Red is back on the litigation warpath

Paging all those that said wait till the patent runs out….

This is very typical behaviour for a company that owns IP and wants to try to extend their patent.

It’s theoretically not possible but companies do this successfully all the time (if you look at pharma)

This is RED trying to re-up their IP.

Yeah, I was thinking the same.

Look at what pharma companies do…

Look at point 2 and then re-read their “new” patent…

https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/5- ... to-expire/

Jb

All this does is reinforce the widely held belief that the US Patent Office is not very good and issues patents for things that could not be patented in most of the rest of the world.
It actually might make things worse for RED

https://www.businessinsider.com/patents ... 2011-7?amp

JB

https://www.businessinsider.com/patents-innovation-tax-2011-7?amp

JB

I don't entirley agree when Patents are genuine and protect the inovator from being ripped off. Especially the small inovator. Under the US system this is not what happens. It is party historical dirty tricks but that culture should have been changed long ago.

A new JinnTech video is up.

TD;LR
RedCode is a Jpeg 2000 image in a QuickTime container renamed to .R3D

RedCode is a Jpeg 2000 image in a QuickTime container renamed to .R3D

This has been really well known for a decade + now. You talk to anyone who is involved in camera manufacturing and tech and they know exactly the ins and outs of what RED is doing. There is absolutely nothing particularly innovative about their technology, standing on the shoulders of giants totally applies here.

My understanding is that Apple completely fumbled their past lawsuit to challenge RED's patent -- they went in unprepared and with a poor legal strategy thinking that they were Apple and they can do no wrong...and they lost.

I have been told repeatedly that a second Apple lawsuit has been in the works for the past two years, this time with Apple (hopefully) being considerably more prepared with an argument that has a much bigger chance of success. Only time will tell I suppose.

Looking for a bulk order of popcorn and tickets for the court room
It is going to be fun to watch both for the politics and both the electronics and legal technicalities.

Best video of the series so far imo.

Didn't know about the absolutely disgusting RedRocket cards scam. RED is an absolute cancer company. I hope the courts get it right this time.

EDIT: I should say 'the lawyers' get it right - Apple lawyers must have botched it, not too uncommon.

JinnTech has uncovered most of the things the Patent office should have used to reject the patent in the first place. Clearly the patent office did a really poor job. In actual fact other company lawyers also did a poor job in their defence when sued by RED. Lets hope Nikon have more success.

Above all else this has opened my eyes as to way I should be boycotting RED. They make fine cameras, but their company ethics are very dubious. The irony is that now all their new cameras are using the Canon proprietary RF Mount. Obviously it's a trade so Canon can use compressed RAW in some of their cameras. But, if Canon doesn't need RED's permission to use compressed RAW because the Patent is thrown out I wonder what incentive they would have to keep allowing RED to use their mount.

The patent may have been awarded wrongly, but that doesn't mean it is thrown out. And if Red's infringement lawsuit against Nikon loses, Nikon's win doesn't green light everyone else to infringe. Others could still be sued and lose for the same alleged infringement. A patent serves to warn others considering an infringement but if they do, the patent holder must be willing to defend the patent in court at their own expense. Obviously then, the courts and juries lean in favor of patent holders who's innovation has been recognized by the office.

It is up to the lawyers involved to explain the reason the patent is in valid. A loss could result in it being totally ineffective because of legal precedent. I hope this is the case to cover the poor analysis the patent office did in the past. They got so many things wrong.

Precedent is just a prior example case to point to, and it works both ways. Remember, this time it is Red suing Nikon, not the other way around. It's an uphill battle for Nikon to win. Nikon is not challenging Red's patent legitimacy as Apple had tried to do.

Precedent is just a prior example case to point to, and it works both ways. Remember, this time it is Red suing Nikon, not the other way around. It's an uphill battle for Nikon to win. Nikon is not challenging Red's patent legitimacy as Apple had tried to do.

You do not know what their defence will be yet.

What I'm saying is that Nikon is a defendant. The patent doesn't vacate with a victory.

