Red sue Sony

[mark haflich]

Its pretty easy stuff to understand and ... RESPECT!!


No one in the right mind would be coming out with a "AVENGERS" story line movie... Unless they first went to "MARVEL" and got their "Permission/Approval" to use the name and story line of each and every single one of their characters...

.. And for this they need to play by the rules, and pay "Royalties" to the creator.

As simple as that, same as any Copyrighted material a "Patent" protects one's invention, and if any one else's wishes to use it and or replicate it in part or in all, the "LAW" says they should do so only by prior "Approval" of its "Patent" holder, and obviously they will be an agreement were the "Patent" holder will receive "Royalties".

In the case of RED vs. SONY is seems prety clear that this is exactly what it is about, were SONY Electronics seem to have borrowed some of the tehcnology within the REDCODE Raw without permission, and RED is fighting to protect the rights given by such "Patent".


Pretty simple to understand really...


I like Sony same as I do like Red and have gear of both companies, and even so I surely will never buy any of current Sony's cameras, I do respect the choices for any one else to be able to buy them, and it is in this spirit that I don't wish upon them to loose in such a way to have to eliminate from the market all of their F65, F55, & F5 cameras, but I sure strongly support Jim and RED and wish they win this Law Suit and Force Sony in to submission for their wrong doing, were they come to an agreement for Sony to pay "Fair" Royalties on any product sold that makes use of the technology borrowed out of RED's hard and expensive R&D.

Its not that simple. The patent requires enforcement by the holder. The holder has the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the term of the patent. Thus, a holder could grant a license etc or impose requirements on the practice and not exclude.

but there are two issues which come up. I see something in a patent and say who. that isn't an invention within the meaning of the patent laws. those idiots at the patent and Trademark office granted an invalid patent or at least invalid to particular claims in question. so i ignore it. i do what I want. I am not stealing intellectual property because without a valid grant there is none. Moreover, I can look at a patent and say I am going to do something else that does not fall within the claims.

The only way it gets sorted out is through the litigation process which often never reaches an adjudicated conclusion.

But nothing is ever stolen. No crime is committed. If the courts conclude that a claim in question is valid and someone's product is an infringement, civil damages are provided for. Civil, not criminal.


And remember, most patents are worthless. Expensive to get, many times invalid, and very expensive to enforce. That is why trade secrecy is often a better option or just rush to marget and capture first.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

R3D REDCODE Raw

R3D REDCODE Raw

At the risk of sounding redundant on this issue; It’s the “R3D REDCODE Files” that are in question here! They belong to Red.Com ONLY, and they are they’re the ONLY ones that can use them. Sony, Arri, and anyone else could have objected during the Patent process, but once the Patent was granted, Red had a New Way of Making “Digital Cinema” the rest stayed behind in the “RGB World” forever or until they invent something other than “R3D REDCODE Files” without “Baking In Anything”, Good Luck! It’s really that simple!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDCODE “REDCODE RAW (R3D) is a proprietary multimedia audio/video file format owned by Red Digital Cinema Camera Company and featuring lossy compression for video contents and lossless for audio contents. It is used as native recording format of Red digital cameras and recorded on proprietary Hard Disk Drives, CompactFlash cards or SSD drives, but can be extracted from there and be trivially handled in any file-based audio/video, IT or home environments.”

Humberto Rivera

 

[John Bellari]

I fully support Red protecting their IP. I've said for years now I wish Red would license Redcode RAW.
Maybe this is Red's only way to do so, though not the preferred way...

I hope Sony loses in court quickly and painfully, and officially becomes the first major manufacturer to license Red's technology
the proper way.

Best wishes to Jim & the Red Team!

 

[Andy Corleone]

I never saw this happening in the early days of RAW Photography. can you imagine this : let say NIKON owning the copyright for RAW photography and not allowing other companies. this would kill othe competition like Canon, Panasonic. ETC. the real loser in all this are the consumers. is very simple to me. if sony cameras are better than RED me as a consumer want to have the option to decided which is beter. and in how RED is acting tell me that the sony camera have something that really worrying them.

First RED saw the threat of the F5 and F55 and lower the prices. later find out this wasn't not enough and them now is suing sony. I seriously doubt sony is using anything from Redcode. I firmly think the technology was there and Symple RED was just first to patented.

