Red is back on the litigation warpath

.
I really believe that nothing has really changed. Nikon keep their RAW,.
JB

YEs

.
[Nikon] give some $$ and maybe IP to RED and it's business as usual for RED.
JB

You don't know that. It is equally possible that NIKON said we have XYZ information if RED leaves Nikon alone and sone $$$ for expenses we don't tell the world.

Honestly the story continues if and when the next vendor sues Red. If there is something there then that will happen. However to John's point, it certainly looks like adding Raw to your camera, then suing Red seems to be the way to get more and/or better concessions from Red.

Unless there is actually something there.

.
[Nikon] give some $$ and maybe IP to RED and it's business as usual for RED.
JB

You don't know that. It is equally possible that NIKON said we have XYZ information if RED leaves Nikon alone and sone $$$ for expenses we don't tell the world.

What's more likely? All of the filings in this show the arguments each company would be using in their case. What new secret revelation of information would get revealed?

So what's more likely?

Nikon have done what no one else has been able to do or RED have done what they always do?

JB

Red had nothing to lose in the case except for legal fees and future licensing from Nikon. Nikon on the other hand, would have to pay damages, and then be over a barrel when negotiating the licensing. The case was dismissed without prejudice meaning that Red is free to bring action in the future if they choose.

If Nikon had won it wouldn't retroactively overturn all other rulings and open the raw floodgates. Everybody that's lost to Red in the past is still subject to the rulings in their respective cases. Precedent is a circular argument as Nikon would never have won in the first place. The only player that might benefit from a Nikon victory other than Nikon is maybe Panasonic as Red has already sued just about everyone else.

Good Luck

Nikon Inc. is the U.S. importer of Nikon Corporation, a company organized and operating under the laws of Japan. Nikon Inc. is owned by Nikon Corp.

In Nikon's court answer, it admits all of Red's patents. Nikon admits it knew about Red's inventions, patents and previous legal proceedings against Sony, Kinefinity and Nokia. Nikon denies infringement including green average subtraction, green image data processing and raw image demosaic and compression. Nikon denies that Red is entitled to any relief. Nikon does assert that Red failed to disclose the sale and public use of Red cameras more than a year before patents were filed, thus barring enforcement. Nikon asserted that Red's patent application did not provide written, description support for converting raw focused light into compressed raw mosaiced data, and that Red offered cameras at NAB and other public demonstrations prior to patent office filings.

They knew they will loose.
JinnyTech said exactly the same- if RED goes to court they will loose badly. RED never got to any actual trial as far as I understand - it was always "sorted" before any trial.

Not really Andrew.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/11/10/ ... nt-office/

The case was dismissed without prejudice meaning that Red is free to bring action in the future if they choose.

Red dropped it's claim without prejudice, clear and unambiguous victory for Nikon. It's a roadmap for any other manufacturer to do the same, but an expensive one. Red chose not to risk losing this time.

If it had been dismissed with prejudice then RED wouldn't be able to go after them again. I agree with Howard that without prejudice leaves it open for RED to pursue a legal claim in the future.

Without either company releasing a statement we don't have any knowledge to what agreement they came to.

Look at golf club makers using 'speed foam' or foam (plastic) inserts inside golf clubs. I use Ping which has had the inserts for a number of years but PXG believed they had invented it and sued Taylormade. They found cross-patent infringement and agreed to settle.

https://golf.com/gear/taylormade-pxg-ir ... t-lawsuit/

Not really Andrew.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/11/10/ ... nt-office/

Exactly- no trial
Is there any case with RED which actually went to trial and got ruling in their favour?
According to JinnyTech there is none. I don't know.

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-l ... essed-raw/

And yet again- no trial just "some agreement". RED is not confident at all. They just pretend End result is that Nikon can use compressed RAW. Sounds like RED's tactic not to lose and keep others "scared".

For perspective, Apple actually sued Red in a patent trial, and failed, in court. A company with a market cap 1,000X Nikon and over 1 billion cameras sold.

