Sony's lawsuits against RED

[Jannard]

Seems like someone is nervous... it just isn't me.

Jim

 

[Elsie N]

Seems like someone is nervous... it just isn't me.

Jim

Now that's encouraging!

 

[Dustin Shepard]

Seems like someone is nervous... it just isn't me.

Jim

Like a BOSS

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Lawyers are a necessary evil these days, but the Engineers are the stars

Lawyers are a necessary evil these days, but the Engineers are the stars

Hopefully the lawsuits will remain a sideshow and the real battle for the hearts, and wallets, of camera folk will be fought over better design and technology.

Spectacular image quality, clever and ergonomic design, smart compression, bulletproof build quality, lots of customizability under the hood but key controls at your fingertips, fast media readers, efficient and widely supported post path, high resolution viewfinders, low power consumption, interfaces well with industry standard aks/audio/lens data, robust metadata support, etc..............

My sincere hope is that digital cinema does not follow the regrettable example of some other industries where companies shy away from great tech due to NIH (not invented here). Develop great tech, license other people's tech when it makes sense, get great products to market at a great price and Bob's your uncle.

Cheers - #19

 

[Elsie N]

Hopefully the lawsuits will remain a sideshow and the real battle for the hearts, and wallets, of camera folk will be fought over better design and technology.

Spectacular image quality, clever and ergonomic design, smart compression, bulletproof build quality, lots of customizability under the hood but key controls at your fingertips, fast media readers, efficient and widely supported post path, high resolution viewfinders, low power consumption, interfaces well with industry standard aks/audio/lens data, robust metadata support, etc..............

My sincere hope is that digital cinema does not follow the regrettable example of some other industries where companies shy away from great tech due to NIH (not invented here). Develop great tech, license other people's tech when it makes sense, get great products to market at a great price and Bob's your uncle.

Cheers - #19

I seldom disagree with what you post Blair, but I'm going to make an exception to the tenor of what you said. That is, I think it is good to have conflict between companies. For a company like RED, it galvanizes the whole organization to come together to defend itself against an interloper, and for a company as large as SONY, it kick starts their camera division to work harder to overcome the defensive attack initiated by RED. A conflict-free world will be a world of robots. As for companies shying away from pushing the envelope, well, they will be eaten up by someone who will, if they are viable as a company. Co-operation has its place, but so, at times does being bold.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Fair enough Elsie, I get your point.

I would posit there is a logical place in the continuum between complacency and all out war. In any case (sic), as Tim Eaton pointed out, Jim and the RedTeam have been the one's willing to push the envelope and make the price/performance ratio of pro cameras dramatically better. There wouldn't be a Sony F55 on the market for $35K in 2013 if there was no RED - there would be a F35 for $200K. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19

 

[Rehan K]

Seems like someone is nervous... it just isn't me.

Jim

No, it doesn't sound like someone is nervous. It was pretty much given that Sony's legal team would go through all their patents, find anything that they think are being violated by Red, and file a counter lawsuit. It's a standard procedure.

 

[Elsie N]

Fair enough Elsie, I get your point.

I would posit there is a logical place in the continuum between complacency and all out war....

Cheers - #19

If I may take the liberty of saying that another way... licensing. I fully support that kind of co-operation.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I think it is good to have conflict between companies. For a company like RED, it galvanizes the whole organization to come together to defend itself against an interloper, and for a company as large as SONY, it kick starts their camera division to work harder to overcome the defensive attack initiated by RED. A conflict-free world will be a world of robots. As for companies shying away from pushing the envelope, well, they will be eaten up by someone who will, if they are viable as a company. Co-operation has its place, but so, at times does being bold.

Makes sense in one context.

In the other, every gain brings an equivalent loss.

 

[Elsie N]

Makes sense in one context.

In the other, every gain brings an equivalent loss.

Unless both companies are stirred to greater things? '-)

By that I mean, what if during the process of defending their patents, each company stumbled upon a better way of doing what they were defending? Then you have two net gains.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Unless both companies are stirred to greater things? '-)

By that I mean, what if during the process of defending their patents, each company stumbled upon a better way of doing what they were defending? Then you have two net gains.

The camera industry is not just Sony and RED. And digital cameras are just getting started.

What is really sad is that this litigious environment RED has created through their actions discourages the NEXT innovative camera companies from getting started.