I just want RED to be focus in delivering the RED dragon and them me making the choise if the F5 is beter than a EPIC dragon

At the risk of sounding redundant on this issue; It’s the “R3D REDCODE Files” that are in question here! They belong to Red.Com ONLY, and they are they’re the ONLY ones that can use them. Sony, Arri, and anyone else could have objected during the Patent process, but once the Patent was granted, Red had a New Way of Making “Digital Cinema” the rest stayed behind in the “RGB World” forever or until they invent something other than “R3D REDCODE Files” without “Baking In Anything”, Good Luck! It’s really that simple!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDCODE “REDCODE RAW (R3D) is a proprietary multimedia audio/video file format owned by Red Digital Cinema Camera Company and featuring lossy compression for video contents and lossless for audio contents. It is used as native recording format of Red digital cameras and recorded on proprietary Hard Disk Drives, CompactFlash cards or SSD drives, but can be extracted from there and be trivially handled in any file-based audio/video, IT or home environments.”

Humberto Rivera

 

[Bob Gundu]

You're really connecting some crazy dots here. Why are you bringing price reductions into this conversation? When you feel someone has trampled on your copyright, you would get your lawyers involved. Redcode is backbone of the RED system. That includes cameras, players, and projectors. It's not about whats better. It's about protecting what you built the company after.

I never saw this happening in the early days of RAW Photography. can you imagine this : let say NIKON owning the copyright for RAW photography and not allowing other companies. this would kill othe competition like Canon, Panasonic. ETC. the real loser in all this are the consumers. is very simple to me. if sony cameras are better than RED me as a consumer want to have the option to decided which is beter. and in how RED is acting tell me that the sony camera have something that really worrying them.

First RED saw the threat of the F5 and F55 and lower the prices. later find out this wasn't not enough and them now is suing sony. I seriously doubt sony is using anything from Redcode. I firmly think the technology was there and Symple RED was just first to patented.

I just want RED to be focus in delivering the RED dragon and them me making the choise if the F5 is beter than a EPIC dragon

 

[Michel Rabe]

Redcode Raw was one of the major reasons I invested in the RED system. I hope judges and jury can understand what impact it has.

 

[Peter Proniewicz-Brooks]

I never saw this happening in the early days of RAW Photography. can you imagine this : let say NIKON owning the copyright for RAW photography and not allowing other companies. this would kill othe competition like Canon, Panasonic. ETC. the real loser in all this are the consumers. is very simple to me. if sony cameras are better than RED me as a consumer want to have the option to decided which is beter. and in how RED is acting tell me that the sony camera have something that really worrying them.

First RED saw the threat of the F5 and F55 and lower the prices. later find out this wasn't not enough and them now is suing sony. I seriously doubt sony is using anything from Redcode. I firmly think the technology was there and Symple RED was just first to patented.

I just want RED to be focus in delivering the RED dragon and them me making the choise if the F5 is beter than a EPIC dragon

Because in the early days of stills RAW they each used their own system or correctly licensed it from others. Without any patent laws at all consumers often lose out as companies shy away from to much R&D as without the protection it's a lot harder to recoup the costs of it. With too heavy patent laws, then they lose out due to completion being stifled.

 

[Roger Valdes]

Red THINKS Sony violated their copyrights.

It's up to the judge to decide whether this is fact or not.

 

[Elsie N]

Red THINKS Sony violated their copyrights.

It's up to the judge to decide whether this is fact or not.

And the jury. I think RED chose a jury trial because they believe they can prove their case in a way that a lay person can understand. Not only that, but unlike many posters on this forum who see RED as the Goliath in this legal battle and SONY as the little David with a slingshot, a jury will recognize the opposite. (RED should be flattered that they are being hailed as the big bully of the industry... you've come a long way, Baby!)

 

[Tom Cheater]

This is red scared of competition plain and simple. i love their tools, support and commitment but their ethics and attitude stink.

 

[Elsie N]

This is red scared of competition plain and simple. i love their tools, support and commitment but their ethics and attitude stink.

With a name like yours I'm not surprised you side with Sony. '-)

(Sorry, opportunities like this don't come along very often. Feel free to diss me in any way you please as retaliation.)

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Its not that simple. The patent requires enforcement by the holder. The holder has the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the term of the patent. Thus, a holder could grant a license etc or impose requirements on the practice and not exclude.

but there are two issues which come up. I see something in a patent and say who. that isn't an invention within the meaning of the patent laws. those idiots at the patent and Trademark office granted an invalid patent or at least invalid to particular claims in question. so i ignore it. i do what I want. I am not stealing intellectual property because without a valid grant there is none. Moreover, I can look at a patent and say I am going to do something else that does not fall within the claims.

