Red is back on the litigation warpath

This is the whole point- RED doesn't go to court. They always try to sort out things before any trial.
If Nikon can keep RAW in their cameras then not sure how this is RED's victory.
I don't believe Nikon agreed to pay any licensing etc. fees, so it's loss for RED.

Same with Canon. They have Raw and Red now has a Canon mount. (who wins?)
Jinni's videos are back up. Who does that hurt?

It's not fruitful debating what we don't know, but if you try to buy a Jinni-mag on the Jinni site, what you'll encounter is:

THE STORE IS CLOSED FOR MAINTENANCE

This doesn't look like a victory, and as already noted, *all* of Jinni-Tech's legal claims were evidently dismissed outright (they weren't allowed to go to trial).

The reality is when you are a one-man company and you only have 24 hours in a day, something has to give. The store was not closed due to Red winning anything, simply due to the amount of time it takes to fight Red in court.

The videos are back up. It remains to be seen if Jinni come back to doing the memory cards or something else. Note 2020-2023 there was a severe shortage of silicon and if you could get any the prices were all over the place.

What JinnyTech has done was 'doggy', but this is totally separate story to RED's patent cases.
He just gave very good points (Nikon may used it) for those who may face RED for patent infringement.

This is the whole point- RED doesn't go to court. They always try to sort out things before any trial.
If Nikon can keep RAW in their cameras then not sure how this is RED's victory.
I don't believe Nikon agreed to pay any licensing etc. fees, so it's loss for RED.

Same with Canon. They have Raw and Red now has a Canon mount. (who wins?)
Jinni's videos are back up. Who does that hurt?

And what does RED have from Nikon?
Video are a big trouble for RED as they simply show what was/is RED's strategy/philosophy.

This is the whole point- RED doesn't go to court. They always try to sort out things before any trial.
If Nikon can keep RAW in their cameras then not sure how this is RED's victory.
I don't believe Nikon agreed to pay any licensing etc. fees, so it's loss for RED.

People try to characterize Reds patents as immutable because they slayed Apple therefore it follows Red must have extracted concessions from Nikon, Sony and Canon. That's where the speculation goes off the rails.

What JinnyTech has done was 'doggy', but this is totally separate story to RED's patent cases.
He just gave very good points (Nikon may used it) for those who may face RED for patent infringement.

100%

...and not that Jinni-Tech "won". What it "won" is that Red dropped its suit. But it didn't prevail on the merits, because the case {Jinni Tech} never went to trial.

By that logic Red did not win versus Nikon either; never went to trial.

It's an issue of fact, not logic. Not going to trial isn't a general principle. You can't conclude anything when a case is settled -- unless you've seen the settlement. This conviction that somehow Nikon "won" could be accurate, but nobody here has any basis to say so.

As JinnyTech said- that patent was never tried in court (due to different reasons). RED will rather do everything not to go to court. They are too scared to loose it as it would mean so much for them. There are other ways (including dropping a case) to keep their patent "alive" and keep others alway from compressed RAW.
There are ways around RED patent (without much of side effects), so if anyone needs compressed RAW badly it can be done.

RED will rather do everything not to go to court. They are too scared to loose it as it would mean so much for them.

Over 95% of patent infringement suits in the U.S. never go to trial. Nearly all of them are settled. That's just the way it works And it's also why you can't conclude who "won" based on the fact that there was a settlement.

Over 95% of patent infringement suits in the U.S. never go to trial. Nearly all of them are settled. That's just the way it works And it's also why you can't conclude who "won" based on the fact that there was a settlement.

There was no settlement, both parties dismissed.

You're the guy who brought up Nikon ("by that logic").... In any case, I don't recall seeing Red's claims dismissed. Where's the ruling for that?

No idea what it really means, but here you are:



for me it sounds like "nothing ever happened" and Nikon keeps RAW recording.
What happened/got agreed behind the doors no one knows.

But that's a settlement. Red's claims weren't dismissed by the judge or the courts. Red and Nikon just agreed to forget the whole thing, based on a private agreement. But since it's "without prejudice", either one could refile its claims.

