February 14, 2013

RED Sues Arri (No One Wins). Now They Have Sights Set on Sony and the F65, F55, and F5 Cameras

A litte over a year ago, there was an email hacking incident involving Arri, Band Pro, and RED; Jannard and RED have since dropped their lawsuit to the best of our understanding, since as of a few days ago that case was agreed to be dismissed by all parties involved (everyone comes out a loser having to pay all legal fees and expenses). Now we have word that a brand new legal suit has appeared against Sony, alleging patent infringement related to their F65, F55, and F5 cameras.

Here is a bit more about the lawsuit thanks to Cinescopophilia:

RED claim Sony’s alleged infringing sales of the F65, F55, and F5 cameras are likely to cause irreparable harm to RED, which can not be compensated by damages. Accordingly RED seeks a preliminarily and permanent injunction enjoining Sony Corporation of America and Sony Electronics Inc from making, using offering to sell, and selling the Sony F65, F55 and F5 cameras.

If successful with its civil case it is alleged RED will seek from Sony Corporation of America and Sony Electronics Inc an amount no less than lost profits or a reasonable royalty, plus Sony Corporation of America and Sony Electronics Inc to offer up all infringing cameras for destruction

Here is the court document alleging infringement:

It is my understanding that a part of the case has to do with RED's RAW compression scheme which they claim Sony is infringing upon -- since the F65, F55, and F5 all record to a compressed RAW codec, unlike the Canon C500 and Arri Alexa which both send out uncompressed RAW signals to third party recorders. Since RED has certain agreements with GoPro's Cineform RAW (which is also based on JPEG2000), that particular situation has avoided any lawsuits by RED.

Lawsuits about patents are nothing new, but the ramifications of the case might be significant. Obviously Sony, being the large corporation that they are, probably wouldn't readily settle on some sort of licensing agreement with RED, but if RED does win, that may be their only choice.

I've stated numerous times that I don't believe the patent system is in good shape, and there are plenty of those that agree with how bad the system actually is (including Mark Cuban). Large companies tend to hold dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of patents against each other, but most of the time they don't utilize them in lawsuits to avoid mutually assured destruction (like your standard issue ICBM).

I'm sure more details will come out, and it will be interesting to see if we get a late-night forum response from Mr. Jannard regarding this whole case.

You can read the actual patents themselves using the link below.

Link: RED Takes Civil Action Against Sony Over Camera Patents -- Cinescopophilia

Your Comment

124 Comments

Oh joe!! Some should have suggested you this by twitter!!! :) Anyway Red is annoying as hell..

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Jesus

Yeah at least 10 different people sent this to me but I wasn't sure if I was going to cover it. The ramifications could be significant.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

ahahahah don't worry man!!! just joking!! you people do a great job with this site!!! But what Red is doing it's absolutely childish and annoying as hell...

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Jesuan

Like no one has done it before, right

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Natt

it doesn't make it less annoying...

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Jesus

Wow. I wonder what happened with that WOODEN CAMERA suit.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Red is following the path that Apple lead, they start something (not invent it, its different) and when stronger than them enemies arrive at the party, start making desperate efforts not to overtake them with ideas, but with lawyers...

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Daniel

Most people that talk about patents unfortunately don't have a clue about the patent system. This seems a typical example. Have you read the Apple or the Red patents? Have you compared them with the available prior art, and came to the conclusion that the subject matter _of the granted claims_ is not based on an inventive step over this prior art? Then please provide your argumentation.

If not, do your homework first. And no. the Apple patents in question are not about a touch screen. Of course, that was invented before. They are about one very specific combination of technical features in relation to touch screens.

Would you like your ideas to be stolen? Is a creative idea developed in the field of technology of less value than a creative idea in the field of cinema?

February 15, 2013

-1
Reply
Thyl Engelhardt

Unfortunately, the reality is just that. Patents get only 20 years of protection, which eventually leads to better products (see Steadicam and its knock-offs). A song, script or movie is protected for almost eternity - upto 70 years after the death of the author, or 100 years for corporations. So, in that sense, society values copyright more than patent right. IMHO, the protection term for copyright should be substantially reduced, just the way it was originally intended when Thomas Jefferson first drafted it: a necessary, but temporary monopoly.

February 15, 2013

1
Reply

Seems a bit desperate on their part these days lashing out at everyone. Gotta be good odds on them trying to compete with the BMC in some kind of Scarlett package come NAB seeing as they haven't sued them... yet

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Chris Lambert

Today I learned: 2 lawsuits in 3 years equals "lashing out at everyone."

