Blackmagic Forum

They keep using that confusing language on purpose but the only one who falls for it seems to be the US patent office. It's such a joke, I wouldn't rule out bribing at this point.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:RED has new patent granted:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11503294B2/en
Can't be bothered to read it properly, but looks like it's talking about any RAW compression in any device.
Real joke Who gives them those patents ?

It's mostly about a phone but at the same time it's also talking about raw compression. It is a junk patent.

It's perhaps worth considering the Steadicam patent defence case - what Garret Brown has called the "Contraption Wars", that included Panaglide. Here's what he wrote:

"The course of this struggle provided a great lesson in obscure offensive and defensive manoeuvres over intellectual property. Many people don't understand that even if a device is patented it may still be infringing on an earlier patent. Your application can only "claim" what's new and different about your invention, but if any aspect of what you're selling is previously claimed in someone else's patent, for example, you may get to meet the local version of the redoubtable Weiser & Stapler! " (Patent defence Lawyers)

"Unless of course you are a large global superpower... "

Robert Niessner wrote:This part of the patent abstract reads like a joke:

The one or more processors can encode the quantized transform coefficients at least by determining a range of multiple ranges in which one transform coefficient is included, determining a value within the range to which the one transform coefficient corresponds, encoding using a first algorithm the range as a range code, and encoding using a second algorithm the value as a value code.

This is ridiculous
Even more shows quality of patenting office in US. It's not RED, it actually puts shame on patenting office for even accepting such a crap.

Some more jokes from the patent:

While certain embodiments are described with respect to specific resolutions ( for example , at least 2 k or at least 4 k or frame rates ( for example , at least 23 frames per second such embodiments are not limited to those frame rates or resolution levels . For instance , depending on the embodiment ( for example , depending on sensor size ) the techniques for on - board storage of compressed raw image data described herein can be capable of achieving resolution levels of at least 2 k , 3 k , 4 k , 4.5 k , 5 k , 6 k , 8 k , 10 k , 12 k , 15 k , 20 k , or greater resolution levels , or resolution levels between and inclusive of any of the foregoing resolution levels ( for example , between and inclusive of 4 k and 12 k ). Similarly , depending on the embodiment , the techniques for on - board storage of compressed raw image data described herein can be capable of capturing or storing image data at frame rates of at least 23 , 24 , 25 , 120 , 150 , or 240 or greater fps , or of frame rates between and inclusive of any of the foregoing resolution levels ( for example , between and inclusive of 23 fps and 120 fps ) .

The dimensions of the phone can vary depending on the particular embodiment . For example , the phone can be approximately 100 mm high by 50 mm wide by 15 mm thick . In another example , the phone can be about 150 mm in height , 70 mm wide and 10 mm thick . In yet another example , the phone can be about 130 mm high , by 70 mm wide by 10 mm thick . In yet a further example , the phone can be approximately 120 mm high by 60 mm wide by 10 mm thick . The display , for instance , can be a 4 " , 4.5 " , 5 " 5.5 " , 5.7 " , 6 " , 6.5 " , 7 " , or 7.5 " display

On the last page basically they claim to have invented compression of raw data with noise filtering, bit-width conversion, quantizing the transform coefficients by using either Huffman or Golomb codes or both, transforming the image data by using a discrete cosine transform and storing to a compressed file.

To quote Jennifer Coolidge in the series „The White Lotus“: Ooooh, woooow.

everything ridiculous ;- )

Lets file a patent written in the same manner as RED (so no one knows what it's about) for camera with any resolution above 12K. We will be rich as everyone will have to pay license to make one

Is there a way to check who (names) checked and approved given patent?

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:L...

Is there a way to check who (names) checked and approved given patent?

on the first page of the PDF

"Primary Examiner Jae N Noh"

Lol, this guy?

https://www.biggerpockets.com/users/jaen

Does lots of video coding patents. Half of them go to BEIJING BYTEDANCE NETWORK TECHNOLOGY, never heard of them.

https://patents.justia.com/examiner/jae-n-noh

Bytedance is the owner of TikTok.

A "patent examiner" usually refers to someone hired by the applicant, not anyone in the Patent Office itself. The parties who reaffirmed the patent challenged by Apple *were* identified, and they had both legal and engineering backgrounds, but it wasn't at all clear that had any relevant experience to the dispute.

You get the same thing in intellectual property disputes. Judges who know jack**** about music or movies/novels rule on plagiarism claims.

This guy got a patent for inventing the wheel….

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... australia/

JB

John Brawley wrote:This guy got a patent for inventing the wheel….

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... australia/

JB

That's what I meant when I quoted Garret Brown, the fact that you may be granted a patent does not necessarily immunise you from the subsequent discovery of prior art and future litigation against your patent.

