Someone must have taken apart a new camera

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce, I believe the crux of the matter is that Red is compressing the RAW mosaiced data.

Compression has been part of digital video for DECADES. Almost all digital video formats involve compression.

Shooting RAW has been a part of 35mm still camera Bayer sensors, for decades. Compressed RAW cameras existed too.

So, once electronics progresses to the point where a 35mm RAW-shooting video camera makes sense, you will need a compressed RAW format. Duh.

Is this obvious idea seriously a specific, patentable thing?

I could understand a specific wavelet compression innovation... but the whole idea of a "35mm digital video camera with compression (which most previous digital video cameras had) and RAW (which most previous 35mm sensor digital cameras had)" being patentable confuses me. To me it's natural that when the sensor and processing manufacturing techniques progressed, these two already-existing things would combine (or return - it's just a reversal of how 35mm still cameras split off from 35mm motion cameras). I just don't see something specific enough to patent in that idea alone.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Peter Moretti]

Patentable, yes. Enforceable, IDK.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Patentable, yes. Enforceable, IDK.

Can't really disagree with that, haha! Cheers man!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Peter Moretti]

Cheers Bruce. :cheers2:

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

OK, Jeff, help me understand. I'm trying to quit this thread but I just can't.

Do the actual specific methods or algorithms used to do the compression need to be contained or described in the patents themselves?

No, they do not need to be in the patent. And patents are often overly generalized and vague because for many things like this, the IP holders specifically do not want to disclose their algorithms, processes or methods of doing things. These fall into the realm of "trade secrets". The way patents work is that RED has been granted a patent for the compression of image data within a digital cinema camera system. So it is a notice or warning to anyone else seeking to do the same thing. When another company comes along and wants to make a digital camera that compresses data, they must perform all necessary due diligence to determine that any means by which they achieve this or any processes, methods or algorithms they may develop or use, do not infringe upon what the patent holder is doing. Confusing enough? Yeah, it's a bitch, but that's the way it works.

Take a look at Apple's patent portfolio and how generalized and vague most of their items are.

And Peter is right, we don't know how enforceable these patents are. And we won't know until they're tested and RED shows their hole-cards.

On the one hand, the more specific a patent is, the easier it is to enforce. On the other hand, the more specific a patent is in terms of processes, algorithms, etc.. the more likely your IP is to just be ripped off by every copycat out there. I have several clients, business associates or partners, or companies that I own a stake in who all hold patents. When it comes to "trade secrets" none of them disclose these things in their patent filings. One of these entities I'm involved with is a biochemical research company. The most specific they ever get with their patents is to mention some of the key atomic elements in their molecular compounds they're patenting. Never anything more specific. They don't disclose molecular structure, manufacturing processes or anything. All that is intricately documented and, like the Coca-Cola formula and process, is locked in a vault protected 24/7 by armed security toting fully automatic weapons and other nasty toys.


At this point, I don't think we can determine what it is Sony might be infringing on. I'm sure there's plenty more than what's listed on the surface of that patent. If the suit really was that shallow, then RED should be and would be suing every other camera maker out there. Not only that, but Sony is not using JPEG2000/ or wavelet compression. RED's compression isn't JPEG2000 these days, either.


For the record, patenting specific frame rates, while possible and done many times in the past, should not be allowed. That's just stupid... And, to my knowledge, those days may be done anyway. I think the 24p, LLC patent troll guy has fallen.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Thank you so much, Jeff! I'm slowly getting the hang of this.

So if I want to make a compressed RAW video camera in a way that didn't "infringe" on RED's really general patent... how do I do it?

How do I avoid doing what RED did if RED hasn't documented in the patent what they did?

Or is the whole point to just put anyone else making a compressed RAW 23p-or-higher video camera under a cloud of uncertainty and worry?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Bob Gundu]

Reminds me of not too long ago when I was working at IMAX for a while... this guys tried to go after IMAX for infringing on using clean plates for making 3D images from 2D. He sat there video taping us working on shots to use in court how we, and everyone else in the industry used a technique of making an occlusion area reveal to a clean plate.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Thank you so much, Jeff! I'm slowly getting the hang of this.

So if I want to make a compressed RAW video camera in a way that didn't "infringe" on RED's really general patent... how do I do it?