The only way it gets sorted out is through the litigation process which often never reaches an adjudicated conclusion.

But nothing is ever stolen. No crime is committed. If the courts conclude that a claim in question is valid and someone's product is an infringement, civil damages are provided for. Civil, not criminal.


And remember, most patents are worthless. Expensive to get, many times invalid, and very expensive to enforce. That is why trade secrecy is often a better option or just rush to marget and capture first.

Of course its never simple, but what it is simple is for every one to understand that there is the right to defend what you have worked hard to achieve, and make those that try to take it form you and or use it without proper permission pay for it, if it happens that they didn't know they needed permission, then with a Law suit they'll find out and worked out, that is pretty simple concept to me, all else has of course its complication as everything else in the life of a modern age, were instead that being ruled by common sense everything is ruled buy silly laws and lawyers, such is the stage of our social status.


Fortunately not all Laws are silly, and not all lawyers are legalized criminals out to take advantage of any one they can.

 

[M Most]

A few short comments.

This is about legalities, not "fairness," "competition," or logic. The legal system has nothing to do with any of those things.

For those here who seem to think that Red invented Raw, Compressed Raw, or its use in motion imaging, here are some facts. Kinetta built and showed publicly a handheld digital cinema camera that recorded RAW sensor information on-board at least 2 years before the Red One was ever revealed. Jim Jannard has acknowledged publicly that Kinetta was a major inspiration for what became the Red One. Silicon Imaging had 2 products - the original SI and the SI2K - on the market for at least a year before Red released anything. They used Cineform's Cineform Raw product to record, yes, wavelet compressed RAW information to a hard drive, albeit external to the camera (which is exactly what Sony and Canon are doing, incidentally, albeit with different compression schemes). Arri had Raw output available on the D21 at least 3 years before the Red One showed up. And finally, it was shown very early on that Redcode's compression is largely based on JPEG2000, which is an open format available to all.

As I said, legalities have nothing to do with logic, competition, or fairness. They have to do with the law and nothing else. Nobody here who doesn't work for Red is privy to the details of their legal case, or the merits thereof. The likely outcome, if there is one, is that a settlement will be reached, some money will or will not be exchanged, and that will be that. No products are going to be destroyed and competition will still exist. I would also point out that the F65 has been on the market for over a year now, but the suit didn't seem to be filed until after the announcement of the F55 and F5 - products which are considerably more price competitive with Red's offerings. Certainly not a coincidence. Red has certainly, without question, been an innovator in many ways, from technology to marketing. And they have made a significant impact in the industry, both established and not established. And they will continue to do so, regardless of how lawsuits work out. But nearly everything that's made by any manufacturer "borrows" ideas from previous products done by other manufacturers, or is at least "inspired" by them. It is sometimes difficult, especially in the world of technology and in an age of open source software, to determine when there is or even should be a "line" that one has or has not crossed. Nothing is simple, and nothing is black and white (well, except for the Red Monochrome camera, of course....).

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Obviously, nobody is allowed to use REDCODE RAW except RED but if it's "just" a matter of compressing a RAW signal off of a CMOS sensor using a wavelet codec based on JPEG2000 (or a variant of it) then there's no case as far as I'm concerned. Compressed RAW is something ALL professional digital cameras do nowadays - especially so with still cameras. Lawsuits should always be the absolutely last option to resolve any conflict... I just hope RED keeps their eyes on the ball - and by that I mean putting all of their focus into making the best tools for filmmakers.

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

Well put, M Most!

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

All well and good, but once a patent is issued, you still have to license the technology. If Sony is incorporating REDCODE technology into their compression scheme, then they should pay. That is the price for being last instead of first.

Just as RED had to license Pro Res from Apple to implement it into the Meizler.

I don't see how this case is much different.

If RED is right, Sony pays. If RED patented something which should not have been patented in the first place, then it will be challenged and tossed. Sony can keep doing what they're doing.

It all seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a need to paint either party as the bad guy.

 

[mark haflich]

I am a retired laywer and a retired engineer.

Business decisions involve legal assessments of risks.

A lawyer is not a crook because he/she analyzes a patent and concludes there is no infringement or that a patent will not be held vaiid as a legal conclusion to litigation. It all boils down to an sassessment of risks. Patent litigation is also a tool. Threatening litigation and bringing a suit. The costs of prosecuting a patent case are high and so are the costs of a defense. neither side can be certain of the outcome and the best scenario often is to settle Hoever, if you have the funds and the time and are convinced you are right, then the courts will ultimately decide.

