RED Patent may not be legal

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Nick Lavigne

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:36 am
  • Real Name: Nick Lavigne

RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:45 am

I have been enjoying a YouTube channel by a guy who makes and sells 3rd party REDmags. He has been showing what I think a lot of us ready knew, that red mags and other products by red use low grade parts, have zero personal R&D and are absolutely not made in the USA. His most recent VIDEO,
does an excellent job breaking down a timeline that shows how REDs patent is not legal as it was not filed in time. Interesting stuff enjoy if you care.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:52 am

As I posted in the Off-Topic page:

Often it boils down to the cost of litigation. Many patent trolls use the cost of litigation as a tool to either get money, cause financial harm (competition) or both, to whoever they are suing. Blackmagic doesn't need CDNG anymore, so why go to court and incur heavy legal costs?
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Nick Lavigne

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:36 am
  • Real Name: Nick Lavigne

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:57 am

I don't care about CDNG I just find this quite interesting. Also if submitted (I am guessing the videos creator did) to the US patent office they would have to look into it, as this has nothing to do with the vagueness of the patent, but the patent being invailed due to deceit and failure to file in 1 year since invention.
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 1:01 am

ONE angry man can do more than a 100 high priced lawyers.

Kinefinity(KineRAW) and Z-CAM(ZRAW) will be very happy to see this.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 1:01 am

Given how the US Patent Office apparently works, it may not be as clear cut as suggested. And even if it was, maybe Blackmagic doesn't even care anymore. Remember, the first iteration of BRAW was only a start, you're likely to see much more development in this sphere, especially when combined with Resolve.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Stephen Fitzgerald

  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:00 am
  • Real Name: Stephen Fitzgerald

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 1:48 am

This thread will most likely get removed, I think BMD wants to steer clear of all this controversy.

That being said, I think RED has a lot to talk about I’m regards to their transparency.
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 664
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 3:33 am

This became more and more interesting. I would like to add some crazy unconfirmed rumor here :) I remember it was a very strange post soviet company (formally could be based on same factory branch as older ussr "Kinor" film cameras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinor) they sell some 2K and 4K digital cinema cameras (Google "kinor digital camera") https://cinematography.com/index.php?/t ... igital-4k/ the specs where amazing, but no one see those cameras in real life, and no any footage where ever provided, so most people came to conclusion that it is some kind of another russian fake. RED could just purchase and adapt some of that tech to RED cameras. in similar way Tessive Time Filter technology where purchased and became RED Motion Mount...
Image
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Anatoly Mashanov

  • Posts: 517
  • Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:36 am
  • Location: Russia

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 3:59 am

Australian Image wrote:Given how the US Patent Office apparently works, it may not be as clear cut as suggested. And even if it was, maybe Blackmagic doesn't even care anymore. Remember, the first iteration of BRAW was only a start, you're likely to see much more development in this sphere, especially when combined with Resolve.

RED claims the very principle of lossless recording of sensor data, so it clams all the cases of raw recording including the lossless compression. So, either BRAW or any other incarnation of raw can be restored to the actual data directly from sensors (and so is RAW and covered with RED claim) - or it cannot and as such is by definition lossy.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 4:16 am

Unfortunately, it's well known that the US Patent Office pretty much approves anything. This goes against what is accepted everywhere else in the world, but that's what they do.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Steven Reid

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:55 pm
  • Location: Oregon

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 5:02 am

Australian Image wrote:Unfortunately, it's well known that the US Patent Office pretty much approves anything. This goes against what is accepted everywhere else in the world, but that's what they do.


While this thread survives, I'll chime in as a former U.S. patent examiner and practicing patent attorney of 20 years: no, it doesn't, Ray. Your remark sounds like a cheap, uninformed shot of the type I often see on forums inhabited by experts in areas other than my own. Sorry it was you, today, bud, but I couldn't let this one go.
DR Studio 16b6 | Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903) | AMD Radeon RX580 8GB | GPU driver Radeon 19.5.2 | Intel i7-5960X | 64GB
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 5:12 am

Steven Reid wrote:While this thread survives, I'll chime in as a former U.S. patent examiner and practicing patent attorney of 20 years: no, it doesn't, Ray. Your remark sounds like a cheap, uninformed shot of the type I often see on forums inhabited by experts in areas other than my own. Sorry it was you, today, bud, but I couldn't let this one go.