The same way companies make any other competing product. Ensure that they develop every bit of it in-house or in a way completely separate from what any other patent-holder has already done and that they can document this process. In some cases you may need to approach the patent-holder and ask the question of, "does my X infringe on your Y?" The patent-holder may choose to not respond. If they do respond with a "no", then they pretty much give up on contesting it later. If they respond with a "yes", then they are pretty much legally obligated to explain in concise manner how and where the infringement occurs. They can try to claim trade-secrets at this point, however that can work against them if it goes to a hearing or trial.

How do I avoid doing what RED did if RED hasn't documented in the patent what they did?

A great example of this is how the touchscreen device industry, namely Google and Microsoft, circumvented Apple's patent on multi-touch interfaces. The multi-touch concept was ruled "too intuitive" to be obstructed by a patent. Apple tried to hold onto it with underlying tech and specific gestures. The gestures were also ruled as intuitive, the tech was circumvented by developing alternative tech. Hence why it took a while for other multi-touch devices to really show up on the market. Once they did, everyone had them.

Or is the whole point to just put anyone else making a compressed RAW 23p-or-higher video camera under a cloud of uncertainty and worry?

The whole point of a patent is not to obstruct others or corner a market. Well, it can be in a strategic sense, but that is only temporary under any circumstances. The real purpose of a patent, especially for the longevity of it, is to say "We did this first and have a specific method. If you want to do it too, go develop your own method".

The other way a patent can work is to gain exclusive rights to one end or a single outcome. An example of that would be to say, "we hold the patent on shooting digital images at 48fps". Of course, those don't really work that great too as they eventually fail or are circumvented. ..."well OK then, we'll shoot at 48.0002fps, so screw you."

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Wasn't the original hang-up about building a Pro Res module (Meizler) in part about the time it took for RED to obtain licensing and clearances from Apple for Pro Res? RED pays Apple for access to proprietary codec technology.

why would that be any different than RED protecting itself from REDCODE copycats?


many moons ago, someone posted a long, involved patent application, held jointly in common by Graeme Nattress and Jim Jannard, for REDCODE. It wasn't vague at all, it was quite explicit, and I couldn't grasp half of what I read. I imagine that buried in the seeds of that lengthy description are the bones of contention.

Jim has always been forthcoming that REDCODE, not the hardware itself, is the real secret sauce and what will allow RED to rule the ultra high def world - because of anticipated licensing fees, not just because of the hardware RED sells. I don't think RED cares if Sony licenses their technology from RED, just as RED has had to pay Apple, probably among others, a licensing fee for implementing Pro Res compression in RED products.

I think they just care if the other company steps over this obligation. Just as Apple would be pissed if RED stepped over it and starting implementing Pro Res into their products without going through the proper and legally binding channels first.

That is my take, rightly or wrongly.

It seems quite possible that Sony is borrowing without licensing from some of the processes described in the Redcode patent. I guess only the lawyers know for sure.....

 

[Florian Stadler]

Jpg2000?

 

[Michael Ou]

It seems quite possible that Sony is borrowing without licensing from some of the processes described in the Redcode patent. I guess only the lawyers know for sure.....

Yes, I believe it's exactly about the process in which Red achieves the visually "lossless" images from REDCODE compression. Before Red created it, the competition said it was "impossible". After they did it, I guess the competition felt the need to use a "similar" method to record 4K (and above) since my educated guess is that it is freaking hard to accomplish.

I was typing an entry for Jim's other thread and it was closed before I could submit it.
So here it is:

Being on the cutting edge and leading the march paves the way for all of us to move forward, but for some, it's easier to sit back and watch the next guy put it all on the line, then take those ideas that work and incorporate it into their own work, without risk, and hope no one else notices. It happens everywhere, in music, film, the arts, especially in business. It is now becoming clear, Red has been a target since day one (or in this case Red One), but luckily its a FAST moving target. If another company is copying Red's IP then it is required to defend it, otherwise it loses any future claims when it happens again.

Unfortunately, we live in a litigious world, but most of the knee-jerk reactions and negative associations come from the numerous opportunists taking advantage of the system, and offensively suing others frivolously, solely for greed, control and monetary gain. This is not that, this is a case of defending of one's property and the livelihood of those who put it on the line so we can all move forward. This is why the courts were created, to protect us.

My 2 cents.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Shame Jim closed the patent lawsuit thread just as I was going to post...

This doesn't apply to RED in any way, shape or form, let me make that clear - but there ARE a lot of patent trolls out there. Recently some of them have started going after end users of the allegedly infringing equipment, not the manufacturers who build and sell it; presumably the law, at least in theory, allows them to do this.

