ZCAM now has ProRes Raw

Let's just be practical about this.

There is no financial value or gain for BMD RAW to be licensed or made available by BMD "as an encoder" (a codec) to other camera manufacturers since they are themselves a camera maker and this is an ingredient to their success in selling their cameras and VA units. That goes without saying why would they provide a competing Apple RAW, pay the licensing to Apple, just so their camera can have another RAW option? That may be palatable to the end consumer but not to BMD.

On the other end of the spectrum, licensing the BRAW decoder SDK to NLE software developers makes logical and financial business sense. It gives them the opportunity to sell cameras with BRAW wherein the recordings can be included, edited, and process by other NLE, increasing their camera market share.

It's really this simple if you put yourself in their shoe. But if you keep on sticking to using putting just yourself in your own shoe, you can just be wishful thinking. There's practically no reason why BMD should propagate Apple ProRes or make their codec available to other camera manufacturer. That's what my crystal ball says.

Let's just be practical about this.

...
why would they provide a competing Apple RAW, pay the licensing to Apple, just so their camera can have another RAW option? That may be palatable to the end consumer but not to BMD.

As someone who doesn't use Blackmagic's codec, here's my take...

Blackmagic would do it for the same reason that it entered into a financial agreement with Apple to offer other flavours of ProRes.

Companies tend to do better financially when they pay attention to what their customers want.

There's practically no reason why BMD should propagate Apple ProRes or make their codec available to other camera manufacturer. That's what my crystal ball says.

The very fact that Blackmagic currently offers ProRes suggests that there is a reason to include ProRes. It would be interesting to see what would happen to Blackmagic sales if it yanked ProRes.

The idea that Blackmagic has no reason to get other manufacturers to adopt its codec, if that is indeed the company's position, certainly has interesting ramifications. As far as I know, Blackmagic has not said that, and it does not appear to be the assumption in the industry. Also, it is probably not possible to get a camera to work with Blackmagic's video assist without the camera manufacturer's partnership and effort. My understanding, based on a discussion with Atomos U.S., is that the participation of the camera manufacturer is essential to getting at least ProRes to work with an Atomos recorder.

However, as Brad has suggested, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Blackmagic sees its codec as mostly an in-house product. If that's the case, it is rather odd that Blackmagic hasn't said so.

During a webinar that I watched last week, a representative of Fujinon said that in the U.S. ProRes is ubiquitous

We're talking about ProRes RAW here, not ProRes. ProRes as a shooting + intermediate / post production / mezzanine codec is indeed ubiquitous and very useful. ProRes RAW on the other hand is quite young and with limited support as of now

Rob, it might happen in the future that Blackmagic opens its encoder for anyone to produce .braw or another format linked to .braw that could be opened by most .braw plugins / readers. It would be awesome, for everyone.

But that's not the case here (yet). Blackmagic statements about BRAW are all about "openness" but for now they are meaningless words : no other non-Blackmagic camera is recording BRAW and the BRAW SDK provided by Blackmagic is only about decoding for NLEs and players (and it's not open source, there are only headers and precompiled binaries).

And you're right, if "the participation of the camera manufacturer is essential to getting a camera work" with the new-BRAW-truly-open-format then this would give more work for Blackmagic to perform, and more QC on manufacturers implementation of the new-BRAW-truly-open-format . What would be their interest in doing this ?

During a webinar that I watched last week, a representative of Fujinon said that in the U.S. ProRes is ubiquitous

We're talking about ProRes RAW here, not ProRes. ProRes as a shooting + intermediate / post production / mezzanine codec is indeed ubiquitous and very useful. ProRes RAW on the other hand is quite young and with limited support as of now

Perhaps you missed the sentence immediately before the one you quoted, which says:

"At the moment, Apple's ProRes appears to have a significant advantage, in post let alone capture, and I also think that raw is just one piece, perhaps more of symbolic than of practical significance, of a much larger issue."

In fact, there has been discussion about ProRes generally in this thread, and in at least three posts I have made a point of talking about Raw in the broader context.

One thing that I don’t understand is what criticisms of Philip Bloom and/or Z Cam have to do with the substantive issue in this thread.