Yeah I'd love to have a Video Assist without the screen. Essentially external recording media with integrated compressed raw, small footprint.

Kim Janson wrote:It might feel stupid to do that to get around a patent, but I think that would be wise to do anyway, both for phones and cameras as well as for next Video Assist.

This was the principal behind the Sony F5/55s with their raw docks. I feel Red could still challenge such configurations and nobody really wants external recorders if they can avoid them. As storage gets bigger and faster, compression becomes less of an issue, already high end productions are often in Arriraw. Who cares about HDCAM/SR and HDV patents now you can directly record to Prores and DNxHD/R for broadcast, say? There are other forms of compression too outside the codec and not covered by this patent, such as subsampling, as in Braw. This is not an endless windfall for Red, no matter how many times they are able to extend this patent and fight off challengers, and I suspect they are fully aware of that.

I accept what you're saying Kim but I don't think anyone wants an external recorder at whatever level, if they could avoid it with internal recording. It is interesting, perhaps, there is no other camera besides BMD's own that uses internal Braw, even though you would assume it's safe to do so and BMD/other manufacturers should be confident enough it would not infringe Red's patent. I suspect no one wants to actually test that one out though?

No one really wants compression either - it's a necessary 'evil'. Technology is moving so fast that I can easily envisage, well within 5 years, that it could become entirely unnecessary and then Red's patent would be totally mute. But that is just idle speculation, of course.

Kim Janson wrote:Though we now have inexpensive camera media in high capacity available like 2TB SSD 200€ the problem remains the long term storage, that is still expensive and slow on hight data amounts. I think the compressed RAW will remain important and improve.

That's a long term archival issue that's not yet been resolved, really. We have speed in NMVE already, it's just density that needs to follow, I think.

However I'm talking above my pay grade again but overall it's perhaps worth considering that anybody who thinks they can control a key technological aspect of an industry forever or even for very long, has badly neglected their history lessons. Once Edison, through the Motion Picture Patents Company, controlled the whole of moviemaking, via patents. A group of fellas simply went to a new place called Hollywood and gave the metaphorical 2 fingers to that.

Today it's very difficult to invent something totally new that is not really actually an innovation, built upon the shoulders of collective human achievement. Therefore patents like Red's seem quite common today and can stand and be defended, when it seems totally unethical in some senses. Patents are there to rightfully protect genuine IP but where they lead to holding back and conflicting with other innovation and free trade, they will always be 'wars' and frequently a less than happy ending.

Exactly- don't blame RED, but patenting office.

Kim Janson wrote:The way I see it, they are just utilising the broken system

I really don't like that excuse. It's like saying you can't blame the burglar because the victims kept the door unlocked. Also, screw RED

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Exactly- don't blame RED, but patenting office.

You can blame both you know

Kim Janson wrote:Though I do not like it, I can not really blame RED. The way I see it, they are just utilising the broken system and they are really small player on doing that. Not business ethics I would agree, but what big company would not be doing that.

If if the forum's assessment of the patent is correct, then all the big companies who didn't seek to patent what Red patented were among those *not* doing it?

Kim Janson wrote:Though I do not like it, I can not really blame RED.

I think you should -- they are extremely belligerent and trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits. Nobody is forcing them to be absolute dicks about this. Data compression in other cameras, whether applied to raw or other formats is not why people use RED cameras in the first place. Their business model is more threatened by their own actions rather than their competition.

People who are in the market for a sub-$3K camera which Blackmagic, Sigma, Panasonic and Sony cater to are not going to buy a RED -- ever! They might rent one for their production if they're so lucky as to work with a budget that allows for that...but let's be real.

Higher end cinematographers are typically averse to shooting on lower end cameras anyway.

Once again, RED is being incredibly belligerent just for the sake of it. Working in Los Angeles you hear things as you talk to people off-the-record. I heard far too many stories from professionals whose opinion, integrity and truthfulness I respect to realize that RED is known as a bully who have resorted to intimidation and borderline thug-like behavior in the past. Once again, nobody is forcing them to be assholes -- they choose to do it.

Kim Janson wrote:But that patent has been tested many times, and it holds. RED is not to blame of that.

That amounts to saying no one is to blame for anything they can get away with. The facts of this matter aside, and even forgetting the obligations conferred by a corporate charter, why shouldn't a corporation be held accountable for its acts?

Your position also neglects the realities of politics. The inability of government to provide sound oversight is the result of lobbying, undue influence and "regulatory capture". Your hear this in tax policy all the time -- that it's fair and admirable to exploit the loopholes paid for by the same interests that exploit them, because it shows how smart you are. That the same interests poisoned the system is forgotten.