Anyway, I was looking for the "dismissal" (by a judge) of Red's claims against Jinni-Tech. I didn't see it in the filings.

for me it sounds like "nothing ever happened" and Nikon keeps RAW recording.

Here's a link for basic civil suits in California.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/34204.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

"If you file an lawsuit and you decide you do not want to move forward, you can ask the court to dismiss the case. Here are some common reasons for dismissing a case:

You and the person you sued reach an agreement and you want to end the case. (If this is your situation, make sure the person who owes you money follows through with the agreement —and the check or payment clears—before dismissing the case. And make sure that your agreement is in writing and protects both of you.
The person you sued paid you the money he or she owed you.
You cannot find the defendant to serve him or her, but want to reserve the right to sue at a later date.
You sued several people but have decided you only want to sue one or some of them, so you dismiss the case as to the others.
You no longer want to pursue the case because you changed your mind.

If you decide you want to ask to dismiss the case, you need to decide whether you want the court to dismiss it “with prejudice” or “without prejudice."

“With prejudice” means that you cannot re-file your case ever.
“Without prejudice” means that you can re-file your case at a later date (as long as you are still within the statute of limitations)."

'There was no settlement, both parties dismissed.

If you mean both parties dismissed the suit by mutual agreement, that's a settlement. If a judge had dismissed Red's case, *that* would be news. If that happened, I didn't see it.

'There was no settlement, both parties dismissed.

If you mean both parties dismissed the suit by mutual agreement, that's a settlement. If a judge had dismissed Red's case, *that* would be news. If that happened, I didn't see it.

A settlement is a contract between parties. Red and Nikon filed a joint motion to dismiss the action. If you know of a settlement, what was it?

Nikon is presenting Z8 in few days and if it will come with N-RAW it's a big win for them (unless they need to pay RED some money). If Nikon felt strong and was prepared to go to trial then I don't see a reason why they would agree to any fees. It negates whole idea of releasing N-RAW in the first place as they perfectly knew RED will be suing them.
Regardless of details- in public eyes it's rather RED loss (even if they eg. making money on licensing fees).

A settlement is a contract between parties. Red and Nikon filed a joint motion to dismiss the action. If you know of a settlement, what was it?

A joint motion to dismiss *is* a "settlement", although the terms of the settlement are unknown, as in this case. Every settlement entails a motion by both parties to dismiss.

But there's a big difference between the parties agreeing to dismiss ("to settle"), and a court or a judge which dismisses the claims of one or the other parties. In Jinni-Tech v. Red Com, the judge dismissed all Jinni-Techs claims against Red, meaning he wouldn't allow the case to go to trial. Jinni-Tech's appeal also failed.

But, as far as I can determine, Red voluntarily abandoned Red Com v. Jinni-Tech (patent infringement). We could speculate as to why (I also offered some possible explanations above) but we simply don't know. Maybe they thought they'd lose. Maybe it wasn't worth the trouble. Maybe they achieved their ends without having to go to court (Jinni-Tech doesn't appear to be prospering).

Most likely as they had much stronger case agains JinnyTech "hack" than one with their patent. They would be silly to go to court with patent case as chances of them loosing were high. It made no sense. Same with Nikon. Better to keep patent alive than loosing all of it as then compressed RAW would spread and made way more competition for RED than Nikon itself (specially when no one knows (or ever will know) details and only speculates). It does put RED on some thin ice though.

Nikon is presenting Z8 in few days and if it will come with N-RAW it's a big win for them (unless they need to pay RED some money).

Which we may never know.

Regardless of details- in public eyes it's rather RED loss (even if they eg. making money on licensing fees).

How’s that?

JB

A settlement is a contract between parties. Red and Nikon filed a joint motion to dismiss the action. If you know of a settlement, what was it?

A joint motion to dismiss *is* a "settlement", although the terms of the settlement are unknown, as in this case. Every settlement entails a motion by both parties to dismiss.

