Description image

RED CEO Jim Jannard Speaks About Their Lawsuit Against Sony Regarding RAW Compression

02.15.13 @ 4:11PM Tags : , ,

I mentioned that we might see a response on REDUser from the CEO of RED regarding the recent lawsuit against Sony, and that’s exactly what we got earlier this morning. In the lawsuit, RED is claiming that Sony is infringing on patents related to REDCODE RAW compression, since Sony is also using RAW compression with their F65, F55, and F5 cameras. If you haven’t read it yet (and you’ve got an opinion on the matter), I’ve embedded the document in the previous post, and I am also embedding the patents that apply below. Click through for those documents as well as the response from Mr. Jannard.

Here are two of the patents that apply in this case. There seems to be a third that doesn’t apply to the case in any way and is likely a typo.

Video camera (US patent 8174560):

Video camera (US patent 8358357):

This is the first response from Jim Jannard:

We have taken a bit of flak for filing a lawsuit against Sony Electronics.

#1. Sony stepped up and finally supported 4K from cameras to displays. That is helping to cement 4K as the real cinema standard. Good. We actually have a Sony 4K 84″ display and Sony 4K projector at RSH for reference.

But…

#2. We are heavily invested in concepts, inventions, designs, development and manufacturing of RED cameras, REDRAY and the RED Projector. Each is unique and has motivated the industry to get better, for the benefit of all. We don’t mind others joining the 4K revolution… quite the contrary, we embrace it. What we don’t accept is others just borrowing our technology, intentionally or unintentionally. We admire invention and happily pay for and license great technology from other companies when it is useful to our program.

#3. We have created many jobs in the US leveraging our vision and technology and we will aggressively protect our employees. Every single job matters. It is a magic trick to build a camera in the US, especially at the highest level. This cannot be done if others are allowed to just take what we have done and use our work as their own.

#4. Our customers have invested in our technology. They need to be protected and their investment needs to be protected. We have an obligation to our customers so they will not have their investment diluted by a proliferation of the proprietary technology they invested in.

We don’t mean to be heavy handed. We saw 4K as the future standard in 2005. We have endured comments that “RED was a scam”. “1080P was good enough.” “What does a sunglass guy know about cameras?”… as well as others I would never publish.

Patents are here for a reason. They protect IP. Receiving a patent now means that you have an obligation to protect it… or they have absolutely no value whatsoever.

We are anxious to resolve this and have everyone move along. But in the end… our ideas, employees and customers matter. We will tenaciously protect all of them.

He added more later (I’ve combined the later responses into one, separated by line breaks):

If ideas are King… what do you do if they are taken? Roll over and pretend that everything is OK? Sorry. I don’t do that. Especially when people’s jobs are at stake. I fight.
If someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions… you call the police. When someone takes your ideas, inventions and designs, you call your attorneys. That is life.

This is a REDCODE RAW issue… one that many have acknowledged for years as a core invention of RED and incredibly important to what we all are doing.

REDCODE RAW is not “rounded corners”. It is fundamental to recording high resolution images on camera to small media. It is brilliant. And it is no surprise that others have finally figured out (several years later) that the only way to get where they need to go is through this path. Hindsight is spectacularly clear.

So why even bother with this? Well, there are two sides to every story, and I firmly believe in covering both of them. If Sony has a statement (which would not likely be forthcoming about any details or opinions), I will share that as well. I’ve said a few times that I think the patent system in the United States needs some work, but if someone is granted a patent, it’s not up for the people to decide what’s right and what’s wrong — it’s up to the legal system. This is exactly what happened with the Litepanels case which now requires all infringing manufacturers to license the technology in order to continue making and distributing LED panels for film use in the United States.