Then again for the pennies that Atomos is paying per unit, Apple could have said “Forget it, TikTokkers aren’t shooting raw, these fees aren’t going to cover our legal team’s lunch.”

Good Luck

RED is not confident at all. They just pretend End result is that Nikon can use compressed RAW. Sounds like RED's tactic not to lose and keep others "scared".

I believe that too. RED are like a super aggressive poker player, if someone would eventually call their hand, they're likely to get f'd.

(Well except you claim 'Obviousness' like Apple which was a really stupid take to tackle the patent).

But since lawyers always seek settlement over the risk of losing first, it likely won't happen and that's what RED bank on and had success so far.

For perspective, Apple actually sued Red in a patent trial, and failed, in court. A company with a market cap 1,000X Nikon and over 1 billion cameras sold.

Then again for the pennies that Atomos is paying per unit, Apple could have said “Forget it, TikTokkers aren’t shooting raw, these fees aren’t going to cover our legal team’s lunch.”

Good Luck

That's huge Apple fail I would say.
1 guy JinnyTech had not gave up on RED and as far as I understand has not lost in court either (again-no final trial either?). It just shows that you don't always need MLN$ to win in court.

Apple's take to tackle the patent was that it's 'obvious', which is a head scratching strategy when looking at the actual points of failure of the patent.

I believe Apple losing on that strategy helps RED scare all others to take it to court until this day.

If it had been dismissed with prejudice then RED wouldn't be able to go after them again. I agree with Howard that without prejudice leaves it open for RED to pursue a legal claim in the future.

That would make no sense. If Red had a claim, then why not now?

You're misreading the legal situation. The two parties settled. Period. That could mean Nikon is paying Red a license fee, it could mean Red decided for whatever reason not to continue with the suit (but reserves the right to refile it in the future) or it could mean they came to some other accommodation or agreement, like Red did with Sony.

There's no way of knowing. The only information which might suggest a win or lose is who is paying whose legal fees. But they both agreed to pay their own legal fees. Which also tells you nothing.

The information I got was that Cannon is still using a RAW as it Nikon. RED could not stop them.
In the case of Cannon they also got RED to do a Canon mount (so Canon wins again selling lenses for RED cameras.)
Basically it was not a win in any shape for RED

The information you got was hearsay. The two parties know what the facts are, but nobody else does. Either both parties are bound by a non-disclosure agreement or neither has any interest in revealing the terms.

The information you got was hearsay.

You have no idea what my information was or who from.

The two parties know what the facts are, but nobody else does.

The "two parties" are large companies, A lot of people know the outcome.

Either both parties are bound by a non-disclosure agreement or neither has any interest in revealing the terms.

Bound by NDA's However it suites all parties to say nothing for the obvious reasons.

Nikon knew all the issues before going into this trial. Why would they negotiate a deal during this time when they could have done that in the first place. No, to me it is clear they wanted to go into this trial to win. Stated how they were going to do this too. I think the agreement was to go home and pay their own legal fees. Let others come to their own conclusions.

Nikon knew all the issues before going into this trial. Why would they negotiate a deal during this time when they could have done that in the first place.

Exactly. And why would Red have sued Nikon at this time if by dropping the case their objective was to be able to refile at a later time?

That would make no sense. If Red had a claim, then why not now? Any logical conclusion is that Nikon simply did not infringe the patent, or was prepared to give proof the patent was invalid.

I'm pointing out the legal definition of 'without prejudice' to mean that it's an ambiguous conclusion, that they have the right to pursue legal action in the future.

When 'with prejudice' is used to dismiss a case, it is usually definitive. The case by definition could not be brought again. You suggested in your earlier post that it was a "clear and unambiguous victory for Nikon."

Without anyone knowing what happened, or any statements being released, I find it hard to believe anyone's speculation on who won or lost or what agreement was made.

The case RED filed against Kinefinity, Inc. was also dismissed without prejudice in August of 2021.

