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 :)

Someone must have taken apart a new camera

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's a bit bizarre.

Maybe they cracked open a F55 and found it running an old beta version of Graeme's Red One source code that got stolen in that break-in back in like 2007 or so!

My guess it would be referring to the compressed RAW patents but would love to hear more info.

Well, I guess we might actually get that whole "RED's compressed RAW video patent
VS Cineform's compressed RAW camera prior art" debate cleared up in court.

I'm not optimistic RED can win that one... but who knows?

Tony Lorentzen said:
Apparently, RED holds a patent for an invention called the "Video Camera". I'm at a loss of words... http://www.google.com/patents/US8358357 How is that even possible?
Click to expand...

EDIT: Oh that's brilliant!

It would be absolutely hilarious if Sony somehow forgot to patent the Video Camera for decades and then get sued.

That would make me chortle all the way to 2014.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Sony should have seen this coming to them the moment they pushed those cameras to market, and I'm not even talking the final product... Good on RED to defend themselves against such clear copy cutters, they should have designed their own cameras in all originality instead of copying some one else's hard R&D work.
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Sony should have seen this coming to them the moment they pushed those cameras to market, and I'm not even talking the final product... Good on RED to defend themselves against such clear copy cutters, they should have designed their own cameras in all originality instead of copying some one else's hard R&D work.
Click to expand...

Sure. And the RED ONE is not influenced by any R&D work Sony did, ever.

I would suspect that the RED ONE owes more to Sony's decades of innovation than the F65 does to the RED ONE.

I'm not saying they innovated that fast, but they came up with a few good things every decade or so:
- pioneering the move to high-resolution digital cinema (in the late 90s)
- moving from analog to digital first for video (I still remember those D1 tapes, man!)
- putting both the sensor and tape recorder in the same device (Betacam in the 80s)

Well, with the F5 and F55... sure they look a bit like an Epic crossed with an Alexa.

It's the including of the F65 that confuses me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
It's interesting that the article mentions that Arri settled regarding the email hacking lawsuit.

I was wondering what had happened with that,
 
And here is the actual document:

http://news.priorsmart.com/redcom-v-sony-corporation-of-america-l7D8/

Yup. This is confusing as hell to me.

It seems like RED is saying that the Silicon Imaging cameras aren't valid because they were 1920 compressed RAW... and RED is somehow different because it can do > 2048 RAW. I don't see the point of 128 pixels. It certainly doesn't make much of a different for film out.

This is just weird to me. If you can patent doing something at high resolution and 24 fps, why didn't Sony just patent HD?

I'm going to bow out because this is RED's turf and obviously I don't agree with this at all.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Wow...
 
Bruce Allen said:
Sure. And the RED ONE is not influenced by any R&D work Sony did, ever.

I would suspect that the RED ONE owes more to Sony's decades of innovation than the F65 does to the RED ONE.

I'm not saying they innovated that fast, but they came up with a few good things every decade or so:
- pioneering the move to high-resolution digital cinema (in the late 90s)
- moving from analog to digital first for video (I still remember those D1 tapes, man!)
- putting both the sensor and tape recorder in the same device (Betacam in the 80s)

Well, with the F5 and F55... sure they look a bit like an Epic crossed with an Alexa.

It's the including of the F65 that confuses me.

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


Yes Bruce, but since Sony didn't find any infringements of Patents means RED did not copied Sony's technology nor their design, were Sony sure seems it did.
 
Tony Lorentzen said:
Apparently, RED holds a patent for an invention called the "Video Camera". I'm at a loss of words...
Click to expand...

The patents are labeled as "Video Camera", the underlying technology referenced there-within is obviously what this is about.
 
This is fascinating and scary at the same time. I look forward to hearing RED's side of the story and learning if any of this is remotely connected to the RED tech thefts over the years.
 
Phil Holland said:
The patents are labeled as "Video Camera", the underlying technology referenced there-within is obviously what this is about.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. The patents in question do not relate to the patenting of a video camera, per se. If you read the Abstracts of the patents that form the basis of the lawsuit you will see that RED is claiming: an infringement relating to the transformation of blue and red image data in a manner that enhances the compressability of the data, that allows the data to be compressed and stored, that allows a user to reconstruct the red and blue data to obtain the original raw data for a modified version of the original raw data that is visually lossless when demosaiced, and that allows the processing of the data such that the green image elements of the data are demosaiced first and then the red and blue elements are reconstructed based upon the values of the demosaiced green data. (Patent No. 8,174, 560); an infringement relating to emodiments to a video camera configured to capture, compress and store image data in memory at a rate of at least 23 frames a second; the image data can then be mosaiced and compressed, and the mosaiced image data may remain substantially visually lossless upon decompression and demosaicing (Patent No. 8,358,357); and an infringement relating to a method and system for tuning an antenna (Patent No. 8,175,560)

Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.