What’s interesting about this case is that patent issues or licensing could be one of the reasons most companies have not tackled RAW compression in their motion picture cameras. Canon and Arri are both sending out uncompressed RAW to third-party recorders (and avoiding recording internally altogether), and Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, Ikonoskop, and Aaton are all recording uncompressed CinemaDNG internally to SSDs. CinemaDNG is an open format from Adobe, but recently they developed a compressed JPEG option for their stills DNG archive format. We’ll see if that finds its way into motion cameras and if that development potentially infringes on any RED patents.

Currently the only other motion RAW format that is similar to RED’s REDCODE RAW and is being used in cameras right now is GoPro’s CineForm RAW (both are wavelet codecs based on JPEG2000). I had read in the past that CineForm and RED had some sort of agreement, but it’s unclear where that stands right now. There are two digital cinema cameras that I know of recording to CineForm RAW: the 2/3″ SI-2K camera, and the Kinefinity KineRAW-S35 (which is not yet shipping in the United States).

If anyone else or someone from RED would like to add anything regarding CineForm RAW (or the case in general), feel free to share below in the comments.

What do you guys think?

Link: Patent lawsuit — REDUser

COMMENT POLICY

We’re all here for the same reason: to better ourselves as writers, directors, cinematographers, producers, photographers... whatever our creative pursuit. Criticism is valuable as long as it is constructive, but personal attacks are grounds for deletion; you don't have to agree with us to learn something. We’re all here to help each other, so thank you for adding to the conversation!

Description image 88 COMMENTS

  • Other item of note, in regards to JJ’s comment, “Receiving a patent now means that you have an obligation to protect it…” If they didn’t file a lawsuit, their patent can become invalidated. Regardless of reasoning or final outcome, it allows RED to maintain registered intellectual property protection.

    • This is totally incorrect. You are thinking of trademarks. The only way a patent can be invalidated is through an invalidation action with the patent office, or through a trial

  • Allan Crocket on 02.15.13 @ 4:39PM

    Good comment Robert. Living in California I generally believe that there are way to many law suits. Perhaps this one is justified.

  • For item #3, perhaps POTUS can make Red a poster child for USA jobs. BO needs to shoot! What can he do after 2016? Let’s see what he buys.

  • Living in Orange County, California, while often owning beachfront property, is really really expensive. All those overpriced proprietary batteries and SSDs help foot the bill. The Oakley Headquarters and its RED children are living pretty well. Just a little perspective as Jannard’s RED herring of “job risk” circulates.

    • He sold Oakley to Luxotica a few years back. I think jj is running only red right now. Remember, Red is a small business. Their overhead with regard to their size is still pretty big. They def should not be relaxed.

  • I’m not from Red, but I am a customer. I feel like yesterday’s article came off as a little partial against Red, so I’m glad to see this. The whole idea of no one winning when filing a lawsuit and it getting settled is absurd. Without knowing the details of the arrangement, no one knows who win, perhaps everyone won, including consumers.

    The point is our entire economy is now fundamentally predicated on Intellectual Property Rights. While there is obviously room for abuse and exploitation, a company like RED which has pushed the camera industry forward over the past few years and forced competitors to come out with options like the Alexa and the F65 or be left behind, is valuable to our society and the contract we established with it when they invested millions in this technology and then sold it to the world affordably needs to be respected. You can’t ask them to share their technology affordably, and then not allow them to protect their rights to their inventions, so to question on its face the filing of a lawsuit makes no sense to me.

    As a Red customer, I appreciate Jim’s response, and am glad he is protecting my investment in my camera, and his company. How would it be in my interest at all if other cameras come out which cost half as much, and offer the same feature set because the technology was stolen rather than developed? It hurts his bottom line, and it hurts my bottom line. Redcode was critical to my selection of Red as a technology platform, and I thought it was short-sighted for other companies not to invest in proper codec technologies. I can respect that they would want to protect their work product, and the deserve to benefit from the head start gained from their foresight and research.