Will RED give us an assurance that they will never seek to enforce the patent(s) or collect license fees from those who simply *own and use* the Sony cameras in question?

Mike

 

[L. Langer]

You got that right Mike. There are "patent troll" engineers who run around tech expos (CES, NAB, Macworld, etc.) dissecting every single product they can get close enough to get a good look at so they can take the information back to their employers and use that info to initiate lawsuits and it's a growing career field for electrical engineering graduates to get into because it is in demand and it is a guaranteed job. Digital imaging has been a huge area of litigation over the last seven years because of the many "bits and pieces" patents that are held by or were obtained by IP mongers under the auspices of "investment firms" as a result of tech companies going under in the 90's and dot-com era. Kodak selling off their digital imaging patents to other parties is definitely going to hurt the industry in the long-run but this stuff is the bread and butter of many companies these days, it would seem.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Bruce, I believe the crux of the matter is that Red is compressing the RAW mosaiced data.

What baffles me is that Sony is clearly using a completely different compression scheme(s):

I don't get how any of this compares with Redcode. If Sony is violating Red's patents, why hasn't Red gone after Canon or Arri for their respective compressing formats, which also involve Bayer-pickup sensors running at 24fps?

One big problem in a patent lawsuit: there's always the risk the other side will petition the court to rule the patent invalid. I don't know enough about the particulars here, but it's known to have happened in the past. There have also been cases where a company like Polaroid sued Kodak for essentially stealing their instant-photographic technology, Polaroid won $925 million from Kodak, but went down the drain due to competing technologies (digital) from other companies. And eventually, so did Kodak.

 

[Andy White]

The formats listed look like the current/proposed ones for internal recording... I presume (or am guessing - LOL) that the basis of the Red claim will be Redcode and the additional recorder (4K) modules. It'll be related to signal path (electronic), how the data is read, how the sensor works and the way the data moves, is recorded, compressed and plays back - and the notion of how this data is passed through electronic/digital interfaces.

Don't forget that, in their brain only mode, Red's need the addition of an recording device. We're just used to seeing the brain & an SSD in it's current form - but the SSD can be a rear module.

All of this is conjecture until we find out more details. But, when the new F's came out, everyone noted they were very 'Red' in design - with the addition of an Alexa style menu on the side.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

What baffles me is that Sony is clearly using a completely different compression scheme(s):

That's the table with on-board recording options, excluding the externally recorded raw format.

 

[Bill Sepaniak]

... One big problem in a patent lawsuit: there's always the risk the other side will petition the court to rule the patent invalid. I don't know enough about the particulars here, but it's known to have happened in the past.

That is THE inherent risk in all patent infringement lawsuits. The alleged infringer will assert, either by means of an affirmative defense to the underlying complaint, or by means of a cross-complaint or cross-action, that the patent in question is, in fact, invalid, and thus unenforceable. That whole issue then becomes something that the judge or jury then decides. However, as has been pointed out, very few of these type of cases actually get that far.

__________________________________
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

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Don't get hung up on compression schemes or algorithms, or in what formats are ultimately recorded and available to the end user. In the past RED was indeed using JPG2K, it seems their compression has evolved beyond that. I think what is at issue here, based on what Jim said in his thread, is *how*, *when* and *where* the compression is applied.

 

[Mike P.]

In that case, it seems overzealous that RED is asking the cameras be destroyed/ceased selling when the problem would be with the separate RAW recorder box and not the internal/camera side of the recording. And if that's the case, and Sony is forced to use something else, I can see them saying, 'okay, we'll license CineformRAW', go uncompressed, or use something/anything else (CinemaDNG even)... and just post-pone the RAW recorder for another couple months.

Does anyone have any info on how Sony compress their RAW (on the F65)? For some reason, I didn't think they did (I thought it was CinemaDNG)...

 

[Bruce Allen]

Wasn't the original hang-up about building a Pro Res module (Meizler) in part about the time it took for RED to obtain licensing and clearances from Apple for Pro Res? RED pays Apple for access to proprietary codec technology.

why would that be any different than RED protecting itself from REDCODE copycats?

It's completely different.

If the Sony F65 recorded actual REDCODE, they would need to get a license. But it doesn't. It records in its own compressed format.

ProRes is largely a copy of Avid's DNxHD anyway - and Apple certainly doesn't pay Avid anything.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com