EDIT: Jim ... just found what appears to be a typo in Paragraph 10. on page 6. of your Complaint. You allege that you placed a notice of "U.S. Patent No. 8,175,560" on your product or packaging. That U.S. Patent (as discussed above) relates to a method and system for tuning an antenna, (which was issued to John Shepherd and assigned to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.) I think your attorneys meant to allege that you placed a notice of "U.S. Patent No. 8,174,560" (which was issued to you and Graeme and assigned to RED ... big difference).

__________________________________
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
 
Last edited:
If The Epic had an option to record a file format that didn't require transcoding, The new Sony cameras would not look so attractive.
 
It's somewhat curious that after congratulating Sony's embrace of 4k they've decided to sue the pants off them and request that all the competitions cameras rounded up and destroyed, so much for let the best camera win apparently the Sony 4k camera's are damaging reds sales so they have to be stopped.
I can't imagine Red would ever win this, maybe some sort of a settlement will be reached but this is just disappointing to see this happen, just to think what it could mean for the industry.
 
Bruce Allen said:
It seems like RED is saying that the Silicon Imaging cameras aren't valid because they were 1920 compressed RAW... and RED is somehow different because it can do > 2048 RAW. I don't see the point of 128 pixels. It certainly doesn't make much of a different for film out.
Click to expand...

It's semantics, but it makes all the difference. 2048 pertains to "digital cinema" and existing DCI / industry specs.

This is just weird to me. If you can patent doing something at high resolution and 24 fps, why didn't Sony just patent HD?
Click to expand...

You have to be able to deliver on your patent or you'll lose it, or it may not even be granted in the first place. If you're able to patent something before someone else brings it to market, it still validates your patent in that the concept is do-able and/ or prosperous. You can then seek compensation for infringement or pursue a licensing agreement. This is how patent trolls score big -- jumping on ideas as they come, often when they're actually obvious to people who watch a certain industry. By the time their patent gets consideration and perhaps enters the approval process, the troll has managed to squeak it in just before someone shows up with the same patent filing for a real product. I'm not saying RED is patent trolling, as they have the products. I do think our patent system, on a global basis, is in dire need of massive reform. IMO, you shouldn't be able to patent anything unless you have a tangible item or product that actually works, then you should be allowed to apply. I think software interfaces and many things we see as hotly-contested patents today, most of which are derivative works in their own right, need to be treated differently. More like artistic commons and fashion designs where they can't be patented and held in some legal stranglehold. IMO, most patents do more to stifle competition than to support markets or economies. The biggest issue we have now isn't so much a "broken" patent system though -- it's inconsistent regulations and enforcement on a global scale. We need a global effort to standardize and level the playing field... But now I'm driving this thread off a cliff.

The unfortunate reality with patents, trademarks and most forms of intellectual property ownership, at least as the laws exist right now, is that even at times you may not want or see the need to sue someone, you have to. Even over little things. If you don't make an active effort to defend your IP at all times, you can lose it. Major infringers down the road can use your lack of contest on prior infringements, no matter how small, as a basis for dismissal or non-action on your part. This is why bigger companies are often seen as a big bully who has to beat up on some poor kid for making fan art or an enthusiast web site. It's also another reason why the vast majority of infringement suits are settled out of court with sealed terms. Even on a large corporate scale we see a lot of back and forth -- look at Apple's track record. Other than their last go-around with Samsung, prior suits were usually settled amicably by way of stock exchanges and new business contracts, even with Samsung, often the outcomes were mutually beneficial.

As for Sony, they have truly lost their touch, their drive, their innovation, IMO. At least their pro video/cinema division has. There are so many obvious new ideas coming to fruition now, emerging technologies that, in many ways, Sony helped bring about. They used to be on the ball and seek patents on many of these things, they just don't anymore. Their entire pro camera division has taken a reactive approach to product development. The whole wait-and-see approach to new products. They don't innovate, haven't in years, they replicate and then try to add a few bells and whistles to set their offerings apart. I think complacency is to blame more than anything. In many ways and in the bulk industry mindset, Sony is still in the driver's seat. The problem is they're not really driving.
 
Im sure I will get slammed for this but whatever....I gotta call it like I see it......IMO this is a sign of weakness and a reaction made in fear. Red lowered their prices in half right before the Sony announcements stating it was due to getting better at manufacturing, then congratulated Sony on these cameras, and now are suing them, wants the cameras to not see the light of day and are stating it is hurting Red sales. The patent system is so broken its not even funny.
 
Jim Jannard said here on the forum that he never lost a single law suit just when he sued ARRI.

Well ... There is a first for everything, isn't there?

Peter
 
For all we know, Red opened up a Sony camera and found the boards and chips inside to be very similar to their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top