February 15, 2013

-1
Reply
Jack Frost

Red sure does make great products at a great price, but they make it difficult as hell for people to respect them as a company when they pull shit like this.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Robert Hardy

You know, I don't think the patent system is healthy, I don't like lawsuits, but the idea that a company can steal from another is not one anybody should be applauding, even if they benefit from it. Our society has devolved to the point where we support and endorse theft, and look down on a company that says they have been stolen from. The idea that if it's technically possible it must be right has permeated our thinking. A company who's business is to sue is one thing but RED actually makes some pretty substantial products that took hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

What is the appropriate course of action to being robbed?

What should a company due if there work is being stolen?

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Raed

Well said and good points, thanks for being coherent Raed

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Biz

It doesn't matter if you love RED or hate RED, it is their right to protect their technology and business. I have my own negative opinion of RED, but I still say GO RED!

February 15, 2013

1
Reply
Razor

That's a strawman.

You're not addressing the question of WHETHER they're being stolen from in the first place. I don't know the patents, but IMO it comes down to whether RED are claiming on the general idea of compressing RAW data, or on a specific implementation. If RED have patented the whole concept of compressing RAW data, screw 'em. You shouldn't be able to patent something so broad. If Sony have, on the other hand, copied RED's implementation of said compression, then yes, that should be protected against.

February 15, 2013

1
Reply
Luke

Notice it says DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.

That might be interesting since all the jury will have been Sony users and no doubt none will have heard of Red. That might work in their favour since they wont know what a douche Jannard is.

How about a lawsuit by Red users over the resolution lies of the Red One and cameras that wouldnt even boot up. How hard is it to get a camera to just start!!!

We can put Red in the category of Litepanels no, douchey companys that sue on vague/broad claims and win because the courts dont know any better.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Bravin works for BANDPRO (re-seller, Joe- not ARRI.

February 14, 2013

2
Reply
Tim

Bravin worked for Band Pro and then moved on to Arri, which is when the hacking occurred, while he was employed at Arri.

"On or about January 19, 2010, in Los Angeles County, California, defendant intentionally accessed the computer used in interstate commerce belonging to Band Pro Film & Digital, Inc. ("Band Pro"), without authorization, and obtained information from that computer. Defendant obtained the user name and password for the Band Pro email account for Amnon Band, President and Chief Executive Officer of Band Pro, during defendant's employment with Band Pro. Defendant resigned from Band Pro in December 2009, and began to work for another company. After resigning from Band Pro, from approximately December 2009, through June 2010, including on January 19, 2010, defendant accessed, without authorization, Amnon Band's email account and thereby read Band's emails. The total loss to Band Pro from defendant's unauthorized accesses totaled at least $5,001."

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

noone here has any knowledge whatsoever about this case and contents...this post is doomed to become nothing but a happy place for RED haters :)

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
hansd

Agreed. Sony is either infringing or they are not. Red blieves Sony is, so let them have their day in court.

Regarding the RED v. Arri agreement to dismiss: How does Mr. Marine know "no one wins"? They could have reached a settlment out of court, a term of which was each party's agreeing to enter into the joint stipulation of dismissal. It's possible RED won plenty.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Puncher

Sure, but I'm referring to the case, not a theoretical settlement which may or may not exist. If they settled out of court, good for them, but it's not an admission of guilt either way, so technically there is still no winner in that case - if you're really trying to nitpick.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Well said.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Xiong

There was no settlement.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

I can't claim otherwise. Still, I'd be curious to know how you know there was no settlement.

February 15, 2013

2
Reply
Puncher

These corporate thunderstorms happen so frequently now, I hardly give them a second thought. Someone should make a doc about the US patent system right now, though. It's jacked up so bad.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
alex

YES!! A documentary should definitely be made.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

See my comments above. I think Kirby Ferguson already started doing this (everything is a remix).

February 15, 2013

1
Reply

But filmed on a Red or Sony ?

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Saied

What about suing the Kineraw people for ripping off the Epic entirely?

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply

If the KineRaw camera ever starts detracting from Red's sales, I can guarantee you that Red will sue. That's just how they roll.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Robert Hardy

Only if Kineraw has a US based corporate presence, which I'm not sure they do. Red will ask them to get stopped at customs (it's akin to the US not allowing counterfeit goods to be imported) but to truly sue them, they'd have to go to China. But this post makes a bunch of assumptions which I haven't done the research on.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Charles

At least two of the patents within the case directly reference RAW compression and methods, and how the camera arrives at compressing the data in the first place. The comment about GoPro and Cineform comes directly from Jim Jannard. Otherwise I don't know which assumptions you're referring to.