I've been following the issue of US Patent Office approvals for a long time and a quick search of Google shows how bad it is:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... deception/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ad-patents

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... -approved/

This has been going on for a long time. There are many reasons why it's broken, but it's broken.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline
User avatar

Jean Capdouzey

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:56 am
  • Location: Perpignan, Catalunya
  • Warnings: 1
  • Real Name: Jean Capdouzey

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 5:14 am

Nick Lavigne wrote:I don't care about CDNG.


Many do.....
Offline

John Griffin

  • Posts: 186
  • Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 7:10 am

I find it incredible that RED has patented RAW video. It would be like Canon patenting RAW stills and everyone else would be still shooting Jpeg. I must be missing something here as this seems fundamentaly wrong?
Dell XPS 9560 i7 7700HQ,GTX 1050m, 32gb 1Tb NVME C drive, 1TB SSD 2nd internal as Cache. GTX 1080ti eGPU, 4x 7200rpm 1.5tb HD's in RAID 0 on USB-C as media storage. Win10 x64, Resolve Studio (all latest versions and up to date drivers)
Offline

Frank Engel

  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 11:09 pm
  • Real Name: Frank Engel

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 pm

John Griffin wrote:I find it incredible that RED has patented RAW video. It would be like Canon patenting RAW stills and everyone else would be still shooting Jpeg. I must be missing something here as this seems fundamentaly wrong?


Not quite true. They have patented compressed RAW video.

Uncompressed RAW video is still in the clear, and most still cameras that shoot RAW are shooting uncompressed RAW (though some do offer RAW compression for stills).

BRAW is not impacted because it is not a true RAW format. It may be a very good video codec or hybrid of some sort, but it is not actually RAW.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:22 pm

Here is another way to avoid RED patent.
Split video into chunks <2K resolution and then compress and record (easy to join later). Also- compression <6:1 doesn't fall into RED patent either.
There as to be a reason why their patent sys above 2K. Probably <2K was already patented some way.

Still no idea who gave them such a broad patent. Let hope it gets cancelled.
It's also interesting that RED sued Jinni.Tech, but later they pulled it off. So they are not so confident anymore :D
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 12:47 pm

Australian Image wrote:
Steven Reid wrote:While this thread survives, I'll chime in as a former U.S. patent examiner and practicing patent attorney of 20 years: no, it doesn't, Ray. Your remark sounds like a cheap, uninformed shot of the type I often see on forums inhabited by experts in areas other than my own. Sorry it was you, today, bud, but I couldn't let this one go.


I've been following the issue of US Patent Office approvals for a long time and a quick search of Google shows how bad it is:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... deception/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ad-patents

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... -approved/

This has been going on for a long time. There are many reasons why it's broken, but it's broken.


It's not broken, it's the American way.
Offline
User avatar

Tim Kraemer

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:12 pm

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 2:53 pm

Everything about RED is a sham. Their hype machine is totally on point.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 3:25 pm

"RED Patent may not be legal"

Do you think so!


I am super irritated by this. Red has single handedly stopped me from making my own camera through saying one thing and not delivering, and by this patent. You got to make Business decisions, not just waltz down the road with rose coloured glasses on heading towards certain failure. When people are putting out they are going put out a product that is going to destroy your business, you have to decide to walk, and when you come to a patent that gives them rights over basic unpatentable technology you need to use, you got to think about the trouble, and walk, not prance or waltz.

Speaking generally, of the general problem, and not any situation or company in particular: People should sue for damages, anybody pushing for rights through the patent system illegally, including anybody involved and legal council as a "criminal conspiracy". Making companies too scared to try this is the patent system, is one of the ways to do this. It is new ground to set precedent. If, say, the raw patent was illegal, this could add up to billions of dollars across companies and consumers. We have crowd funding now to do this, and I'm sick and tired of being taken for a patent ride, and patent damages from what's happening in the patent sector.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 3:35 pm

Steven Reid wrote:
Australian Image wrote:Unfortunately, it's well known that the US Patent Office pretty much approves anything. This goes against what is accepted everywhere else in the world, but that's what they do.


While this thread survives, I'll chime in as a former U.S. patent examiner and practicing patent attorney of 20 years: no, it doesn't, Ray. Your remark sounds like a cheap, uninformed shot of the type I often see on forums inhabited by experts in areas other than my own. Sorry it was you, today, bud, but I couldn't let this one go.