    I’m not about sustaining artificial barriers to entry, but frankly, there are no longer barriers to entry. There is good enough, affordable enough equipment out there for those who are learning or just starting out to create great material on a camera which costs $350 dollars. But the moment people can access and use technology and software and decide to compete in the professional world, without supporting the true costs of doing business and creating that innovative technology, then the entire cost structure of the industry becomes unsustainable and we will have one last flare of creativity, and then die.

    As long as we need to transform these great, creative, abstract tasks we perform into food and other resources governed by scarcity, we need to honor the system of intellectual property we have established (though we might be able to streamline). I hope that readers on this site will be less prejudicial in the future, and allow such lawsuits to run their course and be properly adjudicated before attacking one party for claiming to be victimized when they very well might have been.

  • So basically he’s fighting with evil foreign companies to save his employees’ jobs. A noble man indeed.

  • What did the on-set red tech say to the troubled AC with a malfunctioning camera?

    Lets power cycle it and see what happens.

    • 60% of the so called “bad red on-set cases” is the shitty AC knowing shit about the camera he uses and it’s quirks. I bet one would know Alexa inside out, because this is golden horse now. So why do testing with Red, getting familiar with it, noooo let’s just press two or three lol so randum xD buttons and see what happens. Oh, and whine afterwards in every pub.

      • 60%? Really… interesting. If a camera has a lot of “quirks” it should have an on-set tech, like the Phatom. The Phatom is quirky, but do you hear people say that about the Alexa? Not so much. How about the Epic… yea, you do, because it has a bunch of quirks. Have you ever compared the stability of an Arri beta build to a Red beta build, seriously? They’re worlds apart. How often does the Alexa evf lock up or freeze so you you can’t use it? Not so much, but if you’ve used the Epic a lot then you’ll know the answer to my next question before I ask it… how often does the red lcd freeze or lock up?

        • He has a point. Many of these camera stories are actually just the fault of the users. Btw Alexas have quirks on set just as often as Epic in my experience, which means both are quite stable.

        • You must be really bad with technology. The epic is such an easy camera to use and very stable these days, that or you have shit luck. Or you just repeated what you hear and have no experience with the camera.

          • I’m sorry… I was away from my computer for 25+ mins while I was waiting for an Epic to black shade.

          • Sony F55 cmos sensor calibration “aka black shading” : under 10 seconds. And you do not actully even need to do it.

        • When was the last time anyone used a “Red tech”? I thought that job vanished like 4 years ago.

          • Red occasionally sends their techs on set for big jobs

          • And so does Panavision, Arri CSC, TCS, Otto Nemenz, Clairmont… This is not rare. They are available to support the production. Sometimes you need them, sometimes you dont. But its often provided as a courtesy by the renting party to lend a hand should something go wrong.

      • “Quirks”?! How can any professional camera that is acceptable have quirks?

    • “Let’s go outside so I can hear you above the noise of the fan.”

  • One more…

    How many red employees does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    One, but only after talking about screwing it in for three years first.

  • I think that RED are definitely within their right to protect their investment and development costs, just as any other company, what bothers me here is that if all the companies would follow suit, it would really hurt everyone. I can´t help but think how many patents Sony, Canon and Arri must have that RED are infringing upon.

    What about those Sonys cams the old Betas and 8mm where you had the recording on a separate body, Sounds familiar RED? What about the fact that you can check your battery level in the viewfinder? The connection of a camera to the quick release plate… etc, etc ad nauseam. Sony among other companies can really go nuclear here and really pause innovation for years to come, that is if they think in the same terms as Mr. Jannard, hopefully they don´t.

    • Daniel Mimura on 02.21.13 @ 9:09PM

      Huh? Are you saying Sony had a patent on the viewfinder battery indicator?…etc…

      If they had any problems, they should’ve sued Red (or most other camera manufacturers)… But my guess is that they didn’t have a patent on it and because of that, didn’t sue anyone.

  • So, if I’m understanding this, RED is claiming ownership over compressed RAW video? Or am I misunderstanding?