They will only win if they discredit the patent. Then the rest will follow because others can take the same approach.

You do not know what their defense will be.

You do not know what their defense will be.

That is exactly what I said before. Neither do you. We will all have to wait. However if they win my argument will hold. Others will adopt the same approach.

You do not understand. The legitimacy of the patent is not on trial, Nikon is.

What's stopping any other company from putting Jpeg 2000 in a Quicktime container and changing the header? Red sues them and can't they just easily prove the patent invalid?

The problem is exactly this, no one understanding what it is about, I do not claim I would.

It is the patent by patent office accepted claims and they only that define what is patented. In this case it is very unclear how they got such claims accepted. As I see that is the fault of the patent office.

Why Apple failed such, what seems a very clear case is a mystery.

Either way, the court case is still one year away, January 2024, so we're in for a long wait. In the meantime, Red is awarded new patents left and right.

The time is what people often forget. That they get a way with something like this for a long period of time, even if the result would be unaffordable for them at the end, and they would pay a 'huge' 10% fee of what they ever made with it... this happens all the time and just makes me sick.

Just search Apple penalty, or replace Apple pretty much with any big company.

What's stopping any other company from putting Jpeg 2000 in a Quicktime container and changing the header? Red sues them and can't they just easily prove the patent invalid?

No. You can file an action to invalidate the patent but you can't use it as a defense when the plaintiff has filed an action against you.

You can file an action to invalidate a law against burning trash in your yard but you can't use it as a defense if you've already been charged with burning trash in your yard under an existing law. Your defense would have to be that you were not breaking the law against burning trash, either because you were not or you were being mistaken for someone else that was. You cannot argue that you are innocent because the existing law was not valid. If before you burned trash you had successfully petitioned to invalidate the law there would be no basis for a charge against you.

Apple was not charged with violating Red's patent. They were attempting to invalidate the existing patent. Had they been successful, Red would have no basis for suing Nikon.

Apple sought to test the patent.

For some reason they announced and launched a RAW codec without thinking to license it first. I’m guess this is because Atomos talked them into it.

Then they realised that a raw codec that can’t be used in-camera is a kind of strange product.

So they tested the patent and therefore they instigated the case seeking to overturn it.

Nikon just made a camera that has two flavours of internal raw and let RED chase them. Which they have done.

JB

Another example:
Red sues Nikon for patent infringement. Nikon argues that Red's patent is invalid. A jury agrees. No money is awarded to Red. A precedent was set that Red's patent may be inviable. Later, Red sues Fuji for patent infringement. Fuji argues that Red's patent was invalidated from the precedent of Nikon's win earlier. The jury disagrees and awards Red damages.

Another example:
Red sues Nikon for patent infringement. Nikon argues that Red's patent is invalid. A jury agrees. No money is awarded to Red. A precedent was set that Red's patent may be inviable. Later, Red sues Fuji for patent infringement. Fuji argues that Red's patent was invalidated from the precedent of Nikon's win earlier. The jury disagrees and awards Red damages.

And that is why the US legal system and Patent Office is held in such low reguard in the world (and often ignored).
All Nikon, Fuji, Cannon, Panazonic etc have to do is all decide to ignore REDs patent globally.
If the US courts back Red then all those companys carry on but just pull out of the US.
The US is a large but not indispensable market.

Well, they largely pulled out of Russia, so this might not be a good time.

The US is a large but not indispensable market.

Whilst I agree with you, re the US Patent Office, I'm afraid it would be foolhardy of any manufacturer to ignore the US market, since it's largeness represent some 31% of the total world economy and has the most developed media production business anywhere.

In a few years, nobody will even care about Red and their patent. It has pushed development.

Without that patent having to be avoided, there would probably be no BRAW, which is an excellent codec.
Or maybe Sony, Canon et al. would never have given us compressed 10 bit 4:2:2 log recording in the upper tier of amateur devices, which is reasonably good. So, forget Red, if they don’t bring something really creative to the battle. Just living from license fees will not keep them afloat.

A new JinnTech video is up.