Steven, what do you think about this? Recording raw is not novel or innovative in itself, compressing raw is not novel or innovative in itself, recording compressed raw is not novel and innovative in itself, recording compress raw, or uncompressed, or lossless or visually lossless, raw above 2k is definitely not novel or innovative. It's insane. Even a couple of obvious offsets against channels, like done in normal video or old prior art cineform raw, is not innovative or obvious.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Steven Reid

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:55 pm
  • Location: Oregon

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 4:10 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:
Steven Reid wrote:
Australian Image wrote:Unfortunately, it's well known that the US Patent Office pretty much approves anything. This goes against what is accepted everywhere else in the world, but that's what they do.


While this thread survives, I'll chime in as a former U.S. patent examiner and practicing patent attorney of 20 years: no, it doesn't, Ray. Your remark sounds like a cheap, uninformed shot of the type I often see on forums inhabited by experts in areas other than my own. Sorry it was you, today, bud, but I couldn't let this one go.


Steven, what do you think about this? Recording raw is not novel or innovative in itself, compressing raw is not novel or innovative in itself, recording compressed raw is not novel and innovative in itself, recording compress raw, or uncompressed, or lossless or visually lossless, raw above 2k is definitely not novel or innovative. It's insane. Even a couple of obvious offsets against channels, like done in normal video or old prior art cineform raw, is not innovative or obvious.


Though I have no non-public knowledge of RED's patents, I can't opine on them. Sorry. Even if I joined the chorus of incendiary criticism, it wouldn't make a difference. We (U.S.) have legal mechanisms for making that difference, however.

I practice in a notoriously difficult subject matter area with the lowest patent allowance rate in the U.S. In that context, I bristled at Ray's swipe above, though I appreciate his perspective -- it was not personal. Second, I cannot deny the absurdity of some patents whose (ab)use underscores a need for ongoing patent reform and improvement of quality at the patent office. Finally, as a practitioner doing his level best in the trenches, I'm part of the system, not a blogger or freelancing journalist commenting on it.
DR Studio 16b6 | Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903) | AMD Radeon RX580 8GB | GPU driver Radeon 19.5.2 | Intel i7-5960X | 64GB
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 4:53 pm

But you could read it Steven, a d tell us what we are looking at. He reads it out on the video.

Its very late, and difficult to listen to, but I have tried to follow.

While it may seem to be this that or the other on the video, as I just told a freind who knows people launching constitutional cases, it's not that simple. As I just told another friend here, who used to work in court, about the relavencies of the levels of jurisdictions of law to each other, it's not that simple, and about some research he found which seemed to conclusively prove something. Whatever the law says, the meaning of the terms can be set by legal interpretation, office interpretation, legal judgments and interpretations, such as it doesn't say what it "seems" to say in plain language English, and the practice of, and deemed acceptable practice, is also influenced by office and judiciary. So despite the legislation or policy declaring something, it can be interpreted differently, allowing things which don't seem right. Now, getting back to plain English reading, the public disclosure included official publications, industry I believe, and not much else before. While Red stated what they were doing and repeated that in patent, they did not disclose, from what I can see, the details of how they did it, which should be the only potentially patentable part, if it was an novel innovative leap. So, not recording Bayer raw above 2k compressed visually lossless, but what unique novel innovative leapt ways they did that. I am dubious about that as well.

The video's creator criticises Red's complex language in the patent. But this is how you write a patent, by using language that covers as much possible opportunities as possible. The analogy I was taught, is that the innovative area your patent is on, is like a mining area, and you need to stake your claims as wide as possible to cover the area and potentially get more gold. When Red describes the "Bayer" sensor, they are describing any three colored sensor with two pixels of a 4 pixel cube, being the same color. When Bayer was invented there were two versions, the rggb, and a superior complementary version which was too processor intensive. So, red stakes on a number of similar sensor pattern rather than the potential name of only one of them. Saying Bayer would not describe what is meant concretely. Bayer could have other definitions, or someone could call their bayer sensor tubby, or something, and argue Bayer doesn't apply to them. Not so simple.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 10:23 pm

RED people alway use specific language and it's on purpose. They know what they are doing.
The best part is that at the end client is the king and atm. RED lost a lot of their reputation (it takes years to gain it back). There is always a point up to which you can "play" with people. I think RED time is about to end.
Offline

Username

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:33 am
  • Real Name: Petter Flink

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostWed Aug 14, 2019 11:54 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:There is always a point up to which you can "play" with people. I think RED time is about to end.


I believe so too.
When a company looses its honesty with the customers, acts ignorant towards critics and stops being humble at their competitor and fights battles against everyone - they have already lost the war.
They just can’t see it yet.

