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.
mike 'the metanym'... your critique or mine of the state of patent legislation, enforcement, and especially the justice system is literally (legally) an absolutely separate issue. now, it's obvious that 'everything is a remix' and i think it'll be really good if we can thoughtfully transform our ideas of property in light of the advancements of information technology to more fully uphold the principle of promoting the progress of science and useful arts - but in the present it is what it is and the manufacturing of real, tangible machines is what patents were originally all about, and they did a damn well job of asserting the rights of american innovators.

i doubt anyone is happy about this affair, it's not a get-rich-quick scheme and a civil suit does not necessarily imply criminal or even moral/ethical violations. if you guys want to talk 'off topic' about the religion and politics of our legal system either go to law school, read some books, or at least keep your mouth shut and think for a moment before you start projecting everything that you think is wrong with the world on a situation you literally have no knowledge or perspective about. we've all got better stuff to do than wade through someone else's legal affairs, so get back to work (i've seen it, it's good) - there's no reason behind 3 or 4 threads pressing jim for commentary - he's doin' work if you haven't noticed.
 
I've met Jim. I support him and Red. They are creative, innovative and original to say the least.

I own an F3 and an F900. But, who is the face of Sony? 10,000 salespeople...
 
Jannard said:
Is Sony going to upgrade your cameras?

Jim
Click to expand...
Maybe they have thought about doing so...who knows? I'm just sitting on a fence watching the world go round :)...*whistling*
Looking up into the sky this morning looking for an asteroid that's going to crash into me...getting an image others have missed *still whistling* love my fence. Love my 5Diii at 3200
 

Attachments

  • JV8A8985.jpg
    JV8A8985.jpg
    98.3 KB · Views: 0
Mark L. Pederson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've said it multiple times: I am not a lawyer and have no opinion on whether an actual lawsuit should be dismissed or not.

However, as a filmmaker, tell me... do you actually think that only one company should control compressed RAW video cameras (an obvious idea) because they filed some patent?

Oh hang on... you're not a filmmaker. You are just some guy with a vested interest in RED because your post company is connected to them.

Anyway, I am out. Time to work on the light field stuff to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again in that field. Because I actually care about this stuff.

And yes, I am prepared to engage in personal risk for this cause, because quite frankly I care about film. Being a poor immigrant, I don't have much to risk, but what I have, I will. Keeping the fundamentals of filmmaking free is worth it.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Oh come on Bruce, Sony will be fine after all of this is over. Your talking here like it's the end of the world, and RED is now king over a one world government. Do you honestly think that Compressed Raw image acquisition is the only way to quality images.... That's quite narrow minded, don't you think? You don't have to attack other people here because you are behooved to speak out against this monstrous lawsuit, lol. Sony will be fine afterwards Bruce. In fact this will help them come up with a new image acquisition format that they can patent and call all their own. Just like APPLE with ProRes. I'm sorry that this whole lawsuit thingy has hurt your feelings but maybe if you owned a business that was responsible for putting food on the table of several hundred employees, while manufacturing a product that is helping this country while in a down economy to continue to make amazing films at a lower cost, maybe if you owned this business you would fight as hard as Jim and team does. But noting your attitude, you probably wouldn't. And Sony would copy you, and then JVC, and then ARRI, and then Panasonic, and every other new company, and then there would be no originality left in your company, and you would have to sell it off to the highest bidder.

Bruce Allen said:
I've said it multiple times: I am not a lawyer and have no opinion on whether an actual lawsuit should be dismissed or not.

However, as a filmmaker, tell me... do you actually think that only one company should control compressed RAW video cameras (an obvious idea) because they filed some patent?

Oh hang on... you're not a filmmaker. You are just some guy with a vested interest in RED because your post company is connected to them.

Anyway, I am out. Time to work on the light field stuff to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again in that field. Because I actually care about this stuff.

And yes, I am prepared to engage in personal risk for this cause, because quite frankly I care about film. Being a poor immigrant, I don't have much to risk, but what I have, I will. Keeping the fundamentals of filmmaking free is worth it.

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

If you are in fact such a hot shot lawyer, I am sure you can be quite sure as to my legal credentials. I am sure even you could look me up and be very sure. What exactly do you mean by you are not quite sure?. Are you a little bit sure? BTW I have been retired for 11 years.

And obviously you are not able to comprehend my very direct statement though I recognize that you may have a vested interest in pushing the concept of patent litigation. My statement is very very simple and I am quite sure you can understand it if you focus and can get by your apparent anger re my statement.

One can apply for and be granted a patent. You could use it for toilet paper or wall paper. You can use it any way you want. But you have no duty because of the grant. So my friend, you are wrong in saying I am wrong. And I don't know why you are trying to say what someone meant. The person is here and he can elaborate if he wishes without tainting his law suit by explaining his understanding of duty.

We are not talking about corporate duty here.

I take no position re the merits or the validity of the patent. Though I do question a statement made by someone here that Sony will be fine. Sony is not fine now and likely will not survive as a major consumer hardware producer in the long term.
 