    • It’s not quite that broad, no.
      There’s apparently a particular method of RAW video compression that Red used, and it’s that method that they’re fighting for. If someone were to compress the video in a different way, Red most likely wouldn’t have a claim.

      • Gary Simmons on 02.21.13 @ 4:47PM

        Okay but what about the part where they imply they are going to watch Adobes open Cinema DNG it does seem as if RED is gone to war with every one. Does anyone know if they have any real proof that their method of Raw compression is actually being copied I haven’t seen it. And some one told me they were trying to claim the new modular cameras from Sony and others were direct copy but haven’t seen any actuall press on that either.

  • I’m not an expert in compression algorithms, but from skimming the patents this looks like “we apply a slight modification of an existing algorithm to our specific problem”. If someone more well versed in this would like to comment I’d love to hear their opinion.

    In any event we’ve been through this with JPEG; the patents didn’t help advance the state of the art and were primarily a means by which lawyers could extract money from companies for their use of mathematics.

  • Jannard, waving the patriotic flag, being, once again a dillusional arrogant pass.

  • A patent on compressing Raw video? Not exactly an invention, just an idea. In Europe, you cannot patent software.

    Looking at Wikipedia, Red have filed quite a few lawsuits — several were thrown of court. I’d forgotten about this but they even filed a lawsuit against EOSHD.com for libel! It seems as if Jannard’s lawyers have some sort of “Jannard’s Latest Lawsuit Template” to keep up with demand, because in the case against Wooden Camera, they forgot to change “sunglasses” to “camera”.

  • So quickly do people forget that there are preceding patents to this exact claim by si2K’s Arri Pressler.
    Plus preceding Raw Compressed cameras that apply same algorithm that RED just blatantly stole and pushed a patent through the system with $.
    FirstLight by CineForm was talked about long before RedCine.
    Many of the concepts in REDCODE are direct from David Newmans head.

    • Perhaps they legally licensed that technology? If you look at the list of patents on the Redone document you see the list of pre existing technologies cites as part of the redone. Meaning they are properly licensed. Perhaps Sony did not acquire the proper licenses for their raw compression scheme.

      We don’t really know the details. Speculation and forming an opinion based on such is futile till we know what actually happened. I doubt we ever will.

  • Money Makes the World Go Round.

  • Him: RED is just being greedy.
    Her: So why are you so worried about someone stealing your screenplay idea?

  • UGH ! more patent trolling. RED is doing nothing new. Compressing 12bit video instead of 8 or 10 ? just an extension of existing art as technology could evolve to deliver it. However the actual application is a lot more generic than that and probably violates other patents. Note the list of related patents in the header. Expect sony to fight it and invalidate it because if RED wins against sony they will go after every one else and its pure BS.

    giving that I was camera shopping this year, I’m not going to consider a Scarlet because I don’t support companies that patent troll. so RED, you lost $20K of my money…Just as I no longer purchase products made by Vitec group companies AKA LitePanels LED patent lawsuit. in fact I will not use or allow to be used LitePanels products on my productions. Vote with your money.

  • If I were Jim’s lawyer (and I hold a law degree) I would strongly advise him against these broad statements.
    This will not help him in any way. I also think it makes him look panicky, and the ‘jobs in the US’ bit is not a winner either. Good on him though.
    My money is that this suit fails.
    As to the EPIC vs Alexa, the EPIC is a great camera, but has more quirks than Alexa IMO. Also, people aren’t just choosing a camera based on ease of use. The Alexa is more flexible IMO, plus the ProRes option is very valuable in TV. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but it is. The Alexa has a level of trust with most producers other camera brands can’t rival, except perhaps Sony (and now Canon with the C300).
    RED, deserved or not, has a poor reputation.