TD;LR
RedCode is a Jpeg 2000 image in a QuickTime container renamed to .R3D

The facts presented in JinnTech's forensic research should be enough reason to switch from RED.
I am not a RED user. But this kind of cheating would be reason enough for me, not buying anything from this brand.

[All Nikon, Fuji, Cannon, Panazonic etc have to do is all decide to ignore REDs patent globally.
If the US courts back Red then all those companys carry on but just pull out of the US.
The US is a large but not indispensable market.

You need to go back to law school. There's something called the "Patent Cooperation Treaty", which has 157 signatories (at last check). This includes the U.S. and all of Europe. In effect, they agree to honor each other's patents, with a duly filed international application. Also the "Paris Convention".

Even if that weren't the case, these companies are effectively obliged to comply with U.S. law. The U.S. market is too big to ignore. Companies can't afford to sustain two different product lines for the same product.

You need to go back to law school. There's something called the "Patent Cooperation Treaty", which has 157 signatories (at last check). This includes the U.S. and all of Europe. In effect, they agree to honor each other's patents, with a duly filed international application. Also the "Paris Convention".

Even if that weren't the case, these companies are effectively obliged to comply with U.S. law. The U.S. market is too big to ignore. Companies can't afford to sustain two different product lines for the same product.

And likewise the US has to comply with EU, Chinese, Russian and other law? The RED patent would not hold water in any other area.

The U.S. has the same legal obligations to honor foreign patents as all the other signatories to the treaty -- EU, Chinese, Russian, whatever. Whether the Red patent would have been granted in other jurisdictions is beside the point. Anyone challenging it would have to do so in an American court, assuming there was a successful international application under the treaty.

[All Nikon, Fuji, Cannon, Panazonic etc have to do is all decide to ignore REDs patent globally.
If the US courts back Red then all those companys carry on but just pull out of the US.
The US is a large but not indispensable market.

You need to go back to law school. There's something called the "Patent Cooperation Treaty", which has 157 signatories (at last check). This includes the U.S. and all of Europe. In effect, they agree to honor each other's patents, with a duly filed international application. Also the "Paris Convention".

Even if that weren't the case, these companies are effectively obliged to comply with U.S. law. The U.S. market is too big to ignore. Companies can't afford to sustain two different product lines for the same product.

But the company still has to apply for patent coverage in these countries and has 12 months to do so. If not then the patent is not valid in any country they have not applied for patent coverage. At least that was the way it was when I was a patent examiner in the 1960's. Haven't read the whole document but see that the 12 month rule is still in there. Essentially the application date is maintained in each country for which there is an application. But the application can still be challenged. So yes you could have a situation where the patent is only valid in the US.

[All Nikon, Fuji, Cannon, Panazonic etc have to do is all decide to ignore REDs patent globally.
If the US courts back Red then all those companys carry on but just pull out of the US.
The US is a large but not indispensable market.

You need to go back to law school. There's something called the "Patent Cooperation Treaty", which has 157 signatories (at last check). This includes the U.S. and all of Europe. In effect, they agree to honor each other's patents, with a duly filed international application. Also the "Paris Convention".

Even if that weren't the case, these companies are effectively obliged to comply with U.S. law. The U.S. market is too big to ignore. Companies can't afford to sustain two different product lines for the same product.

But the company still has to apply for patent coverage in these countries and has 12 months to do so. If not then the patent is not valid in any country they have not applied for patent coverage. At least that was the way it was when I was a patent examiner in the 1960's. Haven't read the whole document but see that the 12 month rule is still in there. Essentially the application date is maintained in each country for which there is an application. But the application can still be challenged. So yes you could have a situation where the patent is only valid in the US.

Thanks. I didn't think I needed to "go back to law school"

This Treaty dates to the 70s, not the 60s, but it really doesn't matter. This idea that manufacturers can simply ignore American patents is not realistic if they expect to sell their product lines in the U.S. How many cameras with compressed raw, in nominal violation of Red's patent, are sold in Europe or elsewhere?

And the show has moved on. cDNG and the like were never practical anyway.

