "voluntary dismissal with prejudice". This is pretty common in lawsuits like this, where there the parties reach an out of court settlement, because it prevents the plaintiff (RED) from suing the defendant (Arri) again over the same issue. The terms of their settlement are most likely confidential. Basically, RED didn't "lose" anything and most likely Arri did.

 

[MichaelP]

In many of these patent cases, there is usually a counter suit for patent violation and everyone walks always with cross-licensing. Filing a patent can be for defensive purposes as might be done in this case to counter-sue. Not knowing which patents are being violated, makes it somewhat difficult to speak to although if the patent has been granted it can be searched and then take a guess at which one. Then take a look at Sony patents and see what they might use as a defensive move...

Michael

 

[Brandon J.F.]

In many of these patent cases, there is usually a counter suit for patent violation and everyone walks always with cross-licensing. Filing a patent can be for defensive purposes as might be done in this case to counter-sue. Not knowing which patents are being violated, makes it somewhat difficult to speak to although if the patent has been granted it can be searched and then take a guess at which one. Then take a look at Sony patents and see what they might use as a defensive move...

Michael

Very true. This is the patent I believe: http://www.google.com/patents/US8358357

 

[Stephen Williams]

Patent was filed on 3 August 2012 & Published 22 January 2013 about 3 weeks ago-

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Patent was filed on 3 August 2012 & Published 22 January 2013 about 3 weeks ago-

They have a lot of patents. This is from 2008: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/viewer?url=www.google.com/patents/US20080291319.pdf

 

[Oliver Peters]

There are two patents listed in the filing document. # 8,174,560 and #8,358,357. The gist is that RED holds patents for Bayer-pattern images recorded as compressed data at rates of 23fps or faster.

- Oliver