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

I meant assuming that Kineraw didn't have a legal US corporate presence. Red can't sue a company that only has a foreign presence in a US court I don't think. Kineraw wouldn't show up and wouldn't have any reason to, the US wouldn't be able to seize any assets or anything like that.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Charles

Wow, sorry, totally read that wrong. Right, if Kinefinity is not US based in any way, they could only stop the company from importing into the US if they chose to sue.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

I now understand why the BMCC and Digital Bolex are using the CinemaDNG open-source codec...

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Have to agree with Joe. Nobody wins here except the lawyers. The end users will, as usual, be the ones who suffer the most. Corporation A sues Corporation B and whoever wins, the costs to the consumer always increase. Less competition means higher prices. Massive legal costs means higher prices. Technological monopoly means less innovation. I love RED the camera but hate RED the ethos. Like so many of it's over zealous users this is another bully tactic. To be honest, I kind of hope Sony wins because they are at least developing tech that anyone, no matter what level they are at, can afford.

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply
Neil

Ha ha ...Sony will counter-sue and RED won't know what hit them.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Fred

Sony has a lot more money and legal firepower than RED. Be careful Jannard.

February 15, 2013

-1
Reply
Mark

Sure, anyone can afford F65, good point there buddy

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply
Natt

Have you been away from planet Earth for awhile? Ever heard of the RX100, A99, VG900, FS100, FS700, that a) shoot video and b) are at varied price points (unlike RED where even a bare bones shooting set-up is $8000+). Are those cameras affordable enough for you "buddy"?

February 15, 2013

-1
Reply
Neil

FS100? Seriously the F65 is the camera you think he is referring to when talking about affordable tech?

February 15, 2013

0
Reply

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Hahaha, awesome!!

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply
hansd

what's wrong? I see a $80 SSD in a $650 plastic case....;)

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Sid

It's an honorable and quite legal business...separating fools from their money...

February 14, 2013

-1
Reply
Fred

:D:D:D:D

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
guto novo

lol!!! And they probably get them at super cheap OEM bulk prices. I guess they would say "This is how we recoup development costs". Kind of like when a city says "We will only charge a toll to recoup the cost of building the toll way and then remove the toll charge". I doesn't go away.

February 15, 2013

1
Reply

Only proves where RED really makes its margin!

February 15, 2013

0
Reply

Personally I think Red is scarping the barrel in a last attempt to save their products. This year was the year of ‘large sensor cameras’. The next couple of years will see many more 4K cameras turning up. It’s only time before Red may sink, unless they come up with new products; which I think is unlikely as they took many years of promises before a Red eventually turned up on the scene. They appear to be very desperate indeed; just look at the resent price slash.

February 14, 2013

1
Reply
Pete

They need to match competitor prices with the Scarlet now while their name still carries some weight and cache. Open up RedMag too.

Personally, beyond 5ft you cant see the difference between HD and 4K. Ability to crop in has its place but I see all this as another 'Everyone has to buy 3D' storm in a tea cup. The manufacturers want us to want 4K because its another arms race of cameras but at the end of the day you cant even see the full quality of 1080p from your couch so why would we want to bog down our systems and storage for a level of detail we cant see. The emperors new clothes.

Are people afraid to say what we all must be thinking? Screw 4k! Give us higher dynamic range and frame rates. Stuff we can see and use.

Now Red have a 6k camera. WTF! Marketing gone mad. If their competitors were making 6k cameras Red would make an 8k camera.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Why wouldn't you want to CAPTURE at the same resolution that S35 film has when scanned? Do you similarly complain about film's high resolution? There is some truth in what you say about telling 4K from HD depending on the viewing circumstances but why wouldn't you want to CAPTURE at as high a quality as you could?

What you're really complaining about is distribution or display resolution. However, by your logic, recording engineers shouldn't record instruments or vocals at any higher than 320kps mp3s or 256kps AACs because that's what an increasing number of people are listening to anyway. Any engineer will tell you to start with the best quality capture and gear you can get your hands on and distribute lesser quality deliverables (if needed) from an outstanding master. Video is undergoing the same growing pains that digital audio went through some years ago. Once computers can rip through 4K+ footage like it's nothing the backlash against resolution will seem silly.

Why shouldn't the display technology be just better than what the best eyes can detect under 99.9% of reasonable viewing conditions?

