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 :)

Red sue Sony

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was a pleaure to read your post Sir

M Most said:
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....).
Click to expand...
 
M Most said:
albeit external to the camera (which is exactly what Sony and Canon are doing, incidentally, albeit with different compression schemes).
Click to expand...

Mike -

It's pretty damn stupid to refer to the AXS-R5 Recorder for the F5 and F55 as "an external recorder". It's not. It's a part of the camera you can remove or attach. It can not record anything other than the RAW feed from F5 for F55 and it can not function without being attached to an F5 or F55. So ... what's "external" about it. It's a optional/removable part of the camera. I'm not saying there is any legal relevance to this - I'm not qualified to comment on a the legalities of a patent suit - so I won't - but the AXS-R5 Recorder is NOT the same thing as recording Cineform on a windows computer attached to an SI2k or using a Cinedeck - which really is a 3rd party external recorder.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Mike -

It's pretty damn stupid to refer to the AXS-R5 Recorder for the F5 and F55 as "an external recorder". It's not. It's a part of the camera you can remove or attach. It can not record anything other than the RAW feed from F5 for F55 and it can not function without being attached to an F5 or F55. So ... what's "external" about it. It's a optional/removable part of the camera. I'm not saying there is any legal relevance to this - I'm not qualified to comment on a the legalities of a patent suit - so I won't - but the AXS-R5 Recorder is NOT the same thing as recording Cineform on a windows computer attached to an SI2k or using a Cinedeck - which really is a 3rd party external recorder.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

In the future, Sony could invent an AXS-R6 which is smaller, has better compression chips that use less power, uses different media and has no fan, right?

Epic can't do that. You can't unplug the raw recorder and plug in a better recorder later. RED's recorder is built into the same body where the sensor is.

This would make the F55 and F5 setup fundamentally different from RED's system - and in my opinion, better.

And Sony could quite easily build a "AXS-R5 extension cord" in the future to make it like a modular Alexa. Another thing Epic cannot do.

Also, the F65 is included in the lawsuit as well...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce, this business is just that, It's business. RED has patents on something, and Sony is using the patented something. It's not rocket surgery. It's not about hurt feelings or black and white. In the real world there are various shades of grey and that is why we have our legal system. Don't get but hurt because big corporations are suing each other. I bet you go to Wal-Mart even though they support slave labor in third world countries. I bet you wear Nike's that are made by little Vietnamese slave kids. I bet you even have an iphone made by Chinese workers that aren't slave workers but might as well be considering their pay and work environment. This is not about moral right and wrong here. This is about business, and in this day and age, this is common place.

Bruce Allen said:
Yeah.

Who cares about historical precedent or right or wrong.

I'm outta here if RED doesn't clarify their position better.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Allen said:
But you agree that potentially in the future, Sony will invent an AXS-R2 which is smaller, has better compression chips that use less power, uses different media and has no fan, right?

Epic can't do that and this would make the F55 and F5 setup fundamentally different from RED's system of having the RAW recorder built into the body where the sensor is.

And Sony could quite easily build a "AXS-R5 extension cord" in the future to make it like a modular Alexa. Another thing Epic cannot do.

Also, the F65 is included in the lawsuit as well...

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

Bruce -

As I stated, I was not commenting on the lawsuit. I'll leave that to you experts. I'm just saying that I think it's silly to refer to the AXS-R5 Recorder as an "external recorder". If you want to call it that - than you can call the DSMC SSD Side module as an external recorder. With respect to "Another thing Epic cannot do" ... well ... all I'm gonna say is ... I'm fairly confident everything RED is working on is not discussed on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Mark L. Pederson said:
Bruce -

As I stated, I was not commenting on the lawsuit. I'll leave that to you experts. I'm just saying that I think it's silly to refer to the AXS-R5 Recorder as an "external recorder". If you want to call it that - than you can call the DSMC SSD Side module as an external recorder. With respect to "Another thing Epic cannot do" ... well ... all I'm gonna say is ... everything RED is building is not discussed on this forum.
Click to expand...

Well it's certainly not an internal recorder, you have to clip it onto the back via a mounting bracket wether or not it's stand alone recorder is a different matter.
 