A joint motion to dismiss with the court is not a settlement between the parties. You don't know if there is one, what possible terms there could be, nor who would be stipulating them.

A joint motion to dismiss with the court is not a settlement between the parties. You don't know if there is one, what possible terms there could be, nor who would be stipulating them.

You're redefining established legal terms here and I'm not sure to what end. When both parties agree to dismiss -- whatever the terms may be -- they've "settled". Or they've "reached a settlement".

There may be (and there are likely to be) terms to that settlement which aren't a matter of public record. But the motion to dismiss is still a "settlement", whether there's any additional agreement beyond what's known publicly or not.

“ Reasons for dismissal vary. Over 97% of federal lawsuits are dismissed, most of which are due to settlements. ”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_to_dismiss

Some read this as if RED backed away from pursuing protecting their IP. They just gave up and decided to withdraw.

I just don’t understand where this thinking is coming from when they have always aggressively used the legal system for many similar SETTLEMENTS without going to trial.

JB

Because this time someone was properly prepared and RED could possibly loose their patent for good?

As already pointed.
Why would Nikon (now) got to some agreement and pay RED licensing fees? They could simply do it upfront before releasing Z9.
Nikon clearly had strong arguments, so RED simply backed off worrying of loosing "everything". Current situation is not that bad for RED. Patent stands and they can keep threatening everyone. Loosing patent would be massive fail for RED. Better to let Nikon to use compressed RAW than have many other brands implementing compressed RAW and facing this way 10x bigger competition.

Ya I wish someone would have the balls to actually take RED to court. I'd love to know what a trial would end like if capable lawyers presented the Cineform RAW / SI-2K / JPEG2000 ect stuff. The patent should have never been given imo.

You can't as RED will back off as they done in every case so far. Maybe this is at the end best strategy for RED, as at the end this still keeps patent alive. Bigger companies all shoot RAW so not much change in this area. Probably eg. Arri would like to implement some compression to their cameras, but they can live without it as well (by offering superior color/sensor). BM found other way. Sony/Canon shoots compressed RAW. It's only smaller players (which could benefit from it a lot) are "on hold".

The logic is flawed.

The patent doesn’t stand if they don’t defend it.

Then Kinifinity or whoever just do their own raw and go through the same work that has already been laid out by Nikon their pre-trial filings.

I think it’s just wishful thinking. I understand the sentiment. I don’t think the patent is valid but it’s been tested many times. I don’t see any evidence for it being different this time and your logic makes zero sense because anyone could do the exact same thing as Nikon.

JB

Some read this as if RED backed away from pursuing protecting their IP. They just gave up and decided to withdraw.

It's evident that RED backed away from prosecuting their IP claim against Nikon. They did. But to know the reasons, you don't. Speculation is the guesswork that chooses winners and losers without the game having been played.

It's evident that RED backed away from prosecuting their IP claim against Nikon. They did.

This is just plain unfounded speculation. Every patent infringement lawsuit, without exception, is filed on the expectation that the case will never go to trial.

Lawsuits are expensive, take years and "discovery" gives each party access to confidential communications of the other, which can reveal all sorts stuff companies would prefer to keep private. And even with the facts on your side, you can still lose, depending on the luck of the draw. No going concern wants to take these odds. In the case of ailing Nikon -- it ain't what it used to be -- an adverse judgment could potentially put them out of business.

What the lawsuit does is force the two parties to consider where the least damage lies. In this case, that could include a license fee. There's simply no knowing.

The logic is flawed.
...
JB

It's not.
RED patent is self-defended against small companies by pure existence of it.
For big players it's almost meaningless as all found different ways around it and record compressed RAW for years now.
Anyone could do it but only in theory. In practice not a single small company will go to court unless they have 99% chance of winning which is not thaaaat obvious with case against RED.

Lawsuits are expensive, take years and "discovery" gives each party access to confidential communications of the other, which can reveal all sorts stuff companies would prefer to keep private. And even with the facts on your side, you can still lose, depending on the luck of the draw. No going concern wants to take these odds. In the case of ailing Nikon -- it ain't what it used to be -- an adverse judgment could potentially put them out of business.