  • Red patented the ‘video camera’…. The next thing you know jannard will try to patent the ‘home computer’ because he puts a red hard drive inside….maybe he coud sue toshiba….wait, toshiba makes the drive and he puts a wrapper around it. Since when did JJ give a s*** about people? What does he give to chairty??? You dont become a billionaire looking after your employees….you get there screwing your people over…

    • Hugh johnson on 02.16.13 @ 12:59AM

      Someone should take that “Leave Brittany alone” video that Chris Crocker did and voice over Jim Jannard’s name instead of Brittany’s. That would be hilarious!

    • satoshi,

      your limited knowledge of the facts and the US patent system combined with your eagerness to post opinionated comments, is very representative of internet at its worst.

      You probably think that RED/Jannard/Graeme tried to patent the “video camera”. Other users with similar knowledge/mindset to your own will read what you just wrote and spread this as ‘information’ on other forums. There is no shortage of your kind and the world is worse off for it.

      You need to recognize your ignorance and start asking questions first, informing yourself as to what is actually going on, and THEN you can share your opinion. This last paragraph is important.

    • Yuri Deklas on 02.16.13 @ 1:50AM

      That’s a lot of ellipses…

    • Daniel Mimura on 02.21.13 @ 9:29PM

      satoshi, I don’t think you understand that by Jannard mentioning “video camera” in the suit, it means “the” video camera, not “a” video camera…

      • Daniel Mimura on 02.21.13 @ 9:30PM

        (the video camera he is talking about for the other bajillion pages in the suit, not the invention called the video camera…)

  • NFS comments section, what a circus. Its like TMZ around here.

    As if SONY was any different?

    Sony Files Patent Lawsuit to Ban LG Mobile Telephones From U.S.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-29/sony-files-patent-lawsuit-to-ban-lg-mobile-telephones-from-u-s-.html

    But no RED is the big evil giant! RED pays licensing fees, why shouldn’t sony have to. It is just as silly to blindly hate a brand as it is to blindly pledge allegiance to one. You guys scoff at them for being proud of creating US jobs? RED has made a million mistakes, but for a five year old company they have accomplished a great deal and gave our industry a much needed jolt. For example, the BMC that so many NFS readers are waiting for, would not exist if it weren’t for RED and if it did would certainly not be $3K. The Alexa wouldn’t have been released as soon as it did and would probably be upwards of $300k. If you dont like a company fine, but spreading FUD does nothing but harm to our industry.

  • Yuri Deklas on 02.16.13 @ 3:40AM

    Your copy-paste skills are impressive.

  • RED have a history of flatulent lawsuits and claims:

    On August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.

    Red.com sued Andrew Reid, a blogger. Case dismissed

    Jannard doesn’t hesitate to pour shit on what displeases him. So why did he sue “Blogger, Andrew Reid”?

    I suspect it’s not RED/ Cameras that aggravates so many people…but RED/ Jannard.

    • Kenneth Merrill on 02.16.13 @ 12:07PM

      That’s the truth. I like Red cameras well enough, and I’m glad that the company has brought the cost of professional filmmaking so far down, but Jim Jannard is nothing short of an arrogant loud-mouth.

  • Nopatenttroll on 02.16.13 @ 11:20AM

    Todays business is a warzone and patents haven’t got much to do with inventions.

    Today’s patent system works like this:
    - you create a product which is innovative (best case)
    - product management (and not engineering) tries to secure the product by filing patents which are as broad as possible to cut out competition as widely as possible
    - there is no reason to file a patent if you do not plan to go after those where the patent may match – filing the patent is a waste of money and resources otherwise.

    What Mr Jannard does is just a logical consequence of how business is handled today in the US. The application for these patents was a clever move as it has granted them a timeframe where the patents are valid with an opportunity to attack other companies.

    Japanese companies have a tradition to file patents from an engineering perspective and very few are actually used to sue competitors. SONY for sure has enough in their portfolio to challenge RED cams and other products. I would expect SONY to counter sue RED very soon.