There's a thread in the Z CAM E2 Hack Facebook group, where someone posted a screenshot of a post from an engineer that made the compressed raw codec that Google used for Google Street View cameras in 2007. That's one year before the RED patent.

Since it's an interesting discussion I asked the person who posted the screenshot to provide the original link. I'll post it here if he does.

Kim Janson wrote:The paten system is badly broken, so many obvious patents granted.

The inference amongst us has been quite vociferous in condemning, particularly the US Patent Office, where I don't think that's entirely fair. It is the very nature of innovation versus real invention today - it's almost impossible to invent something new. And after all, my friends, the very clever Graheme Natress, is a Brit, as was William Kennedy Laurie Dickson, Edison's real 'inventor' (many others really invented the movie camera, for the reasons I pointed out above), that led to those ridiculous patents I have to point out. Sadly we have a lot to be guilty of

You still can invent something new- there are unique ways of doing things and always will be. You should not be able to patent "ideas" itself, like RAW compression (just a specific ways of doing it).
There is nothing specific in RED patent and that's the whole problem.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:You still can invent something new- there are unique ways of doing things and always will be. You should not be able to patent "ideas" itself, like RAW compression (just a specific ways of doing it).
There is nothing specific in RED patent and that's the whole problem.

Very very unlikely, if you invent the car, you need the wheel, Human technology is a collective effort, that is why there are always major simultaneous similar 'inventions' in different places, of the world at roughly the same time. Try thinking of something that has not been invented then apply for that patent.

You can still invent a clever/new way of eg. wheel assistance system.
What you may trying to say that it's getting harder and harder to make "real" invention.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:You can still invent a clever/new way of eg. wheel assistance system.
What you may trying to say that it's getting harder and harder to make "real" invention.

Yes I am Andrew - who invented the wheel? And are they able to come forward and claim prior art? Our collective society and the exchange of ideas has got us here today - a remarkable achievement but not a singular one. You can innovate some very clever adjunct and that IP should be protected and rewarded but can you claim you 'invented' it? Should you not involve your engineering professors from college in the collective royalties too?

Steve Fishwick wrote:

Kim Janson wrote:The paten system is badly broken, so many obvious patents granted.

The inference amongst us has been quite vociferous in condemning, particularly the US Patent Office, where I don't think that's entirely fair

No in the case of the US Patent Office it is very fair. It is a known problem inside and outside the US.


-
-
-


"There is general agreement that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office or Agency) is issuing too many invalid patents that are unnecessarily reducing consumer welfare, stunting productive research, and discouraging innovation. Concerns regarding the Agency’s over-granting tendencies have recently spurred the Supreme Court to take a renewed interest in patent law and have driven Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in more than 60 years. However, patent policy reforms have been overly reliant on anecdotes and hunches. Until recently, there has been little to no compelling empirical evidence that any feature of the patent application system causes the Patent Office to allow the granting of invalid patents."

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es_121317_decreasing_patent_office_incentives_grant_invalid_patents.pdf

"If you've read our coverage of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Stupid Patent of the Month" series, you know America has a patent quality problem. People apply for patents on ideas that are obvious, vague, or were invented years earlier. Too often, applications get approved and low-quality patents fall into the hands of patent trolls, creating headaches for real innovators."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/these-experts-figured-out-why-so-many-bogus-patents-get-approved/

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6324&context=faculty_scholarship

Very relevant to the IP discussion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/28/busi ... ticleShare

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

“ The company’s lawyers have previously said it is acting within the parameters of the U.S. patent system.”
And we are discussing cameras here, while this is about people with serious pain!

Wait... Is Canon buying RED ?

What is this ?


https://ymcinema.com/2023/02/21/the-canon-boxy-style-cinema-camera-patent-was-published-in-japan/

Pretty common secret that RED and Canon have been trading intellectual property. RED needs a new lens mount, while Canon really wants internal raw recording.

What is Nikon's response? Teaming up with BMD?

I'm curious about the Pocket 6k Pro/G2 EVF module does it have further capability yet to be unleashed that allow Nikon style eye detect AF?

Sean van Berlo wrote:Pretty common secret that RED and Canon have been trading intellectual property. RED needs a new lens mount, while Canon really wants internal raw recording.

Canon ca do internal RAW thewre is nothing to stop them.

I think this is Canon playing Red at their own game. IF the Japanese Patent Office gives Canon this patent Red can't sell anytuing in Japan or anywhere that wants to work with Japan/Canon... All it does is further embarress the US patent Office.

So why can’t others use the RF-mount? I’m sure they made a deal.

Quite a free with you. There’s some kind of deal between them.

Rf Mount and Red getting some AF capabilities…

But this… the absence of answer from red on matters of DSMC2 media shortage etc…
Intriguing

Nathan_H wrote:Wait... Is Canon buying RED ?