We're all filmmakers here, Bruce. Working in various capacities in a large, far-reaching industry with many moving parts. You're not the only one. The repetition of this claim and its implications of a higher moral standing is getting irritating and turning sanctimonious.
 
mark haflich said:
... Though I do question a statement made by someone here that Sony will be fine. Sony is not fine now and likely will not survive as a major consumer hardware producer in the long term.
Click to expand...

I think some of the comments about Sony not surviving were stated to put RED in a bad light for crushing the Godzilla Sony by defending their (RED's) patent. Seems unlikely to me but what if that were true? Technology is like water... it flows to empty spaces. Like what happened to Kodak, to Polaroid, or even Enron or Lehman Brothers. Giants can be vulnerable if not run properly, just like smaller companies.

Years from now, RED may become redundant. But when these things happen, that doesn't mean we plunge into a Dark Age. Sans major disruption to stable world processes, some other tech and/or supplier of tech will fill the void.

Yes Virginia, there really is a Pheonix.
 
Last edited:
The boss himself has said as much as it seems he can without risking subjudice bad things happening. Given that most commentators here appear to be RED users or fans, it might be a good time to do some self-censorship and let this thread run down. It is not outside of the realms of possibility that Sony may subpoena this thread to demonstrate dissent within the ranks of RED users in a fairplay submission against oppression. Whilst it may not impress the Judge as to whether an infringement has occurred or not and the wilfulness of it, loose wordstuff here might just provide some argument for lesser sanctions than the court might otherwise impose.
 
mark haflich said:
... One can apply for and be granted a patent. You could use it for toilet paper or wall paper. You can use it any way you want. But you have no duty because of the grant. So my friend, you are wrong in saying I am wrong. And I don't know why you are trying to say what someone meant. The person is here and he can elaborate if he wishes without tainting his law suit by explaining his understanding of duty. ... We are not talking about corporate duty here.
Click to expand...

Wow! That sounds rather Clintonesque …. “That depends on what the definition of “IS” … IS.” As a "retired lawyer" I am sure that you still recall from your education and legal career that there are all sort of "duties" ... legal, corporate and otherwise ... associated with modern-day business operations.

Of course RED has no “legal duty” with respect to enforcing the patents that were issued to it. The Trademark and Patent Office will not revoke or invalidate a patent because the patent holder decides, for whatever reason, not to enforce its rights with respect to the patent under the law.

And, of course you are right … a patent holder can do pretty much whatever he wants to with his patent … including using it as “toilet paper or wall paper”.

However, I have a strong suspicion that RED did not spend the time, effort and, no doubt, a considerable sum of money, in order to obtain Patent Nos. 8,174,560 and 8,358,357, so that they could ultimately be used as “toilet paper or wall paper.” I would hazard a "guess" that these 2 patents are among the corner-stones of RED's business.

The inventors listed in the patents are Jim and Graeme. The assignee of the patents is Red.com, Inc., the plaintiff in the infringement action is Red.com, Inc., dba Red Digital Cinema, a Washington Corporation, … so yes, I would say that we are talking about a “corporate duty” here.

However, whether it is a “legal duty,” “corporate duty” or just plain old good business sense, …. When it comes to patent rights …. "Enforce Them or Risk Losing Them" …. just that simple.

__________________________________
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
 
Bruce Allen said:
Oh hang on... you're not a filmmaker. You are just some guy with a vested interest in RED because your post company is connected to them.
Click to expand...

Although it may sometimes seem to some here that Mark and I are some kind of bickering comedy team, the truth is that we're friends and have a great deal of respect for one another. We just have slightly different views on a couple of things and really enjoy calling each other out on RedUser from time to time. But when something is said that is a serious misrepresentation of one of us, it needs to be corrected. Mark is not really a "post guy" and he no longer operates a post company. Mark's primary areas of concentration are in producing, and running a camera rental business. His perspectives come largely from those two areas, although they are to some degree influenced by his long association with and investment in Red's products. To guise him as "not a filmmaker" simply because he doesn't direct or hire himself as a director of photography is to do the man some serious injustice. And to claim he "doesn't care" is a bit of an insult to both him and those of us who consider him a friend.

That's enough for now. Mark, you can send the check to either my work or home address. :biggrinjester:
 
Robert Hart said:
The boss himself has said as much as it seems he can without risking subjudice bad things happening. Given that most commentators here appear to be RED users or fans, it might be a good time to do some self-censorship and let this thread run down. It is not outside of the realms of possibility that Sony may subpoena this thread to demonstrate dissent within the ranks of RED users in a fairplay submission against oppression. Whilst it may not impress the Judge as to whether an infringement has occurred or not and the wilfulness of it, loose wordstuff here might just provide some argument for lesser sanctions than the court might otherwise impose.
Click to expand...

Robert, I see your side of the matter, but if I may offer a counterpoint, I think this thread might show the openness of RED to allow this debate that is in some cases very pointedly anti-RED. It may perhaps sharply contrast any Sony forum (I have no knowledge of how they may or may not interact with their customers.) Plus, I think RED would welcome this thread be introduced into the record as a character reference by many who post here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top