Well if ZCAM quality are not as good as Blackmagic cameras then ZRAW out of ZCAM might not be as competitive as BRAW

Rob, sure, but I don't understand where you're getting at with this "broader issue". I'm wondering the same than you about "Z-cam has ProRes internal recording on most models, why wouldn't they just apply to Apple to get Raw internal". Maybe Apple is blocking licensing in-camera recording for now. The obvious things for now is that ProRes RAW is a different beast, very young, that is not yet publicly disclosed and there is one more issue about Bayering / debayering compared to normal ProRes

Blackmagic statements about BRAW are all about "openness" but for now they are meaningless words : no other non-Blackmagic camera is recording BRAW ...

And you're right, if "the participation of the camera manufacturer is essential to getting a camera work" with the new-BRAW-truly-open-format then this would give more work for Blackmagic to perform, and more QC on manufacturers implementation of the new-BRAW-truly-open-format . What would be their interest in doing this ?

We certainly agree on your first sentence :) *

The interest of manufacturers would be the same interest that is motivating some of them to co-operate with Atomos on ProRes Raw. Their customers want it and they see it as a competitive advantage.

* With the caveat that the Panasonic EVA1 and Canon C300 MK II will record it to a Blackmagic video assist.

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL2033?locale=en_US

prores raw for windows with plugin for adobe premiere, after effects, premiere rush.
Seems that Apple decide to support adobe under windows for prores raw.

But that's not the case here (yet). Blackmagic statements about BRAW are all about "openness" but for now they are meaningless words : no other non-Blackmagic camera is recording BRAW and the BRAW SDK provided by Blackmagic is only about decoding for NLEs and players (and it's not open source, there are only headers and precompiled binaries).

But.....

That's what RED do ? Sony ?

That means that the maximum number of applications support playback of BRAW. And I think BRAW has been a lot more successful than ProRes RAW as been in terms of number of users shooting.

It's still the case today that NOT A SINGLE CAMERA can record ProRes RAW internally. Why is that ?

BRAW is available natively on BMD cameras AND IS ALSO available to users of some other RAW OUTPUTTING brands of cameras such as Panasonic and Canon cameras.

So far it's all the recording BMD cameras, PLUS other brands like Panasonic and Canon externally.

So far I don't see the same level of implementation with ProRes RAW ?

Also, it's takes a while for a codec to be embedded into firmware in cameras. I imagine we won't see that happen for a while (if it happens in other brands)

JB

It's still the case today that NOT A SINGLE CAMERA can record ProRes RAW internally. Why is that ?

The lawsuit over the RED patent. The real question is, what happens next. RED CEO Jarred Land (the earlier challenge was from Sony):

We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge.

To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future.

RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited for the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow.

BRAW is available natively on BMD cameras AND IS ALSO available to users of some other RAW OUTPUTTING brands of cameras such as Panasonic and Canon cameras.

So far it's all the recording BMD cameras, PLUS other brands like Panasonic and Canon externally.

This is rather generous/marketing spin. Outside Blackmagic’s own cameras, Blackmagic's codec is available externally on exactly two cameras. Also, I think that it’s necessary to look at whole codecs, not just raw, if one wants to get a sense of what’s actually happening, in both capture and the critically important post-production world. Personally, I accept what a Fujinon U.S. Cine rep said during a webinar a few days ago (see a few posts up), which is that ProRes is ubiquitous.

And BMD cameras also record ProRes. As for ProResRaw, only two SDI output Raw ca eras are currently supported, and one HDMI Camera the Nikon Z, with the pans S1H to follow later this month, but HDMI Raw output seems to have some issues with the Panasonic Camera. So neither are off to a grand start two years down the road. It is early days yet, so time will tell...
cheers

The lawsuit over the RED patent.

Rhetorical question Rob.

This is rather generous/marketing spin. Outside Blackmagic’s own cameras, Blackmagic's codec is available externally on exactly two cameras.

Sooooo

Let’s see now ProRes RAW Is available on 2 cameras externally recorded and ZERO cameras internally recorded.

That’s marketing spin is it ? Cause that seems less than what BMD are doing right now and I’m 99% certain that there’s a tens of thousands of users shooting BRAW right now and nowhere near that shooting ProRes RAW.