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

It has its place for capture and post manipulation but for distribution its ridiculous.

By your logic then newspaper type should be printed as small as possible even if we cant read it?

I've seen 4k in the cinema, or should I say I didn't see it. And I was close to the front.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Post flexibility etc it doesn't matter 4k is better than 2k
the newspaper analogy doesn't make sense by the way because it doesn't better anything, lets be constructive here...

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Derek

Your analogy is flawed. You're comparing the whole of one thing (newspaper print, not the page it's printed on) to the components (pixels) that make up the whole of another thing (video image). A more appropriate analogy would be to compare the dpi of newspaper print to the pixels of video. And, in case you didn't know, increasing the dpi (resolution) of the print makes it easier to read. You're welcome.

Why don't they come up with a distribution method for audio that just barely exceeds the limits of human hearing in 99% of the population. Oh wait, they did, they're called CDs and they contain audio sampled at 44.1 KHz at 16 bits. The Nyquist limit states you must sample at twice the frequency of the highest frequency in your source material in order to faithfully reproduce that frequency. That's 22KHz for the "golden ear" types. Average hearing ranges between 20Hz and 20KHz. Audio capture far exceeded those specs ages ago and 96KHz, 24 bit audio is quite the norm, even in budget audio devices. How many people do you know that railed against CD quality audio for being too good? 4K will be the minimum standard going forward because it should be. This is a non-issue.

If you can't afford to handle 4K right now or see no practical use for it, do 1080p now and forever more. But I don't understand why you want less for the rest of us.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

You dont get it. I'm saying we cant see it. From your couch you cant even see everything HD has to offer and the manufacturers are trying hard to create new markets for product sales.

If they dont keep doing that they stop selling cameras and we keep using the cameras we have (assuming they gave us the DR and frame rates we actually do want). THATS why we are being told we need 4k.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply

Oh, I do get it. But my point still stands. People didn't switch to digital acquisition because they thought the resolution of film was too high.

It's true - at current popular screens sizes with what has become a "normal" viewing distance, 4K would be a challenge to discern. However, TV screens have only gotten bigger over time. They even tried to make giant screens when the resolution was 640x480 just because people dig huge screens. That worked out terribly, by the way.

We've all gotten accustomed to how far we sit from TVs because the lower resolution necessitated it to a large degree. When TVs first came out, people HAD to sit closer to the screen because it was small, dim and rather fuzzy. Nobody minded because everyone was used to sitting around the radio and that box seemed like magic. As screens got bigger and brighter, it allowed us to move back but also forced us to because the poor quality of the picture was evident the closer you sat. This went on for 50 years.

Now, the resolution is to the point that the opposite is true and sitting closer actually provides a better looking picture. As we recondition ourselves to this fact and rethink viewing distances, coupled with ever increasing TV dimensions and laser projectors (a la RED and others) pointed at wall sized screens, the differences in 4K and HD will be more apparent. We just got a 50" Panasonic. It's not huge by today's standards but it replaced a 4:3 aspect 32" Sony HD Trinitron. My father thought it was going to be too big for the space and the viewing distance when we set it up. It took him all of 15 minutes to fall in love with the picture and the feeling of sitting in a movie theater with absolutely no sense that he was sitting too close.

Some may have to go kicking and screaming but the move to 4K will happen and people will love it once they properly make the switch.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Though I agree with some of your other points, including the merits of 4K acquisition, the audio analogy works against you here, Brian.

Location sound for the biggest movies is still recorded at 48kHz, not 96kHz, because there is absolutely no advantage to using 96kHz. Instead there is double the data and the risk of reduced headroom due to high level but inaudible ultrasonics. For sound effects work and heavily processed music, maybe - but this year's Best Sound Oscar nominees will all have audio captured at 48kHz.

CD's reproduce beyond the full frequency response of even the most exceptional human ear - and far beyond the capabilities of the very best speakers - but at reduced dynamic range (which is what you want, listening at home). For acquisition, you're right in saying you want more dynamic range (24bit is perfect for that), but consider this:

No budget audio recorder (sub $1500, say) has analogue circuitry capable of the theoretical 96dB dynamic range of 16bit digital audio. The 24bit setting on Zoom recorders (for example) is there to impress consumers - rather like 16MP mobile phone cameras. Even the most expensive recorders costings tens of thousands of dollars cannot record true 24bit audio (Sound Devices, Zaxcom etc.), and don't need to.

