RED's New Patent & Affect on BRAW

Patent News: https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/01/red-dig ... hMCyNMzp2I

So the question is how negatively will this affect BRAW? I believe BRAW is DCT based right?

Honestly, I really disagree with RED on filing this patent. It's so anticompetitive. I hope Arri, Blackmagic, Canon, and Sony all team together to sue for this patent to be voided.

In the article (I not had time to read patents) told about no debayered signal,
Bras is partially debayered in camera, then is not raw. Voilà red is out of that home.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I hope Apple and Nikon sue these MF's into oblivion!

Can this company kick the bucket yet? The magic is long gone (if it was ever there).

I also wonder about the timing. How many manufactures are going to delay releasing their next camera product because they don't want to get sued?

we user, all together, should do a generic patent where color is patent covered to be a name of a camera brand, (black is absence of color ).
Or we should patent the box shape camera, or a patent to use a custom recording support (for simpathy i should allow to arri, but lock Red).

mine obviously is a joke, but i think should be a limits to patents registration and USA should review all these kind of patents (i know is a giganormic work), a generic compression idea is a bit... too much generic.

Patent News: https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/01/red-dig ... hMCyNMzp2I

So the question is how negatively will this affect BRAW? I believe BRAW is DCT based right?

Honestly, I really disagree with RED on filing this patent. It's so anticompetitive. I hope Arri, Blackmagic, Canon, and Sony all team together to sue for this patent to be voided.

ProRes is DCT based.

What’s funny is how RED for years talked about REDCODE being all about wavelet based compression…

This is just RED trying to extend their existing patent.

It doesn’t affect things that are already public (like BRAW)

JB

This is just RED trying to extend their existing patent.

In some ways, it will be a shame, if Red become more famous as a 'Patent Troll', than an innovative tech company that did revolutionise digital film making, if in a fan boy manner, at times. I think personally this has already come to pass, in many ways and is in the long term damaging to their 'legacy' - shame as I say. But the US Patent office is culpable as well, for allowing such broad patents, with collective general prior art.

One medical company I worked for hired a bonified USDA Grade A genius as VP of R&D. The dude was out there, right down to having a white board in his private bathroom. His only function was to dream things up and patent them. The company had no intent of pursuing any of his ideas. It was simply done to be able to skim money off any other organization that came up with similar ideas. No idea how the bottom line worked out for them but they did it for years.

This is just RED trying to extend their existing patent.

I had a client that was a pharmaceutical manufacturer and one of the favourite ploys of the US companies when a patent was nearing expiry was to change something minor and renew the patent. It was known as evergreening.