Well... exactly.
Why on earth Nikon would go with release of Z9 knowing RED will sue them (this was crazy obvious) and knowing they may loose just later to agree to fees? Makes 0 sense. They could agree to fees up-front in such a case without taking any risk (even of eg. RED wanted bigger fees). I don't buy that Nikon got into some licensing agreement as a result of settlement. If anything it will be rather way less costly for Nikon.

Nikon also knew it would never go to trial. They might have gotten a better deal this way. There's no knowing.

I have speculated like everybody else, so here is mine. RED have said in their complaint that they are entitled to compensation 3x actual damages plus attorney's. Jinni Tech sued RED saying they were entitled to damages. They did not prove their actual damages so their claim was dismissed on summary judgment. If RED were to believe they would receive 3x damages and pass summary judgment, why would they not? It would represent a profit 3x their harm. Red also alleged damage to its reputation. Was RED's reputation somehow damaged less by dismissing the action now? Nikon denied all the claims and scheduled for trial knowing that 3x RED's actual damages were at stake. Nikon could also have been enjoined from using N-RAW in its cameras. In that choice to go to trial, would Nikon not have weighed the opportunity cost of paying 3x damages and the potential loss of N-RAW versus the profit to be made from N-RAW? Was it unreasonable to think Nikon's profit in the mirrorless segment would not have exceeded 3x RED's damage to its cinema cams if they could even get that much? Was it unreasonable to expect that Nikon's legal preparations unlike Jinni Tech's and Kinefinity's would be comprehensive and completed? Was it unreasonable to consider that RED's patent claims were not immutable, or that RED could suffer adverse consequences from court test of the enforceability of some of its patents?

What has been happening in this thread since the dismissal of the case, noted as speculation about winners and losers is really more about identifying the loser. As I see it, as long as RED and Nikon were able to resolve this by means of their choosing as happened, both sides won, neither side lost, and include Sony, Canon among the winners, Jinni Tech and Kinefinity the losers. In fact, you might even list Kinefinity as one of the winners since the withdrawal of raw from their cameras was their choice to sell cameras without it. All in all I think this has worked out pretty well. The patents continue to safeguard inventors, consumers still have cameras to choose from with raw.

It's evident that RED backed away from prosecuting their IP claim against Nikon. They did.

This is just plain unfounded speculation. Every patent infringement lawsuit, without exception, is filed on the expectation that the case will never go to trial.

All that I meant by that was that the action could not have been dismissed by Nikon alone, RED had to and they did.

If RED were to believe they would receive 3x damages and pass summary judgment, why would they not?

Discovery revealed that they wouldn't get any cash, Red had literally nothing to gain. Sure they could go to court and win to satisfy some chest beaters but that's not good business.

In Red's successful defense of their Lantham Act violation Vs. Jinni they claimed no less than 9900 hours of R&D in the development of the Redmag. It's a little mind numbing, and patently false, but that's the real world.

I think we all agree that the patent should never have been granted but ask yourself if green average subtraction is substantially different than a partial de-bayer. What is it about Braw that makes the patent non-obvious to a POSITA. Is there anything in the Braw patent that's unique or original? I've read the patent several times and it seems that each component is predicated on prior art, there's basically one unique idea and that's debayering the luma channel and leaving the chroma more or less raw-ish.

Good Luck

In fact, you might even list Kinefinity as one of the winners since the withdrawal of raw from their cameras was their choice to sell cameras without it. All in all I think this has worked out pretty well. The patents continue to safeguard inventors, consumers still have cameras to choose from with raw.

They are losing out without Raw. They should re-add Raw and should present the exact same defense Nikon did.

In fact, you might even list Kinefinity as one of the winners since the withdrawal of raw from their cameras was their choice to sell cameras without it. All in all I think this has worked out pretty well. The patents continue to safeguard inventors, consumers still have cameras to choose from with raw.