If the only people who can make cameras are those with deep enough pockets to handle RED suing them... that really sucks a lot for filmmakers who want to use innovative tools.

Think about the computer industry. Would it be awesome if it were just Apple and Microsoft fighting? No. It would suck. Having an industry controlled by litigious companies sucks. They need a Google to keep them honest. And let's face it - with all of this litigious nonsense, RED is looking to be more of a Microsoft than a Google.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I agree that licensing is the best option.

If only there were a truly independent arbiter of licensing fees that would affix fair value in the marketplace, drop the gavel and litigation would cease. Instead, the courtroom becomes just another battlefield where the incentive is not just to get what you deserve, but to gut your opponent - hence the many "screw the lawyers" posts on this thread. I could do a whole screed on greed but this is a tech forum for camera nerds.

All we want is great technology that allows us to make great images as soon as possible. Innovate, license when it makes sense, win in the marketplace by making better gear and everybody wins long term.

Cheers - #19

 

[Elsie N]

I agree that licensing is the best option.

If only there were a truly independent arbiter of licensing fees that would affix fair value in the marketplace, drop the gavel and litigation would cease. ...

Cheers - #19

I like that solution, but since most of our lawmakers are lawyers, well....

 

[Rick Darge]

Ah yes but Red may have never been started to begin with if companies like Sony were being more fair with their price points and technology. It's because of companies like Sony that the idea of Red was born out of. Now Sony is copying them. everyone copies eachother in their own unique way

Fair enough Elsie, I get your point.

I would posit there is a logical place in the continuum between complacency and all out war. In any case (sic), as Tim Eaton pointed out, Jim and the RedTeam have been the one's willing to push the envelope and make the price/performance ratio of pro cameras dramatically better. There wouldn't be a Sony F55 on the market for $35K in 2013 if there was no RED - there would be a F35 for $200K. Just sayin'

Cheers - #19

 

[Elsie N]

The camera industry is not just Sony and RED. And digital cameras are just getting started.

What is really sad is that this litigious environment RED has created through their actions discourages the NEXT innovative camera companies from getting started.

If the only people who can make cameras are those with deep enough pockets to handle RED suing them... that really sucks a lot for filmmakers who want to use innovative tools.

Think about the computer industry. Would it be awesome if it were just Apple and Microsoft fighting? No. It would suck. Having an industry controlled by litigious companies sucks. They need a Google to keep them honest. And let's face it - with all of this litigious nonsense, RED is looking to be more of a Microsoft than a Google.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

I don't think it is fair to paint RED as a malicious litigator. They sued ARRI for corporate espionage and SONY for patent infringement. And I thank them for defending the superior technology that I am shooting with when I use my Epic cameras. Thank goodness we haven't gone all Socialist in this country yet!

 

[Bruce Allen]

I don't think it is fair to paint RED as a malicious litigator. They sued ARRI for corporate espionage and SONY for patent infringement. And I thank them for defending the superior technology that I am shooting with when I use my Epic cameras. Thank goodness we haven't gone all Socialist in this country yet!

I did not say malicious. I have said over-litigious. I'm sure Jim is aggressively doing what he believes is right. It just sucks for us.

Also, where have I ever criticized RED for suing ARRI in the Bravin case?

I'm really glad you like your Epic. That's not much of an argument though!

Just imagine if Cineform and Silicon Imaging had patented compressed raw... and then sued RED when they came out with the RED ONE.

Maybe you'd sitting here with your Silicon Imaging camera saying "boy how can you criticize them when they make such superior technology?"

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Unless both companies are stirred to greater things? '-)

There is no "unless". Every gain brings equivalent loss. Not avoidable.

Positive intentions understood and respected, though.

By that I mean, what if during the process of defending their patents, each company stumbled upon a better way of doing what they were defending? Then you have two net gains.

With two equivalent losses to follow.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Just as Red waited a long time before suing F65? F65 was in the market for an year before the Red's lawsuit. Sony holds a lot of patents (close to 3000 in the US) . Just because they ignore the patent violations (not worth the lawsuit), doesn't mean they are going to ignore them when, in this case, Red is suing them directly.

Doesn't Sony even hold the patent on V-lock battery mount?