Jon Jones said:
Bruce, this business is just that, It's business. RED has patents on something, and Sony is using the patented something. It's not rocket surgery. It's not about hurt feelings or black and white. In the real world there are various shades of grey and that is why we have our legal system. Don't get but hurt because big corporations are suing each other. I bet you go to Wal-Mart even though they support slave labor in third world countries. I bet you wear Nike's that are made by little Vietnamese slave kids. I bet you even have an iphone made by Chinese workers that aren't slave workers but might as well be considering their pay and work environment. This is not about moral right and wrong here. This is about business, and in this day and age, this is common place.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't shop at Walmart, I don't own Nike shoes and don't own an iPhone! I don't buy primarily based on how it affects Vietnamese slave kids (and understand that it's more of a complex dynamic than that) but that is a factor.

And hey, isn't this being used as a justification for why we should support RED? "Hey, this is good for America! We manufacture locally!"

But this is all besides the point: as a filmmaker it is not in my self-interest to support a company that's going to sue the crap out of all the other camera manufacturers for broad stuff like "making a video camera that shoots compressed raw bayer images"... unless they want to actually invent a ton of groundbreaking stuff.

The F65, F55 and F5 appear to me to be really different to an Epic.

For one thing, the external raw recorder can be swapped out.

So you can buy an F55 and then let's say Sony figure out how to make a smaller, lighter raw recorder in a year's time: you can unplug the AXS-R5 and plug this new recorder in. Or let's say Sony comes up with an extension cable so you can put the AXS-R5 on your belt and run just the camera head on a Steadicam.

Or let's say you bend the pins on your AXS-R5. You can send just that bit back for service and rent another AXS-R5 and keep shooting.

This is a smarter design and a better design.

I hope that the next Epic will try something like this.

If Sony patents "a camera and external compressed raw recorder that can either be attached to the camera or attached to an extension cord" and sues anyone doing that... I will be similarly PISSED at Sony. Because all this does is hurt me as a filmmaker.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
Well it's certainly not an internal recorder, you have to clip it onto the back via a mounting bracket wether or not it's stand alone recorder is a different matter.
Click to expand...

sure - like I said - if you want to follow the semantics of that terminology - the DSMC SSD Side module is an "external recorder" - because you need to attach it. It's not "internal", right? Just saying that for the past yew years - "external recorder" has referred to "stand alone recorders". PIX 240, KiPro mini, KiPro Quad, BM HyperDeck, Atomos, etc. etc. - I've tested the F55 - and I would never refer to the AXS-R5 as an external recorder - it's a optional/removable part of the camera - and IMO - the camera is close to useless without it because the XAVC is only good for editorial.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
sure - like I said - if you want to follow the semantics of that terminology - the DSMC SSD Side module is an "external recorder" - because you need to attach it. It's not "internal", right? Just saying that for the past yew years - "external recorder" has referred to "stand alone recorders". PIX 240, KiPro mini, KiPro Quad, BM HyperDeck, Atomos, etc. etc. - I've tested the F55 - and I would never refer to the AXS-R5 as an external recorder - it's a optional/removable part of the camera - and IMO - the camera is close to useless without it because the XAVC is only good for editorial.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be as quick as you to rule out XAVC's lightly-compressed 10-bit Log 4K for finishing... but that's beside the point.

Not as a legal commentator but as a filmmaker, you have a voice, right?

Are you HAPPY with the idea that the folks we have been supporting as the saviors of indie film decide to patent something as basic as "hey, let's make a video camera based around a Bayer sensor that stores raw (like most DSLRs) and (like most digital video cameras) compresses its data and stores it internally"... and then sues the other manufacturers who also do this obvious thing?

Seriously, we are not lawyers and I have no idea who will win. But Mark, doesn't this upset you if this is what the case is about? I'm all for innovation but this doesn't seem to be about patenting specific stuff but rather a very general concept.

No wonder cameras are expensive if you can try to patent something this basic and then try to sue the heck out of everyone.

Again, I'm hoping it's something more specific but from Jim's comments I fear it is not.