    What’s really odd about the patent though is that in my view these patents should not have been assigned to Red to begin with. I am pretty sure these patents will be attacked and In my opinion it is very likely that RED is going to loose them when they are challenged. Challenging patents is very expensive, but SONY may have a reason to do so now.

    This is an interesting case and I cannot wait to see it develop ;)

  • Here’s a thought. The new Sony cameras look like such a good value that everyone is pissing themselves that it’s too good to be true and based on stolen tech. Really it’s jus all self interest. Human nature, I want it because I want it.

  • I have one comment. Why the F is everyone complaining about tech and how Jannard handles everything. Who really cares? Does it effect your work? No. I shoot RED, Sony, Canon, Arri, whatever. Its a tool! Use it! It was a good article and informative as usual. You all have cameras, now go shoot something for F sakes and stop trolling on people and how they handle things leave it to them.

    • It absolutely affects us all. If Red win and tie the hands of every other developer to have to license to Red etc then prices will go up, stifle variety and even scare off development by companies that don’t even exist yet.

      Litepanels won a suit that they shouldn’t have and now they basically own LED lighting in the US. And that affects us all, well not as much me because I’m in Australia but you know what I mean. Because the US market is so big Litepanels or Red winning actually affects the rest of the world because development decisions have to include sales in America.

      • You act like this is the only patent that any camera maker pays any other camera maker. They all license technology from each other. It’s how the game works. You play by the rules.

    • The whole marketing hype and Balderdash surrounding the 3k/$3k Scarlet revealed to me the Jannard has no respect for potential customers. If you don’t have a lemming-like acceptance of his marketing pronouncements…well, shit…you’ve got bad attitude and are won’t be accepted as a customer. Besides…if you don’t worship RED ya must be a “Soccer Mum”…

      This drongo wouldn’t last in business very long down here in Oz…we have a very low tolerance of Bullshit Artists.

  • All I’m saying- is if Red stole a Sony patent, they’d never find all the little bits of Jannard to even think about putting him back together.

    All is fair in love and war.

  • What’s wrong RED, a little competition and you shit your pants?
    Soon every company in the world are going to use 4K & 8K Digital Cameras.
    Are RED going to “SUE THEM ALL”?

    RED are pushing their luck, there are laws in this universe above the justice system.

    RED will pay for their Greed.

    • No trust among thieves. Like Sony isn’t greedy? It’s over the technology Red developed by using RED Code Raw VERY Complex- sony didn’t just stumble on their own version that happened to be exactly the same patented version.

  • US Patent law is a mess, but a few facts Cineform RAW predates anything R3D. Si-2k was doing modular before RED coined a marketing name for it. And if this is all about XAVC shouldn’t RED be sueing Panasonic? who deloped AVC-ULTRA (XAVC is sony branded AVC-ULTRA, So it’s panasonic technology Licensed by Sony and rebranded for their camera). If anyone was at NAB last year you’ll remeber the 4k footage playing from a P2 card. I I think we are all inteligent enough to know this isn’t about who stole whos IP.

    • Daniel Mimura on 02.21.13 @ 9:40PM

      XAVC isn’t a RAW format. Red’s suit is specifically about compressed RAW motion picture formats (Canon and Nikon and others use compressed RAW still formats) and RED doesn’t seem to be “borrowing” anything from this technology.

  • lucas loureiro on 02.19.13 @ 11:31AM

    What about the Viper, I remember that being a raw camera before RED ONE.