24bit, 48kHz has been standard for quite some time, and I can't see it changing until we can upgrade our ears. Indeed, consumer pressure for the past fifteen years has been for lower quality audio that takes up less storage space. Video still has some catching up to do before it gets to CD quality, so the same factors do not necessarily apply!

February 22, 2013

0
Reply
Andrew

When scanned? You can scan film at 16k if you want to. The result doesn't have anymore resolution than if scanned at 3k so whatever.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
mikko löppönen

Yes, when scanned. How else do you think they manipulate and edit film these days? It's my understanding that S35 film resolves around ~4K worth of resolution when scanned at 6K or 16K. Scanning at 3K should yield less. But scanning at 4K or higher should give you 4K of discrete pixel info. I don't understand the point of your comment.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Jim is the kindest snake I have ever met. There is too much ego about 'his' product and 'his' decision... Stop looking to other to develop what you need and use what is already out there. The crap coming out in the theaters doesnt need 4-6K.... they need good ideas and content, something that seems to be completely overlooked today.

Anyway, all the ass-licking of Jim in this forum gets to me. Believe me, he is NOT your friend.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
satoshi

Then by all means, blow us all away with your 1080p or less masterpiece. Surely, you count yourself among those that should be producing good ideas and content. But are you really? Be honest.

What I find most often is that people who make these kinds of statements aren't responsible for the type of great content they're criticizing others for lacking. The truth is most people are average at everything, despite equipment and budgets. The ratio of truly talented filmmakers to average ones in the world doesn't change with the availability or accessibility of gear, better color science, higher resolution, wider dynamic range or relaxed deadlines. Some people got the Mott's. Some don't. The rest do the best they can with what they have.

Great content is harder to come by because great talent is as well. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more of them both.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I understand a lot of people don't like RED's style or philosophy. But, open-source is not the cure-all that cheap people who just want free crap make it out to be. if you've ever made something you deemed valuable, be it music. literature or a piece of technology, you know how difficult, time consuming and resource intensive it may have been to achieve. If you then decide to give it away, fine. Either way, there are laws in place that allow you to protect it. If you don't think so, show me your best work and let me claim it as my own.

Make no mistake. RED is the underdog here. If Sony did indeed infringe, they should pay for damages. It's that simple. Having a technology giant infringe upon your hard work when you're the startup and want to protect yourself is not douchebagery. It's common sense. Or, is the assumption that Sony would never steal from another company? Remember, this is a company that used to rob their customers blind by charging $200K for a 2/3" sensor, 1080p video camera not too long ago. Many of you guys still think the C100 and C300 are overpriced.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

+1

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
hansd

Very well put, Brian. For the most part, the entirety of this lawsuit being reported has been speculation. We know very few details about the actual infringing technology. We can make some reasoned guesses, but everything else is still up in the air as far as the public is concerned. I like Sony, I like RED. The courts will determine who, if anyone, is at fault, and legal justice will be done.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Robert

It's not speculation, you can read the entire patent online. And it's nothing really.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
mikko löppönen

This is right on!

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
George

Totally agree with this assessment.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Michael R.

On point!

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Clayton Arnall

I don't understand the technology well enough to judge, but given how badly litigation can blow up in your own face, this looks to me like a bit of an act of desperation, perhaps even kamikaze.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Tom

What's next... class action against RED for Breach of Promise (Tort) for non-delivery of 3k-$3k Scarlet ?

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Fred

How comes anyone is allowed to patent raw compression, except if they do develop a very specific equipment or way to do it which is really unique and creative?
Nowadays, there is patent about everyhting, even things which are not new or smart. And the champion for that are US and Japan corporate. By chance they didnt patent, yet, the fact that we need to breath oxygen to survive.
They are willing to lock down creativity to not take risk of a market share with real newcomers who are having real great ideas but who are not as rich, informed and protected by lawyers as they are.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
FrancSanka

I could understand the first ARRI case, but the revealing thing about both of these later cases is the basis for monetary recompense. Lost sales to RED. This to my knowledge is the first public statement that sales of cameras, the EPIC in particular, have been devastated by ARRI and SONY cameras these last two years. This not an APPLE v SAMSUNG case (which Jim would love to believe). This is a company fighting a defensive position. The way they've been leaking anything they can re DRAGON reinforces this.
This is obviously a very crucial moment for RED. If the F55 hits the market it may be devastating for them, at least to the camera side of the business.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Marklondon

What you mean if the F55 hits the market ?