 

[Rob McDonough]

Some of this discussion appears rational, some of it looks like a biased political debate. Both sides have been accused of being arrogant bullies, RED has been described as cutthroat with questionable business practices and Sony as a thief and pirate.

As a former Sony guy, I could take this opportunity to attack them as the cause for my being out of work, or defend them out of predjudice. But neither is relevant.

My experience with Sony tells me that, possible individual exceptions aside, they would never condone stealing a product to reverse engineer it. They would just buy it. Also, they would never reverse engineer it to steal from it, but might to make better competitive arguments from a thorough understanding of the competition. There is too much pride in innovation. They would rather out-design them. The Japanese (in Japan) don't even accept tips, because they take such a level of pride in their work. Good service is a given. One of the most annoying things about working for Sony was all of the courses on business integrity they required annually. Including protecting the Intellectual Property of their own competitors. It is the Japanese sense of integrity which produced the practice of sepuka, taking one's own life rather than live with dishonor.

In addition, companies are often working on similar ideas at the same time, and can simply beat each other to the punch. Doesn't mean either side stooped to stealing.

Sony is big, and experienced, which means they have good lawyers, and know how to use them.

But if I were RED, and felt my patents were being infringed upon, I would defend them. And more power to them if they are right. My understanding of some of the principles of the founders, and the comments made here about never losing a lawsuit could mean they are simply doing what they feel is right, and have the facts on their side.

May the underlying truths prevail.

 

[Jon Jones]

Exactly! Who cares who wins... As long as we get our digital cinema cameras on the cheap! RED, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, ARRI.... I don't care what the name is on the side of my camera, just as long as I can afford to keep it, haha!

All well and good, but once a patent is issued, you still have to license the technology. If Sony is incorporating REDCODE technology into their compression scheme, then they should pay. That is the price for being last instead of first.

Just as RED had to license Pro Res from Apple to implement it into the Meizler.

I don't see how this case is much different.

If RED is right, Sony pays. If RED patented something which should not have been patented in the first place, then it will be challenged and tossed. Sony can keep doing what they're doing.

It all seems pretty straightforward. I don't see a need to paint either party as the bad guy.

 

[Jannard]

Mike... it is a good thing you are a great colorist because you would have a hard time as a legal analyst.

Don't quit your day job.

Jim

A few short comments.

This is about legalities, not "fairness," "competition," or logic. The legal system has nothing to do with any of those things.

For those here who seem to think that Red invented Raw, Compressed Raw, or its use in motion imaging, here are some facts. Kinetta built and showed publicly a handheld digital cinema camera that recorded RAW sensor information on-board at least 2 years before the Red One was ever revealed. Jim Jannard has acknowledged publicly that Kinetta was a major inspiration for what became the Red One. Silicon Imaging had 2 products - the original SI and the SI2K - on the market for at least a year before Red released anything. They used Cineform's Cineform Raw product to record, yes, wavelet compressed RAW information to a hard drive, albeit external to the camera (which is exactly what Sony and Canon are doing, incidentally, albeit with different compression schemes). Arri had Raw output available on the D21 at least 3 years before the Red One showed up. And finally, it was shown very early on that Redcode's compression is largely based on JPEG2000, which is an open format available to all.

As I said, legalities have nothing to do with logic, competition, or fairness. They have to do with the law and nothing else. Nobody here who doesn't work for Red is privy to the details of their legal case, or the merits thereof. The likely outcome, if there is one, is that a settlement will be reached, some money will or will not be exchanged, and that will be that. No products are going to be destroyed and competition will still exist. I would also point out that the F65 has been on the market for over a year now, but the suit didn't seem to be filed until after the announcement of the F55 and F5 - products which are considerably more price competitive with Red's offerings. Certainly not a coincidence. Red has certainly, without question, been an innovator in many ways, from technology to marketing. And they have made a significant impact in the industry, both established and not established. And they will continue to do so, regardless of how lawsuits work out. But nearly everything that's made by any manufacturer "borrows" ideas from previous products done by other manufacturers, or is at least "inspired" by them. It is sometimes difficult, especially in the world of technology and in an age of open source software, to determine when there is or even should be a "line" that one has or has not crossed. Nothing is simple, and nothing is black and white (well, except for the Red Monochrome camera, of course....).