    • Dave Kendricken on 02.19.13 @ 12:00PM

      Ehh depends on your definition of “raw” but not true camera RAW… Uncompressed HD, yes. “With three 9.2 million pixel Frame Transfer CCDs capturing 1920×1080 resolution, the Viper FilmStream camera system delivers an RGB 4:4:4 10-bit log output—uncompromised by electronic camera signal processing—to a field recorder. There is no color subsampling, color-space conversion, irreversible video manipulation, or compression. In short, nothing is done to the image: what the lens sees is what the Viper FilmStream camera delivers. Every pixel is there in full resolution.”
      http://www.cinematography.net/Files/viper_brochure.pdf

  • I am a patent holder on an electrical invention that is based on 3 years of hard work. That product is going to the ISS in July – not intended for that, but because it was so good, they bought these from me. I also designed about 12-15 other similar variations before settling on my current one which was patented – the other ones were no good – like Beta vs VHS. In the last 5 years I have seen my variations come to the market place and as expected, they are no good. The concepts and proven principals work like magic. I should have patented the junky ones too! Oh well!

    But the idea of a patent is to protect my hard work yet allow for improvements from other parties without stealing what I have designed. Can they improve on my design – perhaps, but it cannot go against my initial design. IF the design is a significant improvement enough to warrant a new patent by others without violating my design – in other words, much different, they MAY issue a patent – or not.

    Sony and RED each have a codec that involves RAW compression. The issue is whether or not Sony’s method is an improvement, different or significantly changed from the RED patent. If the Sony Codec on the F65 / 55 / 5 can capture it and it can play back on RED RAW or whatever they have patented seamlessly, but call it Sony RAW (or whatever) then Sony is in trouble. If it cannot and the 2 camera’s codec’s are virtually non compatible because of the codec, Jannard doesn’t stand a chance. Concepts are not patented. The technology and proven product based on that concept is.

    I highly suspect Sony has spent a ton of money in R&D in making a better codec than RED, a significant improvement that makes RED’s a dinosaur or outdated or obsolete in comparison – even if the concepts are similar. Patents protect the work and the R&D, but allows for advancement from another group. RED may have the idea and some methods in which this will work. Sony says – good idea, but we can make it better by significant improvements. We don’t like the RED method, we think ours is better. Red gets their patent on the inferior product and Sony gets theirs on the superior product. Are the differences significant? That is what it is all about.

    I put my money on Sony. They are too smart to screw up in this department.

    Cheers,
    Take 5

  • On August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.[35] Jannard accused LG “…of taking the “Scarlet” brand name from the camera company, despite RED’s denial of their request.”[36]

    On September 23, 2011 Jim Jannard announced that his personal email account was compromised by former Arri executive Michael Bravin.[37] A lawsuit against Arri was filed at the end of 2011.[38] James H. Neale, attorney for defendants filed a declaration in support of Arri’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Oct 29, 2012 saying Red has not yet identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. Arri has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents. Red wants all documents relating to ARRI’s development and marketing of the Alexa camera and to its efforts to compete with RED. He also claims that Gregory Weeks (attorney for Red) mischaracterizes the parites’ meet and confer discussions and their respective proposed resolutions. The evidence strongly suggests that RED’s purpoted trade secret claimes are a pretext for obtaining untrammeled access to the sensitive information of its competitor, ARRI. The plaintiff RED has provided nothing in discovery.

    On June 27, 2012 Red sued Wooden Camera, a manufacturer of third party accessories, for copyright infringement.[39]

    Red.com sued Netcast et all Sept 16, 2008 8:2008-cv-01030 Breach of Contract (alter ego)[40]

    Red.com sued Silicon for Breach of Contract June 9, 2010, case number 30-2010-00379482 Santa Ana Superior Court. Case dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to Share Holders, On June 9, 2010 the company was named in a lawsuit…Red.com alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Last update to share holders; On or about February 2, 2011, the company received a proposed draft settlement agreement from Red.com. Subsequently, on March 3,2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was substantially different from the terms of Red.com’s proposed settlement agreement. The settlement did not result in any payment by the Company and accourdingly, did not have any adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flow.