It is right there, right now. First units shipped during past monday. Few weeks and it is everywhere around the world. And the Jim "patent-troll" Jannard can not do a thing.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Juhan-i

If they manage to get the restraining order, those will be the only ones out there for a little while is what I meant :-)
I believe I was supporting the F55. I think its a tremendous camera. Its 4K in a great body that works, with a giant global company behind it. The ePIC is a great cam, but quirky. And given the choice a lot of major shows are choosing the F65 now, and will the F55. Its brutal for RED.
Especially as we not far away from an ARRI announcement....

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
marklondon

Which ARRI announcement are U talking about?

February 16, 2013

0
Reply
Nopatenttroll

I hope RED loses this and stops suing people. However, patents should not be painted as the bad guy here. yes, people abuse the system. But when a company invests millions in R&D creating complex algorithms and code, they have the right to that technology and it is not fair for another company to reverse engineer it and steal it. Code is just as real and patent-able as physical design...however the fact we need oxygen to survive is not.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
kevin

It's not about code. It's about patenting something as arbitrary as a framerate or the "idea of raw compression." Samething how Litepanels got their wish through and only they can now sell LED's for video. Sony owns A LOT of patents too and this could backfire badly.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
mikko löppönen

They are not patenting compression in general, they are patenting their method of compression. Just like Microsoft doesn't patent Operating systems in general, they patent their method, and so on and so forth. You dont patent the end, you patent the means to that end. I think RED is full of douches and fanboys, and I don't know all the details of this case but it isn't inherently frivolous.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
kevin

I've prepared my cup of popcorn.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Natt

I can remember a post from Jim years ago, just after the red one was released. He said the most amazing thing their engineers had done (and the most valuable) was developing the compression technology behind Red Raw. He specifically said that companies like Sony etc were going to have a very hard time when they got around to 4k given the need to compress and Red having made sure they held key patents to such technology.

The way I see it this is not some bullshit patent troll action or even worse, a company trying to claim ownership of swipe to open. This is a real world case of a technology invented, patented and employed as a cornerstone of a whole ecosystem. Red has every right to defend what they had the foresight to create all those years ago.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Peter

I remember that post. I was going to mention it but changed my mind. I'm glad you did.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Except compression should never be applied to certaing things. If you apply a .rar compression to video, is that suddenly patentable? If it's over 2k then it's patented? Wavelet compression has also been around for ages.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
mikko löppönen

Redcode is one of the major reasons me and other guys bought into the Red system. It starts with offload times and goes all the way through post processes, all the way!
But maybe you are right and everyone should just give away their best works to guys like you for free.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
hansd

Also have to point out that I am not a red customer or a fanboy and to be honest the camera I am most excited about and want to buy (funds permitting) is the Sony F5. I just have a level headed respect for the technology behind Red and what they have done for the industry.

Without Red the Alexa (assuming they had even made one) would have cost quarter of a million easy. Sony's digital film offerings would have continued along the $500k pricing. Even if you never own a single bit of kit from Red, you're just as much of an a$$hole as you claim Jim to be if you don't offer up a big THANK YOU to the man.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
Peter

Red didn't invent debayering technology. It had been around. If Sony copied the exact code then thats different but this looks like Red claiming the process is theirs alone. Sony just need one example of previous use.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply

I think the debayering algorithms and the REDCODE compression algorithms are two separate things. This article makes it seem like RED is suing over the compression scheme, not the the method by which they debayer the sensor. I could be wrong.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Sony compresses the bayer data with mpeg4. Their own take of the modern mpeg4-standards that is. Nothing to do with wavelets Red is using.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Juhan-i

Then I dont understand Red's claim. Is it physical? Are they saying the F5 etc are somehow the same as red? That would be mad.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply

The lawsuit involves RAW compression and the patents go on to describe the specific way RED separates the pixels prior to compression.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

Good lord man, you're so blinded by your hatred for RED it's pathetic.

Neither Peter nor RED claim RED invented debayering, nor is the patent for debayering, it's for a processes performed before and after debayer, so I'm not sure what your point is other than just being a RED hateboy.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Jack Frost

Why would I hate Red? I dont use it.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply

Huge majority of Red haters have never used them...or any other true cinema camera.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
hansd

I seem to remember a post from years ago on reduser that talked about red's compressed raw being structured around motion jpg, but the post was deleted, like so many others. Lets see... Wooden Camera, Arri, some optics folks, Sony, and if the rumors are true... next is Red Robin, for coming out with a burger shaped like a buzzsaw.