I don't think anyone should be trying to read between the lines in the filings. Nikon could remove RAW later on, as Kinefinity did, and we can only speculate now whether it stays or goes.

Red Com LLC v. Kinefinity Inc
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litig ... 1-cv-00041

Kinefinity MAVO Edge: No ProRes RAW
https://ymcinema.com/2021/03/01/kinefin ... a-cameras/

RED-Kinefinity.jpg (11.54 KiB) Viewed 2110 times

As far as I know there were no statements from RED claiming they were pleased to see their REDCODE patents withstand another challenge yet again.
In my book it means it probably didn’t or they would have made the statement.

my 2 cents, for what it’s worth.

I don't think anyone should be trying to read between the lines in the filings. Nikon could remove RAW later on, as Kinefinity did, and we can only speculate now whether it stays or goes.

[/attachment]

I'm guessing this will be known sooner than later as Nikon seem almost certain to be on the verge of announcing the release of the Z8 on May 10th. The Nikon teaser in relation to this was released a few days ago. shortly before the announcement of the outcome of the litigation. It would be very surprising if there is not some flavour of internal N-RAW in the Z8 and it would also be extremely surprising if they removed N-RAW from the Z9.

As far as I know there were no statements from RED claiming they were pleased to see their REDCODE patents withstand another challenge yet again.
In my book it means it probably didn’t or they would have made the statement.

Did they make a statement when Kinifinity changed what their announced feature set was going to be? Or when they settled with Sony? Or Nokia?

At that same point in time they made that statement they were also desperate to get Apple afterburner support for REDCODE. RED needed Apple.

I'm guessing this will be known sooner than later as Nikon seem almost certain to be on the verge of announcing the release of the Z8 on May 10th.

The presence or absence of raw in future Nikon cameras doesn't tell you anything about the terms of their settlement.

Nikon may have decided to pay leading to RED withdrawing the challenge. Nikon has raw in their cameras.

Red may have decided not to proceed with the challenge. Nikon has raw in their cameras.

Nikon and Red may have decided to swap IP. Nikon has raw in their cameras. RED gets Nikon IP.

I am perplexed why people are wanting to see this as a Nikon win.

I am also wondering if it's just N-raw that's affected or ProRes raw as well going forward.

JB

Just because Red sued Nikon doesn't prove Nikon infringed on Red's patents. That's what the trial was for. The case was dismissed, people speculate about the reasons. That's what people do.

Just because Red sued Nikon doesn't prove Nikon infringed on Red's patents.

The patent holder RED thought so. That's why they were litigating.

That's what the trial was for. The case was dismissed,

It was dismissed but at the specific request of the plaintiff RED. This is typical of a settlement.

people speculate about the reasons. That's what people do.

Indeed.

JB

It was dismissed but at the specific request of the plaintiff RED. This is typical of a settlement.
JB

A settlement can have many forms, including an agreement not to counter sue. And so this is just my opinion, not to speculate too much but to review what's known. When I look at this, the stage was being set for a brawl in court, different than Kinefinity because I couldn't find an answer to the court where they denied any accusations. That may be different than Nikon that denied all the allegations of infringement but further was asserting the patents known were unenforceable due to prior releases of the technology into the public space that predated the patent filings, as well some that predated the formation of Red. The history was presented convincingly to me, (not a jury) by Jinni-Tech, that Red changed the file header atom type from Quicktime to their own .rd3 while maintaining the existing jpeg2000 wavelet compression process, and used already available, off the shelf encoding and compression chips from XiLink and Analog Devices designed for the existing cinema cams including the Silicone Imaging SI-2K; that Red's only uniquely patentable feature was Thomas Graeme Natress's green average subtraction algorithm, a feature explicitly denied by Nikon in their filing. The record shows that Red's court filings only cost about $450 each, and that Red's lawyers are officers of the company. Red's complaint asserted they were damaged beyond monetary relief including to their reputation, and sought treble damages to be calculated at a later point, and requested a jury trial. Had this gone to trial, it would have been very expensive on both sides. I will not speculate on which side was better positioned for this, or who was the winner or even if N-Raw remains in present and future cameras.