Well obviously, but Sony are just doing the same thing you praise red for doing they're protecting their interests and their investments in the best way they can, imagine you came up with something fantastic only to have someone say "Hold on that violates my patent I want you to pay me x dollars and destroy all the hard work you've done" You'd defend yourself against it and that's what Sony is doing by saying "Hey we've got some patents too Red"

I am a fairly intelligent man, and as such I never think of any one else to be any lesser then me, what I am saying is that I have taken my side, since 2006, and I continue to stand by RED, and I am with Jim, I know him personally and He at no time in this 7 years has ever given me an impression of not been a fair man, so I trust that his grounds are legitimate ones, and in faith of my believe I act as such.

Law suits are never nice and done, at the end what matters is that we stand behind what we believe in and we do all that we can to protect it, Jim is doing this for us as well, and Sony will have their chance to do what they must, I know nothing in detail, I just have respect for Jim as a person and as a professional business man, I also happen to love the products that He brings to us via RED and for this I have pledged my support.

What goes around comes around... Red should have known better.

lol @ fanboys who raved at red suing sony.

Do you really just think for a second that RED didn't know... And that their attorney were not prepared for it, or do you really think that RED's attorneys told Jim that Sony will roll over and cry?

No man goes to war naked hands... No one.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

actually RED should sue sony again because of this...REDMOTE is the worst product ever it never works

 

[Elsie N]

I did not say malicious. I have said over-litigious. I'm sure Jim is aggressively doing what he believes is right. It just sucks for us.

Also, where have I ever criticized RED for suing ARRI in the Bravin case?

I'm really glad you like your Epic. That's not much of an argument though!

Just imagine if Cineform and Silicon Imaging had patented compressed raw... and then sued RED when they came out with the RED ONE.

Maybe you'd sitting here with your Silicon Imaging camera saying "boy how can you criticize them when they make such superior technology?"

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

There is no "unless". Every gain brings equivalent loss. Not avoidable.

Positive intentions understood and respected, though.



With two equivalent losses to follow.

Bruce, Hrvoje, I may be coming across as argumentative to each of you. In order to make amends, let me offer you a bit of information that I believe can be a life changer for all humanity... whether they be REDheads or SONY Godzillas.

You may have already seen it but if not, there is a show scheduled to re-run on PBS this Saturday at 7:00 PM locally titled "Eat, fast and live longer with Michael Mosley." I've seen it already, and that's why I think it is of the utmost importance for all my friends on Reduser as well as my real family to see it.

Specifically, the program has to do with a minor fasting regimen... two random days each week where one only consumes 500 calories (for women) and 600 calories (for men) during a 24 hour period and then you can eat anything you want the other 5 days of the week. Of course it is better if you eat healthy the other days of the week but in the program, they did not seem to think this was requisite to getting the health benefits.

What are those health benefits? One researcher flat out stated that by keeping IGF (Insulin-like Growth Factor) at a low level (and fasting in the manner described accomplishes this) in one year a person can eliminate stroke, diabetes, heart disease and cancer from being a cause of death. And apparently this is true for people with unhealthy habits (like smoking and drinking, for example) as much as for people who live a so-called healthy lifestyle.

The reason for this, they explained, is because higher levels of IGF means the body is constantly dividing cells and experiencing a high metabolic rate. This means the body has fewer resources available to repair DNA damage because it is pouring all its resources into creating new (damaged) cells through cell division. When the IGF levels come down, the body goes into a defensive mode and instead of creating new cells all the time, repairs the ones on hand without the need to constantly replace them.

If what I've stated above hasn't convinced you that this may be the MOST IMPORTANT HEALTH INFORMATION YOU WILL EVER LEARN!, then I've done a poor job of explaining. That's why you need to watch the program and tape it while you do and go back and watch it again whenever you find you may not be sticking to the regimen faithfully.

Oh by the way, I've been doing this for a few weeks now and I can already see the difference in the size of my belly (down to a 32 inch waist! '-) and have found that fasting for one day isn't as difficult as one might expect having done it a few times. Yesterday I took it a step further and ate nothing for a full 18 hours, then a can of chicken and rice soup and a few snacks. I'm going to forgo the 600 calorie allowable and do a full 24 hour fast eventually. I'm working on a few tricks to take my mind off the hunger. One that worked yesterday was getting my hoe and going to the garden to chop tumbleweeds. Staying busy and drinking water keeps the mind occupied and the belly satisfied.

Hope my sharing this information with you shows that there are no hard feelings vis a vis our disagreeing. '-)