They are not the first to do so.
And will not be the last.
Grew up with a Nikon FM - Evolving with a BMMCC
Offline

Nick Lavigne

  • Posts: 57
  • Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:36 am
  • Real Name: Nick Lavigne

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostThu Aug 15, 2019 11:16 pm

Looks like it's going to be over. Apple is sueing RED over the patent. With the previously shown timeline, this will probably be easy. https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/apple-sue ... nt-claims/
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostThu Aug 15, 2019 11:23 pm

Yes, Karma is a bitch.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Steven Reid

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:55 pm
  • Location: Oregon

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostThu Aug 15, 2019 11:28 pm

Australian Image wrote:Yes, Karma is a bitch.


Especially in the most litigious country on the planet. Like I said above, we have mechanisms...
DR Studio 16b6 | Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903) | AMD Radeon RX580 8GB | GPU driver Radeon 19.5.2 | Intel i7-5960X | 64GB
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostThu Aug 15, 2019 11:45 pm

Steven Reid wrote:
Australian Image wrote:Yes, Karma is a bitch.


Especially in the most litigious country on the planet. Like I said above, we have mechanisms...


Indeed, but also note that it takes very deep pockets to litigate. You might win a case, but it's bankrupted you because of the cost.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 12:24 am

Gotta love how some interpret this case: https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/08/16/ ... egitimacy/.

I’m no lawyer but I do know Apple is a huge company and if they want to use Raw for internal recording or stretch ProRes Raw out more Red would have to allow it and be compensated for it or change the way they implement RAW much like Blackmagic has done with BRAW.

The legal conclusions if Apple wins could open up the use of the exact same RAW RED is using only without licensing the technology. Any camera could then record the exact same RAW codec internally. This is a big deal since most if not all the camera manufacturers don’t like to license codecs and usually create their own. Hence why we have so many and this makes it difficult for NLE’s to deal with.


Who says that anyone wants to use RED RAW? As in the stills world, there are a myriad of different RAW formats (compressed and uncompressed) and camera companies aren't suing each other for patent infringement.

I wonder whether site sponsorship has anything to do with this seeming RED support?
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 12:26 am

Australian Image wrote:
Steven Reid wrote:
Australian Image wrote:Yes, Karma is a bitch.


Especially in the most litigious country on the planet. Like I said above, we have mechanisms...


Indeed, but also note that it takes very deep pockets to litigate. You might win a case, but it's bankrupted you because of the cost.


Unlike jinnitech, Apple has the deepest pockets of them all.
The bully gets bullied by a bigger bully.
(The rule of law all over the world is MONEY).
Offline

Username

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:33 am
  • Real Name: Petter Flink

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 12:45 am

Apple have already won this I believe.
It's all up to RED to get their head around it and accept the situation.
Grew up with a Nikon FM - Evolving with a BMMCC
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 12:48 am

Here's another going in to bat for RED: https://nofilmschool.com/apple-goes-war-red

We wrote about it here, and my take was that Jinni was more about justifying the selling of their own MiniMags, in violation of RED's IP, than it was about the veracity of Jinni's claims. JinniTech even used cleverly disguised facts to make it look like a RED camera would take any third party MiniMag. But in reality, that isn't true, as a RED camera will verify a MiniMag before it actually will write to it.


JinniTech used 'disguised facts'?
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 4:59 am

Another thing, is they claim they use standard cheap parts, but in reality, such things are usually specially picked highest performance and tolerant parts, even first specially made batches, and pay a mint for them, before the brand itself might get parts to use in its cheap products. This has been going on for many years, you pay for the estimated defect percentage of the parts. That's one reason so many motherboards were failing ten or more years ago, the motherboard companies were being supplied with higher defective rated parts as either lower defect rated parts, or knowingly (I forget how much of each, or if mainly unkown etc). My ex military intelligence buddies tend to hear of scams. One was, they had to check each load of cement aggregate that cane into a major construction, to check if it was of the prescribed spec, from another country. It's crazy, and such should be banned from trade in areas, until they can guarantee rule of law over their supply chain, and produce guaranteed quality of supplied material. It's crazy. I byy thing that fall apart with a year or so, because of the inferior plastic used goes brittle. If it looks buyable, it's OK mentality. So, what Red is doing, is nothing compared to this, and we need to keep that in mind. You can see there problems with h1. To do such a flag ship innovative design, they should have gone to a Nordic country to control the tech, then to an Asian manufacturer for commodity assembly, and finish finale priority parts assembly in Europe or USA, which Jim would like. But, they will still buy phones, and strip the chips in them. You can't do much, except make most things revealed source by law, so you can see where other manufacturers are trying to copy your stuff (yes, this is new law proposal to help an of bkem area).
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Steven Reid