That may be different than Nikon that denied all the allegations of infringement but further was asserting the patents known were unenforceable due to prior releases of the technology into the public space that predated the patent filings, as well some that predated the formation of Red. The history was presented convincingly to me, (not a jury) by Jinni-Tech, that Red changed the file header atom type from Quicktime to their own .rd3 while maintaining the existing jpeg2000 wavelet compression process, and used already available, off the shelf encoding and compression chips from XiLink and Analog Devices designed for the existing cinema cams including the Silicone Imaging SI-2K; that Red's only uniquely patentable feature was Thomas Graeme Natress's green average subtraction algorithm, a feature explicitly denied by Nikon in their filing.

I can add to the comments above that when RED sued Jinni-Tech: Jinni had to remove their videos on YouTube as they were part of RED's claims Jinni was wrong. The result of the case against Jinni-Tech by RED is that all those videos are back up and unchanged...... Also both Canon and Nikon are still doing RAW (and RED now has a Canon mount.)

There are NDA's involved, so all that can be said is what is public.

When Jinnitech sued Red nearly all of the allegations went in Red's favor. The judge cried BS when Red alleged the Redmag represented millions of dollars in R&D, and Red was found guilty of tortious interference, basically getting customers to cancel orders for Jinnimags.

Jinnitech did not seem very prepared as several of their allegations, true or not, were unsupported by evidence or data.

Jinni's appeal failed.

For your reading pleasure.

https://casetext.com/case/jinni-tech-ltd-v-redcom-inc-7

Good Luck

When Jinnitech sued Red nearly all of the allegations went in Red's favor.

And Jinni wasn't trying to make a camera that recorded compressed raw video files.

JB

WRed was found guilty of tortious interference, basically getting customers to cancel orders for Jinnimags.

That's not quite what happened. In the case you linked to the judge declined to dismiss Jinni-Tech's tortious interference claim against Red, but didn't rule on it one way or the other. Same with Red's claims about its R&D costs. But he threw out all the Jinni-Tech claims.

A few months later the tortious interference charge was also thrown out (without trial), mainly because Jinni Tech never documented any actual losses from the "interference". Based on these two rulings, either Jinni-Tech should never have brought the case to begin with or he needed much better lawyering.

In the end, I don't think Jinni-Tech got anything, none of its claims were upheld.

Yet a narrative exists where Jinnitech somehow won? I thought they won…until I actually read the filing.

Good Luck

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

Also, RED insisted that Jinni-Tech videos were removed. That was 2020. Now they are all back up as the court reversed its decision.
It seems nothing in Jinni-Techs videos is incorrect.

It seems nothing in Jinni-Techs videos is incorrect.

Of course nothing is. I was a RED owner once, and after some years on REDuser I'm convinced Jim, Jared and their inner circle of enablers (guys like Phil Holland) play to win - and if that means "stretching the truth", hey man, so be it. Skulls and sunglasses.

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

When he countersued, Red changed the name of their company. They were going to lose.

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

When he countersued, Red changed the name of their company. They were going to lose.

They also moved the company to an unincorporated location.
Also Red didn't win.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors and NDA's but
Canon are still doing Raw and RED have added a Canon mount to their cameras.
Nikon are still doing Raw.
Jinni-Tech have re-published all the videos (unaltered) that Red had a problem with.
Jinni sales closed down because it was a one-man outfit and he couldn't fight red and run the company. Not because Red had it closed down, they didn't. Nikon and Canon are big enough to just carry on.

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

When he countersued, Red changed the name of their company. They were going to lose.