RED has always marketed itself as more than a business. They have marketed themselves as being in it for the filmmaker. This move feels pretty much a betrayal of those values to me.

Seriously, Mark, you're a smart guy and have been here since the beginning. You know what Cineform / Silicon Imaging were doing. You know what RED invented, and what was more of things bubbling up in the film and semiconductor industry that they were part of.

Don't you feel qualms about giving more money to a company that is then going to take that money and use it to sue other guys and generally hinder the development of other compressed raw video cameras?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce Allen said:
I wouldn't be as quick as you to rule out XAVC's lightly-compressed 10-bit Log 4K for finishing... but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...

Well ... then they better improve their firmware. Like I said - I have tested the F55 (have you?) - and you don't have to look hard for objectionable artifacts in the XAVC.

Bruce Allen said:
Not as a legal commentator but as a filmmaker, you have a voice, right?

Are you HAPPY with the idea that the folks we have been supporting as the saviors of indie film decide to patent something as basic as "hey, let's make a video camera based around a Bayer sensor that stores raw (like most DSLRs) and (like most digital video cameras) compresses its data and stores it internally"... and then sues the other manufacturers who also do this obvious thing?

Seriously, we are not lawyers and I have no idea who will win. But Mark, doesn't this upset you if this is what the case is about? I'm all for innovation but this doesn't seem to be about patenting specific stuff but rather a very general concept.

No wonder cameras are expensive if you can try to patent something this basic and then try to sue the heck out of everyone.

Again, I'm hoping it's something more specific but from Jim's comments I fear it is not.

RED has always marketed itself as more than a business. They have marketed themselves as being in it for the filmmaker. This move feels pretty much a betrayal of those values to me.

Seriously, Mark, you're a smart guy and have been here since the beginning. You know what Cineform / Silicon Imaging were doing. You know what RED invented, and what was more of things bubbling up in the film and semiconductor industry that they were part of.

Don't you feel qualms about giving more money to a company that is then going to take that money and use it to sue other guys and generally hinder the development of other compressed raw video cameras?

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

Bruce - I honestly don't understand your logic at all. I think Jim's post in the other thread really sums it up. Jim spent millions developing technology. Hundreds of RED employees work tirelessly on RED's products and technologies. IP is created and needs to be protected. It's really that simple. If RED violated one of Sony's patents, or ARRI patents - they would be sued in 2 seconds. You seem to have decided that the suit has no merit already ... and that RED is in the wrong for engaging in legal activity to protect IP .... you must know a lot more than I do. If this suit really has no merit as you seem to believe - I imagine it will get dismissed quickly. All I know is that Jim is a smart man, who has worked really, really hard, and took huge personal risks to do something he is sincerely passionate about it. He should protect that body of work with every resource. That's what I would do.
 
Semantics. You don't violatre a patent, you infringe it. I take no position on the merits. But because it is technical as to imfringement and complex, no such suit gets dismissed quickly.

Jannard in another thread he started on the suit, made a statement that is rediculous. He said that if you apply for and are granted a petent, it is your duty to defend it. That is not the case. It is your right to attempt to prove the infringement and to enforce the monopoly it gives you for 17 years. It imposes no duty. I respect his right but not a statement that it is a duty because the Patent Office granted a patent.
 
Last edited:
Jannard said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh, I'll readily admit that I'm a lousy legal analyst. But aside from my comments on the legal system - which are admittedly an opinion - I think everything I said is basically correct. If it isn't, I'd really like to know what I said that's wrong, especially in the last paragraph in which I very intentionally pointed out how innovative and original Red has been.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
Mike -

It's pretty damn stupid to refer to the AXS-R5 Recorder for the F5 and F55 as "an external recorder". .
Click to expand...

Is the SR-R4 for the F65 any more or less of an external device? It can play back material whether its attached to the camera or not. And does the manufacturer of the recorder really make any difference as to whether its "internal" or "external"? Besides, this is really missing my point. There are other recording methods on all of the Sony cameras that are built in and specifically do not record RAW. As I understand it - and that doesn't make me right, it's just what I've been told - the compression occurs in the recorder, not in the camera. Being the lousy legal analyst that Jim claims I am, I don't know whether that distinction would be legally significant. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

Besides, the main point of my post was that nobody outside of Red knows or understands the details of the legal filing. Not me, not you (well, maybe you, I don't know) and not the vast majority of people on RedUser. I think all companies have a right and responsibility to defend their inventions and intellectual property. I'm just bothered when people here assume that some things were invented by a particular company when in fact they weren't. Or that in any corporate dispute there always has to be a "good guy" and a "bad guy."
 