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:55 pm
  • Location: Oregon

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 6:12 am

Helpful information, not opinion: the action filed by Apple is called a petition for inter partes review (IPR), which is a procedural creature of U.S. patent law and is conducted at the U.S. patent and trademark office, not in a court of law. In other words, the IPR is not a lawsuit, but rather an administrative proceeding, the ultimate outcome of which could be the cancellation of one or more patent claims of a patent at issue on specific grounds.

Apple filed a petition in May, essentially asking the U.S. patent office to institute the IPR. It remains to be seen whether the governing body within the office, called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, will grant Apple's petition. If it does, then the ensuing proceeding looks like, but is not, a lawsuit. The distinction is likely lost on the lay public, but one result (as I noted above) surely would not. It is not uncommon, though I don't know if this occurred here, for a third party (e.g., Apple) to attempt institution of an IPR when sued for patent infringement in a court of law. It can be a quick sucker punch, sometimes to devastating effect, before having to roll out the heavy artillery in a lawsuit.

If you're suffering from insomnia, you can read more about it here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review
DR Studio 16b6 | Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903) | AMD Radeon RX580 8GB | GPU driver Radeon 19.5.2 | Intel i7-5960X | 64GB
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 6:23 am

A lot of what I'm reading seems to be implying that Apple is trying to invalidate the REDCODE RAW patent, with people assuming that it'll then become available to all. My understanding was that the RED patent was for any RAW compression performed in-camera. It's not about their proprietary RAW format.

It's the latter that should be invalidated. RAW compression has been known and done for decades in stills photography and is a concept known before RED applied for their patent. The fact that RED applied that to video files should be irrelevant, especially as the likes of CDNG is nothing more than individual DNG files ie a bunch of still images.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 664
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 6:25 am

- Apple makes ProRes RAW
- Apple probably offer ProRes RAW to other companies to implement it to their cameras.
- Apple waits for deals and profits...
- Apple waits for deals and profits...
- Apple waits for deals and profits...
- One year later (or so) Apple probably get response from all those companies that RED keeps a patent and if they will use ProRes RAW in their cameras, RED will sue them all as they sue earlier many other companies.
- Apple also may want to use compressed raw onto the next iPhones
- Atomos pays to RED for license to use ProRes RAW (shame)
- Blackmagic stop support compressed DNG in their cameras and makes BRAW to avoid sue with RED and stay outside this crazy mess.
- Jinni Tech investigates REDs patent may be not valid, REDmags appears 30x overpriced and mostly done with consumer level internal parts and use common SATA interface. Also RED's claims about custom firmware and "made in the USA" statements appears false.
- Apple starts sue RED probably because Apple wants to deliver ProRes RAW without any limits.

to be continued...
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 6:51 am

According to JinniTech, RED also failed to submit their patent claim in the required timeframe, thus invalidating any patent claim anyway.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 7:22 am

Australian Image wrote:A lot of what I'm reading seems to be implying that Apple is trying to invalidate the REDCODE RAW patent, with people assuming that it'll then become available to all. My understanding was that the RED patent was for any RAW compression performed in-camera. It's not about their proprietary RAW format.

It's the latter that should be invalidated. RAW compression has been known and done for decades in stills photography and is a concept known before RED applied for their patent. The fact that RED applied that to video files should be irrelevant, especially as the likes of CDNG is nothing more than individual DNG files ie a bunch of still images.


It's about compressing RAW and not only in camera, but any device attached to it as well (through cable), so any recorder.
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 7:24 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It's about compressing RAW and not only in camera, but any device attached to it as well (through cable), so any recorder.


You're right, given the Atomos licensing, but I think the argument that RAW compression is prior art remains (and perhaps invalid application timeframe).
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5571
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 7:30 am

RED should be never granted such a broad patent. There was nothing inventive there. Patents are usually for something very specific, special and precise, not broad like encoding RAW itself.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 7:59 am

Claiming it against video framerates is totally relevant, as there is nothing innovative about compressing it as a sequence of timed frames rather than frames, as a lot of image compression codecs, or in Bayer, or above a resolution, or compression rate, or etc etc etc.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostFri Aug 16, 2019 8:07 am

Steven Reid wrote:Helpful information, not opinion: the action filed by Apple is called a petition for inter partes review (IPR), which is a procedural creature of U.S. patent law and is conducted at the U.S. patent and trademark office, not in a court of law. In other words, the IPR is not a lawsuit, but rather an administrative proceeding, the ultimate outcome of which could be the cancellation of one or more patent claims of a patent at issue on specific grounds.