    Red.com sued Wind River System for Breach of Contract,Fraud, and Negligent representation (service agreement) Nov 14,2008 Superior Court Snata Clara County, State of California. dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to share holders. On Nov 14, 2008 Red.Com filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint assers causes of action against the company for fraud in the inducement, brach of contract and negligent representation in connection with services agreeement entered into between the company and Red in Jan 2006…..The company beleives that Red’s complaint is without merit and intends to defent this matter vigorously. On Jan 2, 2009 the company filed a cross-complaint against Red for breach of contract in connection with Red’s failure to pay outsatnding invoices and for breach of contract and conversion/trespass to chattels in connection with Red’s unauthorized distribution of Wind River VxWorks operating system to end users.

    Red.com sued Pixellexis August 2, 2011 over RedBrix Case Number 8:2011cv01155 On August 14, 2011 Pixellexis announced that it had ceased its operation and would no longer sell any products. Pixellexis went out of business. [41]

    Red.com sued Usability.pro et all.(alter ego) April 7, 2010 30-2010-00360802They countered sued 2010 Orange County Superior Court System.[citation needed] However, unbeknownst to Usability.Pro at the time of entering into these arrangements with Red.com, Red.com’s modus operandi is to hire outside vendors to perform valuable services, import the work product in-house, and then refuse to make all payments owned under the contracts and sue to recover whatever Red.com paid, asserting trumped up allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Red.com has failed to make good on promises it made to its customers to bring the Epic and Scarlet camera systems to the market in 2010. To cover up for its own inability to develop marketable products, Red.com launched a campaign to blame its own failfure on outside partners, designers and manufacturers with whom it contracted to assist in developing Red.com’s camera products. Rather than acknowledge and address its own shortcomings, Red.com’s approach to blame others rather than taking responsibility runs directly counter to the image it seeks to promote in the market as a self-reliant, visionary company that engages in “straight talk” with its customors.

    Red.com sued Uniqoptics,et all in 2010, 2:11-cv-03611-VFB-JEM Trademark (Lanham Act)case dismissed. [42]

    Red.com sued Uniqoptics et all in Orange County Superior Court 30-2010-00373507 May 2010, Breach of Contract, Fraud. Ongoing litigation

    Red.com and Landmine Media sued Andrew Reid and EOSHD (a blogger), on Oct 6, 2010 for Slander, Publication of facts placing in false light, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Mr Andrew Reid changed in Terms and Conditions and case was dismissed. [43]

    Red.com sued Nightsky Hosting, Inc dba R3DDATA, Case No8:12-cv-00034-DOC-MLG Jan. 9, 2012.[citation needed]

    Red.com sued Epic Games May 5, 2008 8:08-cv-00494-DOC-An

    Red.com sued 24P LLC Sept 13, 2007 sacv 07-1013-jvs mlgx (counter claimant)

    WIPO CASES Brian Schoemholz et all Trio Films/Cine Red Compalint Denied Zimrat Goldstein from Ontario Canada Redcamfilms slu (complaint denied

  • There is no copyright on ideas, processes, systems! There is just copyright on specific work, on the particular execution of the idea, process, system!
    That is the foundation of the US Copyright Office, other copyright offices and of patent offices.

    If Sony has copied the raw compression in its particular execution from RED, it is a violation of copyright/ patent.
    If Sony or any other company or person does programm a raw compression – the same idea – with some different processes and systems, that is their right!

    Everyone can develop car engines, bulbs, car wheels, TV sets and so on. They were invented from others.
    It is only violation of copyright/patent, if it is copied 1:1 or is very similar in execution!

    Red doesn’t have the right to forbit others compressing raw files, if these others use the same idea of compressing raw files and execute it in some different way!

    If RED would be in the right with its forbiddance, than RED doesn’t have the right to write in letters and speak in a code named English language. It was invented and developed by others!

    But RED writes in letters and speaks in a code named English, but in his own words! Red has the right to do that, because RED does not copy texts from others! RED uses the idea of communicating speach, but executes it in his own way!

    OK?

LEAVE A COMMENT