Also, I think that it’s necessary to look at whole codecs, not just raw, if one wants to get a sense of what’s actually happening, in both capture and the critically important post-production world. Personally, I accept what a Fujinon U.S. Cine rep said during a webinar a few days ago (see a few posts up), which is that ProRes is ubiquitous.

Don’t confuse ProRes RAW and ProRes.

One of them is a well established codec. The other is on life support.

JB

JB, I'm not criticizing Blackmagic actions here. I'm glad they released BRAW & I love it (even developed a plugin for it !). I'm just saying their marketing speak made some believe it was a 100% libre, free & open source codec that any manufacturer can integrate in their camera, which is not yet the case.

By the way I'm also glad of this situation, because then BRAW is able to keep its reputation intact, with all releases being QC & approved by Blackmagic. If a manufacturer wants to do something similar than BRAW I hope they will change at least the name to not taint BRAW (ZCAM tried ZRAW for example)

It may be that for now this is BRAW message to other manufacturer...
and to all seeking Prores RAW codec in BMD cameras. End of story.

refuse.jpg (21.07 KiB) Viewed 9502 times

I think this could be a problem. That form factor and ProRes Raw...

https://www.cinema5d.com/atomos-announc ... e2-camera/

I need BM to hurry... This is very tempting.

Man, not to knock the Mr. Bloom, but there was nothing appealing about the colors and CA i saw in the footage. Turned me off completely. The saturation of the colors isn't nice.

Skin tons are not nice either, but I think Mr. Bloom has its specific style. It's visible in may of his videos.

Rob, sure, but I don't understand where you're getting at with this "broader issue". I'm wondering the same than you about "Z-cam has ProRes internal recording on most models, why wouldn't they just apply to Apple to get Raw internal". Maybe Apple is blocking licensing in-camera recording for now. The obvious things for now is that ProRes RAW is a different beast, very young, that is not yet publicly disclosed and there is one more issue about Bayering / debayering compared to normal ProRes

It's probably quite simple. With external recording Z-CAM is not paying licensing fees (ATOMOS does). With internal camera recording Z-CAM would have to pay all the costs.
ProRes recording most likely cost them nothing. ProResRAW has unavoidable costs (due to RED patent), so this is different.

Nothing stops BM to release recorder and "convince" camera manufactures to support it the same way as it happening now with ProRes RAW. It's already started, but very slowly. Another step is licensing codec for in-camera recording, but success of this will be down to fee and how it will compare to ProRes RAW. BM has advantage of not to be forced to pay anything to RED. Atm. BM is not really pushing for internal BRAW support in other camera manufactures (not seen a single hint about it).
I'm still waiting for Cineform RAW on chip encoder, which can be used in cameras. Licensing of Cineform RAW seems to be very cheap, which is always good argument.

...
Nothing stops BM to release recorder and "convince" camera manufactures to support it [BRAW] the same way as it happening now with ProRes RAW...

Each BRAW encoding implementation is tuned to the particular camera sensor profile by BMD. Not sure they’re willing to delegate that effort to the manufacturers just as Apple approves and tightly controls each camera’s licensed implementation of ProRes. Reason being, as BRAW moves to other platforms, users will want assurance that it’s giving the same visual result regardless of the source. ProRes is ubiquitous because of the trust in the images due to tight control.

BRAW has to earn that trust slowly but surely over time. Haven’t seen any reviews comparing the images from BMD cameras and the Canon 300 and EVA1. My understanding is they should look very close.

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL2033?locale=en_US

prores raw for windows with plugin for adobe premiere, after effects, premiere rush.
Seems that Apple decide to support adobe under windows for prores raw.

Adobe provides open APIs and documentation for third party developers to develop whatever plugin (in- and output, filters etc) they want. BMD doesn't do that sadly.

It may be that for now this is BRAW message to other manufacturer...
and to all seeking Prores RAW codec in BMD cameras. End of story.

refuse.jpg

It's funny you make a JOKE like this.

There is a company who's CEO used to have this as his signature....

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone with a bad attitude."

right next to....

"Everything in life changes... including our camera specs and delivery dates..."

That of course is Jim Jannard, founder of RED. It wasn't a joke.

https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthrea ... Final-Post

JB

Don’t confuse ProRes RAW and ProRes.

One of them is a well established codec. The other is on life support.

So is Braw and both manufacturers neither having API- support for external decoders nor want to support the competitors codec doesn't make the situation for customers any better.