They are losing out without Raw. They should re-add Raw and should present the exact same defense Nikon did.

I doubt Nikon or Canon will tell them their defence. At the moment, both Nikon and Canon have the advantage of doing RAW why would they let others in on the secret?.

The US patents are globally seen in the same light as those from China and N.Korea.

In Red's successful defense of their Lantham Act violation Vs. Jinni they claimed no less than 9900 hours of R&D in the development of the Redmag. It's a little mind numbing, and patently false, but that's the real world.

Good Luck

9900 hours is more than a year. So they are saying someone was siting there continously (day ad night) for a year developing/testing a SSD inside a case ? Wow- what a waste of time. If we then scale it to 8 hours a day then it means it took them 3 years to develop redmag (they had about no employees in early days so it's not like there was a team of 20 people working on it). So based on this it should take them 50 years to develop actual camera Pure bs.

In Red's successful defense of their Lantham Act violation Vs. Jinni they claimed no less than 9900 hours of R&D in the development of the Redmag. It's a little mind numbing, and patently false, but that's the real world.

Good Luck

9900 hours is more than a year. So they are saying someone was siting there continously (day ad night) for a year developing/testing a SSD inside a case ? Wow- what a waste of time. If we then scale it to 8 hours a day then it means it took them 3 years to develop redmag (they had about no employees in early days so it's not like there was a team of 20 people working on it). So based on this it should take them 50 years to develop camera Pure bs.

This what Jinni said. The development time was a joke. A cheap off the shelf SSD a simple passive connector to connector PCB and a simple case. Jinni managed to do the same to a higher quality for a fraction the cost and a fraction the time.

Cheap SSD? When Jinni looked at them and traced the supplier: The supplier did several grades. The ones RED were using, according to the Jinni videos were the base versions. There were two that were higher quality and tested that were apparently not used.

From memory RED were claiming they were buying the cheap ones and in house testing them. They could have done this with the better quality ones because after setting up the production test rig (which you would need anyway) the tests would be automatic and take the same amount of time. Also, with the higher quality ones you would probably have a lower drop out rate.

In fact, you might even list Kinefinity as one of the winners since the withdrawal of raw from their cameras was their choice to sell cameras without it. All in all I think this has worked out pretty well. The patents continue to safeguard inventors, consumers still have cameras to choose from with raw.

They are losing out without Raw. They should re-add Raw and should present the exact same defense Nikon did.

I doubt Nikon or Canon will tell them their defence. At the moment, both Nikon and Canon have the advantage of doing RAW why would they let others in on the secret?.

The US patents are globally seen in the same light as those from China and N.Korea.

Nikon used Jinni-Tech's defense.

Canon traded the RF mount for RAW.

Nikon used Jinni-Tech's defense.
Canon traded the RF mount for RAW.

So Nikon and Jinni kept what they had.
Canon kept what they had and got RED to add Canon lens mounts to their cameras, so Canon sell more lenses.
Clearly RED are winning

50% off on RED Dragon-X Bundle, $10K instead of $20K, including Sigma 18-35 and 2 V-Mounts w. charger.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/ ... 43/SID/DFF

Since this thread is full of theories...I have a hunch that RED aren't doing all too well. Unlike Arri they can't hold prices for their cameras. They cut their prices to half in 2012, then again partly in 2018 (I remember the outrage on Reduser in '12). I think releasing the Komodo was in a way forced on them by the market and against their self-perception. Pure speculation of course. The offer above is just getting rid of the last DMSC2 models. But:

As a former RED owner, I think the RED One was fantastic for the industry but after that they became cancer and I wouldn't mind if they just went away.

Canon kept what they had and got RED to add Canon lens mounts to their cameras, so Canon sell more lenses.

I prefer the Komodo with RED's new PL mount on top of the RF mount. That's sort of what I'm hoping Blackmagic would do if they came out with a box camera that shared the same sensor tech as the 12K. L mount, then you can mount the PL mount and use brackets into the camera to secure it.

The Canon batteries also are pretty attractive in that they hold a charge for almost 3 hours each on Komodo.