February 14, 2013

0
Reply
ben hur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company

" On August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.[38] Jannard accused LG "...of taking the "Scarlet" brand name from the camera company, despite RED's denial of their request."[39]

On September 23, 2011 Jim Jannard announced that his personal email account was compromised by former Arri executive Michael Bravin.[40] A lawsuit against Arri was filed at the end of 2011.[41]

On June 27, 2012 Red sued Wooden Camera, a manufacturer of third party accessories, for copyright infringement.[42]

Red.com sued Netcast[43]

Red.com sued Silicon for Breach of Contract. Lawsuit dismissed.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Wind River System for Breach of Contract, dismissed.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Pixellexis. Pixellexis went out of business.[44]

Red.com sued Usability.pro. They countered sued 2010 Orange County Superior Court System.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Uniqoptics in 2010, case dismissed.[45]

Red.com sued Uniqoptics, LLC in Orange County Superior Court May 2010.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Andrew Reid a blogger, case dismissed.[46]

Red.com sued Epic Games May 5, 2008.[citation needed]

Red.com sued 24P LLC Sept 13, 2007.[citation needed]

Red.com sued Nightsky Ent, not yet resolved.[citation needed]
"

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Juhan-i

I don't know the extent to which these lawsuits had merit. What I'm pretty sure of is Jim Jannard poured over $1 Billion (that's Billion with a "B") into RED. If you put that much money into something I'd expect you to defend it vigorously and with extreme prejudice. Anything less would be foolish. I know some people just want him to be cool about it but that's not a realistic request when the stakes are that high.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I find that figure hard to believe, and I speak with some knowledge in this area. You'd have to be pretty wasteful to hit that number in pure investment. Low 9 figures I can believe, but not 10. Is it Jim saying this?..:-)
No-one expects him to be cool about it, and he may yet win the case. Just as a strategic move it sends out warning signals, not positive vibes.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
marklondon

sorry, you must be kidding. 1 billion? do you have a clue how long it would take to recoup such an investment? even if each single customer of them spent 50000 bucks on each camera package and let`s say 10000 red cams have been sold they`ve just reached the half billion dollar mark in revenues - not in profits! if their profit was a very high 20% it would still take 50 years to recoup...

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Mariano

I remember a comment Jim made where he said something like "Someone asked me how you become a millionaire and my answer is spend a billion dollars." That's a paraphrase and I can't find the original quote online. Now, perhaps there was a bit of hyperbole going on there for poetic sake and perhaps he was referring to both RED and Oakley but, at the time, the context of the quote and the tone lead me to believe he was only talking about RED and he was more serious than not. I get it wrong sometimes.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

then that definitely was a joke ;) spend one billion to become a millionaire? that`s like saying: I spend 1000 bucks to earn 100 bucks back. he probably wanted to make a different point as they always stated how lean and effective their company is compared to those "massive" ones...

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Mariano

I definitely saw the humor and irony in the statement. I just may have read too much into it, given the context.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

What a joke! I'm sure SONY can do alot better than copy RED's shitty compression scheme. Another reason why I won't own any RED gear.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Mark

that doesnt make any sense.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
biagio

Mark's a troll Biagio, look on any post on NFS about RED and be sure you'll find Mark spewing forth hate towards RED.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
carlos

so what ur saying is mark is a loser. got it. good luck with that mark.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
biagio

Shitty compression scheme? Huh?

Yeah, I much prefer the no compression scheme with BMCC or Canon or Arri. Exponentially larger file sizes with negligible (or even no) visually discernible difference. Uncompressed really makes no sense because of the huge amount of bandwidth. So if RED's compression is so terrible, tell me who's RAW compression is actually good, that actually exists in a product i can buy today (other than possibly Sony who is currently getting sued over the matter), is there anything out there?

Bueller?

February 21, 2013

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Where did someone read that Cineform and Red have agreement?

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Me

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

That thread is about when cineform circumvented REDCODE sdk with R3D2CF tool. Reason build 16 became encrypted , plus to hide R3D was just built on Kakadu jpeg2k sdk.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Me

The only agreement was Cineform used red SDK (you have to sign to use) from that time forward

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Me

There are so many haters that seem to spit venom any chance they get about Red as a company and Jim as a person and especially Red owners that frequent Reduser....but I must say after just recently purchasing an Epic and trying to keep involved with Red as a user on the Reduser website I really get it...

thel ass kissing, the intimidation, the censoring of honest critiques, and Jim and Red as a company; the way they encourage and fan these flames...they honestly deserve the hate no matter how much good they have done for the arrogance and dishonest and bullying tactics to spin the Red image.