They also moved the company to an unincorporated location.
Also Red didn't win.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors and NDA's but
Canon are still doing Raw and RED have added a Canon mount to their cameras.
Nikon are still doing Raw.
Jinni-Tech have re-published all the videos (unaltered) that Red had a problem with.
Jinni sales closed down because it was a one-man outfit and he couldn't fight red and run the company. Not because Red had it closed down, they didn't. Nikon and Canon are big enough to just carry on.

They = Red.

They also moved the company to an unincorporated location.

They = Red.

Yes. Red changed the name and moved their company registration to Paradise City (where the girls are pretty) which is an unincorporated part of Vegas. It was the "lawless" area where the casinos are situated.

I am sure someone else can explain the technicalities under US law and the reasons for doing it. I got the thumbnail view for someone who is not contemplating any legal action in the US

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).

It’s a tax strategy, Apple has had major portions of their business in Nevada for over a decade. Moreover, how does this confer any guilt upon Red in the context of this case? Red’s first infringement claim, prior to the suit from Jinni, was made by Redcom in Nevada.

Good Luck

As best I understand it, Red sued Jinni-Tech for making the compatible mags, and then Jinni-Tech counter-sued. That counter-suit was what got thrown out. But Jinni-Tech is still making the mags, no? Did Red drop its infringement suit?

When he countersued, Red changed the name of their company. They were going to lose.

I believe Jinni-Tech sued RED first in February of 2017 based on the commentary on the REDUSER forum https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washi ... 217/242137

Then RED later sued later in the year for patent infringement, but I don't think the patent was enforceable in that case and they continued to dispute into 2020 based on the first suit where Jinni-Tech is the plaintiff.

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washi ... 217/242137

Also, RED insisted that Jinni-Tech videos were removed. That was 2020. Now they are all back up as the court reversed its decision.
It seems nothing in Jinni-Techs videos is incorrect.

The original Jinni-Mag YouTube advertisements from 2017 were never removed.

Interesting quote from Howard's link above suggests RED may have some custom code on their mags. Maybe just to 'authorize' the SSD for use? The videos posted by Jinni-Tech don't imply this, unless I missed it:

"Although Plaintiffs provide evidence that RED's SSDs are standard-issue, Mr. Royce's testimony about the steps he had to take to create the JinniMag, including "copying" some "random characters," suggests that RED's Mini-Mag product as a whole may include hardware and/or software created specifically by RED. Moreover, neither party submits expert testimony that might clarify the issue."

EDIT: Actually my quote is taken from this link: https://casetext.com/case/jinni-tech-ltd-v-redcom-inc-7

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.

AFAIK, Red did in fact drop its civil suit for patent infringement. There could be any number of reasons for that. A not insignificant one is that the defendant (Jinni) doesn't have any assets, so a judgment wouldn't mean anything. The lack of assets might also explain the apparent cessation of sales activity at Jinni-Tech. If it's not deemed a viable competitor to Red, and poses no threat to Red-mag sales, it's not worth suing and not worth the risk of losing and setting a precedent.

The fact that no other supplier is selling Red-mag clones suggests that the legal issue remains unsettled in the eyes of potential competitors, 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 never went to trial.

Jinni Tech did not win. The court concluded the act of obtaining the "random bits of code" was an unpermissioned hack from opening the Red MiniMag, and that Jinni Tech didn't provide support for its claim it was damaged by tortious acts of Red, therefore summary judgment was granted for Red and the case against it was dismissed.

For some, I think Red lost respect in the court of public opinion. For others, they could care less and continue to support Red and their branded media regardless.

...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. But Jinni Tech lost its case when it was dismissed by the court.

For some, I think Red lost respect in the court of public opinion. For others, they could care less and continue to support Red and their branded media regardless.

That's a nice way of putting it. The court of public opinion was the non-owners alleging Red's products were a ripoff. I don't agree it was. Caveat emptor places the burden of quality assurance and due diligence on the buyer.

That said, Jinni Tech offered convincing proof that most of the Red patents should not have been granted, green average subtraction being the exception.

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.