What is this ?


https://ymcinema.com/2023/02/21/the-canon-boxy-style-cinema-camera-patent-was-published-in-japan/

This is old news.

It shows that RED at the very least have done some kind of IP swap, raw for RF mount

And

Maybe Canon make the Komodo or at least designed it to REDs specs and maybe have built the sensor.

JB

Update on the Nikon / Red lawsuit:

https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs- ... dismissed/


Neither side "won" as there was no trial. We do not have, and most likely will never have, the details of this agreement. Also...this does not mean that RAW footage is free for all now. The same rules that applied yesterday, apply today. Nikon can continue to use RAW output.

I guess the question is starting to become...if almost everyone has RAW output are we approaching a more level playing field. And does that leave players like Kinefinity and others in the dust?

Maybe the real answer is for a massive class action lawsuit from all filmmakers demanding Red's Patent be nullified due to it being given in bad faith. And, for all filmmakers to demand that all companies be allowed internal compressed raw in order to allow choice between brands and better market competition amongst the manufacturers.

Personally I hate the Red Patent and don't think it should have been awarded in the first place.

I expect RED did not want the likelihood of loosing in court as that would end their patent approach. The discovery process may have indicated to them the possible loss.

https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs-nikon-case-dismissed/

Nikon / RED case dismissed, any idea whats happening behind curtains ?
Who's paying who ?

Great news and interesting timing, as Nikon appear to be on the verge of releasing something big, based on their marketing emails in the last few days. Could this be the long-awaited Z8 which is expected to be the lightweight (literally and figuratively) sibling to the Z9? Will the Z8 have internal N-RAW as well and could the delay in its release be related to resolving the lawsuit? The plot thickens.

timbutt2 wrote:Maybe the real answer is for a massive class action lawsuit from all filmmakers demanding Red's Patent be nullified due to it being given in bad faith. And, for all filmmakers to demand that all companies be allowed internal compressed raw in order to allow choice between brands and better market competition amongst the manufacturers.

Personally I hate the Red Patent and don't think it should have been awarded in the first place.

It's just like the Zaxcom patent. Never should've been awarded in the first place.

We don’t know.

But if I was to guess…

Nikon came to terms. They are likely paying something to RED. Like when this happened with Sony and Canon (behind the scenes) they may have done an IP swap too. Nikon AF ??

This is the American way. Pay or go to court.

This doesn’t mean we will see more internal raw codecs.

JB

John Brawley wrote:We don’t know.
But if I was to guess…
Nikon came to terms. They are likely paying something to RED. Like when this happened with Sony and Canon (behind the scenes) they may have done an IP swap too. Nikon AF ??
This is the American way. Pay or go to court.
This doesn’t mean we will see more internal raw codecs.
JB

Nikon isn't American.

Nikon probably said, accept this deal, or we will take you apart.

Unlike Cannon who do a lot of video cameras, Nikon is stills cameras that do video. Nikon are not in the same space re video cameras as Cannon. Nikon can probably afford to ignore the US market and just sell to the rest of the world and let grey market stuff seep in to the USA from Canada.

jamedia wrote:Nikon isn't American.

Wow really?

jamedia wrote:Nikon probably said, accept this deal, or we will take you apart.

What deal? What deal are Nikon offering here again? More like, Nikon worried that they would loose to a company that no one has ever lost patent case to and decided to accept RED's settlement terms. Then RED withdrew the court challenge.

jamedia wrote:Unlike Cannon who do a lot of video cameras, Nikon is stills cameras that do video. Nikon are not in the same space re video cameras as Cannon. Nikon can probably afford to ignore the US market and just sell to the rest of the world and let grey market stuff seep in to the USA from Canada.

I think you're stretching a bit aren't you?

RED have defended this patent many times against companies with a lot more money (Apple)

When a company is granted a patent, the onus is on them to defend it. In other words the patent holder initiates a case and takes people to court in order to uphold and defend their patent.

If RED don't defend their patent, then it's not upheld and it's a free for all. The patent is invalidated. There's no point in having a patent.

Only the plaintiff (RED) can withdraw a case. That doesn't mean RED lost. Doesn't mean Nikon won. The whole case could be restarted.

I doubt RED are giving up their golden goose.

It's very very likely that they made an offer to Nikon, maybe for a better rate than first offered, maybe an IP swap. And Nikon took the deal.

But RED wouldn't just stop action because stopping action means they no longer care about the patent.

RED sued Sony over a similar issue and they also settled just like this before it went to court. Now you have X-OCN on Sony cameras. This is the same.

Canon and RED share a lens mount (RF) and internal RAW recording. Not a very likely coincidence.

I really believe that nothing has really changed. Nikon keep their RAW, give some $$ and maybe IP to RED and it's business as usual for RED.

JB