Kinetta was not compressed RAW. And Cineform was cited in our patent application as a prior art reference, as was Dalsa, Silicon Imaging and the Jpeg 2000 standard. I will not go into more details for obvious reasons. Given all the prior art references we cited, we were granted our patent for novelty in our approach to this. We have even passed a full-blown re-examination. I won't go into details... that is for Sony to do.

Whatever I post now will be used in the litigation. If keeping our customers informed puts us at risk... I am OK with that. Look at the big picture. We were alone in 2006 and until just recently. We were alone at championing 4K acquisition with compressed RAW. Now that "everyone is doing it"... it seems easy to believe that this is obvious. Apparently it wasn't for the past 6 years.

Jim

M Most said:
Is the SR-R4 for the F65 any more or less of an external device? It can play back material whether its attached to the camera or not. And does the manufacturer of the recorder really make any difference as to whether its "internal" or "external"? Besides, this is really missing my point. There are other recording methods on all of the Sony cameras that are built in and specifically do not record RAW. As I understand it - and that doesn't make me right, it's just what I've been told - the compression occurs in the recorder, not in the camera. Being the lousy legal analyst that Jim claims I am, I don't know whether that distinction would be legally significant. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

Besides, the main point of my post was that nobody outside of Red knows or understands the details of the legal filing. Not me, not you (well, maybe you, I don't know) and not the vast majority of people on RedUser. I think all companies have a right and responsibility to defend their inventions and intellectual property. I'm just bothered when people here assume that some things were invented by a particular company when in fact they weren't. Or that in any corporate dispute there always has to be a "good guy" and a "bad guy."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mark haflich said:
... Jim in another thread he started on the suit, made a statement that is rediculous. He said that if you apply for and are granted it, it is your duty to defend it. That is not the case. It is your right to attempt ato prove the infringement and to enforve the monopoky it gives you for 17 years. It imposes no duty.
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure where you obtained your law degree, but nevertheless, you are incorrect. There are equitable principles that apply in patent law and patent litigation. They are known as the doctrines of "laches" and "estoppel." While I will not give you any legal advice (since I charge very good money for that) suffice it to say that if the owner of a patent delays in seeking legal redress to remedy a claim of infringement, (especially after the patent holder has advised the infringer of the infringement and threatened legal action), then the inaction, (i.e. the failure to file a lawsuit in a timely manner) can, and ofter is, used by the infringer as a defense to the patent infringement lawsuit. As a result, a court might not enfore the patent based upon the patent holder's failure to file the lawsuit in a timely manner. So, is it the patent holder's duty to defend his patent ... you're damn right it is.

While I would not pretend to speak for Jim or RED, I would bet you, "dollars-to-donuts" that is what he meant.

__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
 
Well said.

Apparently there are many here that believe they have gone to law school... as well as have a degree in color science. :-)

Jim

Bill Sepaniak said:
I am not quite sure where you obtained your law degree, but nevertheless, you are incorrect. There are equitable principles that apply in patent law and patent litigation. They are known as the doctrines of "laches" and "estoppel." While I will not give you any legal advice (since I charge very good money for that) suffice it to say that if the owner of a patent delays in seeking legal redress to remedy a claim of infringement, (especially after the patent holder has advised the infringer of the infringement and threatened legal action), then the inaction, (i.e. the failure to file a lawsuit in a timely manner) can, and ofter is, used by the infringer as a defense to the patent infringement lawsuit. As a result, a court might not enfore the patent based upon the patent holder's failure to file the lawsuit in a timely manner. So, is it the patent holder's duty to defend his patent ... you're damn right it is.

While I would not pretend to speak for Jim or RED, I would bet you, "dollars-to-donuts" that is what he meant.

__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top