Apple filed a petition in May, essentially asking the U.S. patent office to institute the IPR. It remains to be seen whether the governing body within the office, called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, will grant Apple's petition. If it does, then the ensuing proceeding looks like, but is not, a lawsuit. The distinction is likely lost on the lay public, but one result (as I noted above) surely would not. It is not uncommon, though I don't know if this occurred here, for a third party (e.g., Apple) to attempt institution of an IPR when sued for patent infringement in a court of law. It can be a quick sucker punch, sometimes to devastating effect, before having to roll out the heavy artillery in a lawsuit.

If you're suffering from insomnia, you can read more about it here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/inter-partes-review


I gathered that. But after it is proven, then. I actually have a couple of personal cases where people exposed to my work seemed to elicitatly have then applied a leading technology patent relevant to it. Neither case were these people doing this before being exposed to my work. One or so are top world wide used technology. But, it was too much to challenge.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Jean Capdouzey

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:56 am
  • Location: Perpignan, Catalunya
  • Warnings: 1
  • Real Name: Jean Capdouzey

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 4:34 am

Stephen Fitzgerald wrote:This thread will most likely get removed, I think BMD wants to steer clear of all this controversy.


Not really. Have some guts man to fight. Too many are gutless and passive these days.
Offline
User avatar

Jean Capdouzey

  • Posts: 74
  • Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:56 am
  • Location: Perpignan, Catalunya
  • Warnings: 1
  • Real Name: Jean Capdouzey

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 4:36 am

Good to know Grant has some friends high up at Apple.

Add some honey to a bite and we're in for a sweet time when cdng returns and braw on the P4K/P6K....
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1923
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 5:42 am

Mate, I hope they give us cineform raw instead, or JPEG xs Bayer mode. You can license the cineform raw for $20. Would have been much better.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2081
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 6:56 am

Jean Capdouzey wrote:
Add some honey to a bite and we're in for a sweet time when cdng returns and braw on the P4K/P6K....


It won’t.

Do the math on data rates for cDNG @ 6k. Try and find media that can do those numbers.

Plus

bRAW is wildly more successful than cDNG has been in terms of user acceptance.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 9:16 am

Of course RED might get cold feet and decide to do a deal with Apple and try to retain their patents if possible. If that happens, it's all likely back to square one for everyone else. If that matters.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2081
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 9:25 am

Australian Image wrote:Of course RED might get cold feet and decide to do a deal with Apple and try to retain their patents if possible. If that happens, it's all likely back to square one for everyone else. If that matters.


If I had to guess, I’d say RED triggered this by asking Apple for a license fee for ProRes RAW. And Apples response was to challenge the original patent/s.

I’m confused though because doesn’t DJI more directly infringe REDs patent with the X7 recording ProRes RAW ?

https://www.dji.com/mobile/newsroom/new ... prores-raw

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 2136
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 9:30 am

DJI may have signed some form of licensing agreement with RED.

I'm not sure whether Apple charges licensing fees for ProResRAW, and even if they don't, if DJI and other companies have to pay licensing fees to RED to use ProResRAW, that could stymie Apple's reach with ProResRAW. It would potentially make BRAW much more attractive.

If that's the case, Apple needs to tackle the patent quickly, before it becomes established and more difficult to overturn. It's not in Apple's interest to have companies ostensibly pay license fees for a product that Apple owns. This could become pretty convoluted.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

John Brawley

  • Posts: 2081
  • Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:57 am
  • Location: London UK

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 9:41 am

Australian Image wrote:DJI may have signed some form of licensing agreement with RED.


But

It would be with Apple for ProRes RAW ? Not DJI. I’m guessing.

And you definitely pay Apple to use ProRes if you make cameras. And they’re also very strict about how implement it in hardware.

JB
John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 212
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: RED Patent may not be legal

PostSun Aug 18, 2019 9:52 am

Well Appel and DJI have been walking in the park hand by hand for some time, could be that they have the ability to make a co-found license agreement. More or less, what Appel get so do DJI.
Next

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wes Greene and 19 guests