This Treaty dates to the 70s, not the 60s, but it really doesn't matter. This idea that manufacturers can simply ignore American patents is not realistic if they expect to sell their product lines in the U.S. How many cameras with compressed raw, in nominal violation of Red's patent, are sold in Europe or elsewhere?

And the show has moved on. cDNG and the like were never practical anyway.

You are correct in saying manufacturers have to recognize US patents to sell in the US. But just because you have a US patent does not mean you have patent coverage worldwide. It is just in the US unless you apply for international coverage. Rule 33 in the current specs still specify prior art anywhere in the world has to be met. Red would fail this test.

Yes, it's true that according to the patent tribunal found here in the forum, Red "fails" that test. But unfortunately the U.S. patent office says otherwise and in the case Apple and others, U.S. courts affirmed that judgment.

Whatever the requirements of the Treaty, surely Red sought protection abroad? What was the result?

I have no idea what coverage RED has internationally as they do not mention on their WEB site.

Whatever the requirements of the Treaty, surely Red sought protection abroad? What was the result?

Apparently they haven't There is another similar case with audio recorders that a US company has a patent that would not stack up anywhere else in the world (except China or N/Korea if it was one of their companies) and they haven't tried to get protection. In that case all the non-US companies make kit that would infrined the US patent and sell it everywhere except in the US. They do a crippled version for the US. Though many from the US apprently drive into canada to buy the non-crippled ones. I can't recall if the systems sold in the USA could be re-flashed to international standards.

If in fact they didn't seek patent protection outside the U.S., what does say? They knew that a lock on the U.S. market was enough to assert their rights world-wide for these mass-market products.

But, meanwhile, the rest of the market has other and more workable alternatives, like braw. At the other end, there's still Arriraw when anyone gets the 3 picture deal, if Hollywood still offers 3 picture deals.

Whatever the requirements of the Treaty, surely Red sought protection abroad? What was the result?

If you click the links in the right column under "Worldwide Applications" you can get a sense of their applications and status.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8174560B2/en

If you click the links in the right column under "Worldwide Applications" you can get a sense of their applications and status.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8174560B2/en

And that shows they were clearly granted a patent in the EU in 2014.

If you click the links in the right column under "Worldwide Applications" you can get a sense of their applications and status.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8174560B2/en

And that shows they were clearly granted a patent in the EU in 2014.

It clearly shows trhat in 2014 the ONLY places they were petitioning were the US and it is still ongoing. I can't see ANY application to the EU there.

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2145330B1/en

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2145330B1/en

Not a Patent Lawyer are you?

What it says is
"Application number: EP08745686.9A Filing date: 2008-04-11 Legal status: Active"
It also says " 2028-04-11 Anticipated expiration"

If or the Korean one it would say
" Application number: KR1020147021892A Filing date: 2008-04-11 Legal status: IP Right Grant"

The other one filed in the EU the same year says:
"Application EP20140177071 events Priority claimed from US91119607P 2008-04-11
Application filed by Red com LLC 2013-02-12
First worldwide family litigation filed 2014-10-22
Publication of EP2793219A1 Status Pending"


So RED has no granted Patents in the EU The EU Patent office tends to hold more authority than the US one.

Not a Patent Lawyer are you?

I never said I was Chris, since it not my job, but neither are you clearly: 2014-07-16
Application granted

I don't know why you're so actioned by this, seemingly personally, but I'm not Red, therefore being rude does not help your argument.

So RED has no granted Patents in the EU The EU Patent office tends to hold more authority than the US one.

Screen Shot 2023-01-14 at 11.53.49 AM.png (89.8 KiB) Viewed 1176 times

This is the European Patent, "EP" that connects back to the '560' patent that Apple challenged and that RED I believe uses to initiate litigation. It says active.

'Active' means it's granted and valid (or published) until it's abandoned' or expired. I'm not a patent lawyer either, but I do unfortunately pay patent lawyers and they generally advise to add incremental updates to existing patents to extend their life. In 2014 RED submitted a new application with probably minor changes. There are also maintenance fees too, if not paid the patent will become abandoned.