They cut the prices in half of their cameras with Jim stating he was just giving back to the customers since they had become so great at manufacturing...then BAM...a day later Sony announces these cameras....the biggest issue I have is that owners of Red cameras believe this garbage that he tells them...Jim is just a great guy that takes care of his customers...and now he is stating he is protecting his customers investments with this lawsuit...huh!?!? You just halved the value of the camera...

.I think Red is scared and are desperate and will get crushed by Sony.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Stan

Jannard is nothing more than rich "cult leader". A role that he really, really enjoys.

And I am not even been cynical or rude: when you analytically inspect the whole "leader-minions" -thing it is all there. Every single sign of typical cult.

Whole Red userbase / forums / etc. thing is just a classic example of a cult, like straight from the psychology textbook.

It is really scary and bit sad actually.

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Juhan-i

This

February 15, 2013

0
Reply
Mark

The value you get out of the Epic, or any piece of gear, is the work you're able to create with it. RED halved the price but the camera's capabilities are the same. According to every commercial I've ever seen and every store I've ever been in, giving you the same performance or quantity while lowering the price actually adds value. Or should I NOT be buying items that go on sale?

February 16, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

I really hope and pray RED loses this! Jannard needs to get down from his lofty arrogant perch and get a life!!

February 16, 2013

0
Reply
Gavin Wilson

Bravin pled guilty to accessing Amnon Band's email. Nothing to do with Jannard or RED trade secrets, which is why they had to drop the suit. Do you think JJ would have backed off if he had ANY kind of a case?

February 16, 2013

0
Reply
Alex Sanders

im surprised how angry people get at a camera company. cult? losers? these people sell cameras. high quality, powerful, and affordable. where is the problem. i dont care if they talk all the trash they want and sue every compnay ever. the product is what matters.

February 16, 2013

0
Reply
biagio

"No one wins" is simply not accurate given what we know and don't know. It should be left at the factual statement that the parties came to an agreement and settled.

It is also rather odd to connect the two cases in your report as if they necessarily have something to do with each other.

Of course, the commentary here and elsewhere, by people unconnected to either case, that think they have a clue, is almost funny.

I appreciate what you do here but I am not sure I'd call it journalism.

February 21, 2013

0
Reply
Terry VerHaar

In court there was no winner: Fact.

Within a few days they ended one lawsuit and began another. The cases do not have anything to do with each other, but they do show that RED, being one of the smaller camera companies, is very often in litigation, and rather than write two posts, I wrote one.

So don't call what we do journalism. The fact is, this is a blog, and we are filmmakers, and every post is infused with our opinion in one way or another. That is the nature of a blog.

February 21, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director

But you didn't clarify that you were explicitly referring to the court case and let your readers believe that "No one wins" is a clear and final fact. And, it is NOT.

The only thing we can properly infer, since the case left the courts, is that there was some sort of settlement - which may, or may not, have resulted in an exchange of money. I'd say the odds are 50-50 there was a "winner" but we'll never know who it was. And, no, that is not a fact either - as it is unknowable, at least to us.

So, no, not a fact; simply a skewed observation you are making as an uninformed outside observer (a category that fits us all). I guess I am guilty of holding blogs like this to journalistic standards and obviously shouldn't. Also, I read the NY Times, not the National Enquirer. so most assuredly, I expect to much.

February 22, 2013

0
Reply
Terry VerHaar

Expect Sony to file a counter-suit against Red for something that Sony says infringes on them.

Don't be surprised to see that Sony has some patented technology that Red covets.

Don't be surprised to see Sony and Red eventually work out a cross-licensing agreement.

And they'll all live happily ever after...

Ditto with Arri.

Average legal fees to defend a patent or against infringement in court = 10 million, I've read. Chump change for Sony and Arri, and I suppose, Mr. Jannard. If both sides are infringing and each side has something the other side covets, neither side has any real interest potentially losing the ability to proceed with the implementation of said technology into their products. They'll kiss and make up...

I'll bet even money that Sony clearly saw grounds for a patent suit against Red well before they began infringing Red's patent.

February 21, 2013

0
Reply
wsmith

Why does everyone get so emotional about this? It's like hillbillies arguing about ford vs chevy.

It's just corporate business. Look at the computer industry...it's the same thing with any rapidly evolving technologies...

February 21, 2013

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Joe, I heard about this hacking incident, but I thought it was just Red trying to get more exposure like now with this lawsuit. Am I to understand that the F5 I have just purchased may have to be given back if Red wins this Lawsuit?

February 25, 2013

0
Reply
Christian