I have a hunch that RED aren't doing all too well. Unlike Arri they can't hold prices for their cameras. They cut their prices to half in 2012, then again partly in 2018 (I remember the outrage on Reduser in '12). I think releasing the Komodo was in a way forced on them by the market and against their self-perception.

I think Komodo is like a gateway drug for them pulling more users from Canon etc. It might be a bit of a loss leader where there isn't a lot of profit. The model I rented had a serial number over 20,000 and they seem to be keeping track of them that way on REDUSER. I also like that the Komodo shares the same color science as the Raptor, so the look is consistent across the bodies.

They did away with Jinni-Tech in one sense by moving to CFAST and CF Express and RED's prices are close to the competition. There's definitely improvement in my mind in the product line and they seem to be a little more thoughtful towards the customers. I definitely prefer Komodo with the global shutter over DSMC2 and am not personally jumping at any price cuts on the previous generation.

After all the discussion about compressed RAW I don't like not knowing the compression numbers with Komodo, I prefer BRAW having the 3:1 or Q variations vs LQ, MQ, HQ in Komodo. (unless they're published somewhere?).

I was considering adding in Komodo for the OLPF and global shutter and size but with the release of the 12K OLPF that looks more attractive over having to add the RAWLITE myself. I found the image in MQ and HQ to be pretty nice going from 6K to 4K. The shadows seem a bit more blocked up than the URSA 12K, so I still prefer the 12K sensor overall and body shape for shoulder and handheld.

Legal issues aside I think most users are going for what they think is the best product / cost benefit and RED is still hanging in there in my opinion.

I rented a Komodo recently and liked it a lot more than I thought I would. Lot of people I know in my market have jumped ship from Blackmagic to the Komodo and seem pretty happy. Ultimately decided I need something more integrated, especially on the audio end of things, and playing with it next to my UMP G2 I felt like the G2 was more capable overall and the Komodo was a sorta lateral move / slight downgrade in a lot of ways. I know a lot of folks want a box camera from Blackmagic but for me the UMP is so much better.

No idea how the company is doing, but I like the DSMC3 lineup and it feels like an improvement to me. Feels like the bottom has really dropped out for DSMC2 bodies — I'm seeing Monstro packages used for under $15k, wild for a camera that was still $50k new not that long ago.

Monstro was 80k when they launched in 2017.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker ... hip-sensor

JB

The Komodo X for $10K is about to be announced so Red is clearing old inventory. It’s probably going to be the original S35 Komodo with a larger body, higher frame rates, and ND filters. Will be interesting to see what they release.

It will also be interesting to see when they release it. Since they are being so free with their information I would guess Cinegear Expo. I wonder if any other company will be announcing a new camera then.

Monstro was 80k....

JB

That's where the narcissistic minds of Jim and Jared still see RED I guess.

Little by little they had to surrender to the market over the years; highest prices, high prices, high priced accessories, high priced media, media. They did a good job though to cultivate an image and raise a loyal following that was willing to pay the premium (or even buy that holographic phone).

They also always did a good job to create a 'movie' look straight out of cam, something almost everyone else still lacks (hence the trillions of terrible 'cinematic LUTs' from self proclaimed filmmakers on Youtube).

Monstro was 80k....

JB

That's where the narcissistic minds of Jim and Jared still see RED I guess.

Little by little they had to surrender to the market over the years; highest prices, high prices, high priced accessories, high priced media, media. They did a good job though to cultivate an image and raise a loyal following that was willing to pay the premium (or even buy that holographic phone).

They also always did a good job to create a 'movie' look straight out of cam, something almost everyone else still lacks (hence the trillions of terrible 'cinematic LUTs' from self proclaimed filmmakers on Youtube).

You must have such a sad life.


For electronics, the ticket price always comes down, and the spec goes up.
There are lots of very good luts by very good filmmakers on YouTube who are vilified by unknown self-proclaimed filmmakers on here.

uhm, ok.

You must have such a sad life.

Uncalled for. Do better.