JB, I'm not criticizing Blackmagic actions here. I'm glad they released BRAW & I love it (even developed a plugin for it !). I'm just saying their marketing speak made some believe it was a 100% libre, free & open source codec that any manufacturer can integrate in their camera, which is not yet the case.

I think to open the encoding in-camera side isn't that simple. But look at BMD's history. Where they have been able to, they've always prefered to be open. DNG was chosen when no one else was really using it for this exact reason.

Media has always been widely available types.

From a roll out point of view, the BRAW roll out went very fast and well considering.

Rob, sure, but I don't understand where you're getting at with this "broader issue". I'm wondering the same than you about "Z-cam has ProRes internal recording on most models, why wouldn't they just apply to Apple to get Raw internal".

1. Apple decide who get's to use Apple ProRes RAW and ProRes.
2. Apple tried (failed) to overturn RED's IP that would mean ProRes RAW recording IN-CAMERA would be possible.
3. Apple ProRes RAW is only possible now because it's recording to an external recorder, which does not infringe IP.

If we are a new camera company and we want to add ProRes RAW as an internal codec then we need to apply to Apple for every single model of camera. This is not just a paperwork thing by the way. You have to send a number of cameras to Apple and they evaluate and stringently enforce their own IP and standards. Plenty of stories too of camera companies applying to Apple and getting rejected.

People assume that SonyCanonNikon et al can "just add" ProRes internally, but Apple have to see that it's a strategic advantage for them. They won't automatically let anyone who wants to offer ProRes have it just because they apply for it either. Look at the products that internal ProRes is available on. They're not consumer items.

Let's look at the takeaways.

ProRes has been available for a long time and is a defacto standard at the very highest production levels where the 12 bit versions are considered "as good" or GOOD ENOUGH to be used on major multi million dollar productions.

ProRes RAW is NOT available in any camera for INTERNAL recording and it's unclear if it ever will be. If it ever does show up it means that camera maker has had to first negotiate with Apple with the above difficulties mentioned AND they are likely paying money to RED for the privilege of doing so even though ProRes has nothing to do with REDCODE.

If you're Apple, would you want money from a ProRes implementation in-camera going to RED even though it has nothing to do with ProRes ? They'd rather say no I think. And I think that's why we still haven't seen internal ProRes RAW on any camera. My un-informed opinion !

JB

...
Nothing stops BM to release recorder and "convince" camera manufactures to support it [BRAW] the same way as it happening now with ProRes RAW...

Each BRAW encoding implementation is tuned to the particular camera sensor profile by BMD. Not sure they’re willing to delegate that effort to the manufacturers just as Apple approves and tightly controls each camera’s

You can tune de-nosing, color science etc. per sensor but not really encoding based on simple DCT schema. There is nothing to optimise there based on sensor. This is pure marketing You read too much from those words. RAW image from any camera is just a bunch of B&W pixels- nothing really more to it when you think about encoding.

[
3. Apple ProRes RAW is only possible now because it's recording to an external recorder, which does not infringe IP.
JB

Well- I think you are wrong here. I though the same, but RED patent is not just about camera itself, but any device, including external recorders etc. This is why ATOMOS said that they (without much joy of course) pay RED required fees, so can use ProResRAW.

ProRes RAW is NOT available in any camera for INTERNAL recording and it's unclear if it ever will be. If it ever does show up it means that camera maker has had to first negotiate with Apple with the above difficulties mentioned AND they are likely paying money to RED for the privilege of doing so even though ProRes has nothing to do with REDCODE.
JB

I see it very differently. It's not available now, because of ATOMOS. It's them who started whole idea (no?), not Apple. They most likely have some deal with Apple when and if ProResRAW will be allowed to be an internal format in cameras.

If you're Apple, would you want money from a ProRes implementation in-camera going to RED even though it has nothing to do with ProRes ? They'd rather say no I think. And I think that's why we still haven't seen internal ProRes RAW on any camera. My un-informed opinion !

JB

You seems to don't understand what RED has actually patented. It's not REDCODE at all. They patented actual idea of compressing RAW signal (above HD resolution and 24fps). It's a fundamental difference! Because of this now everyone who touches RAW compression has to deal with this patent.

Well- I think you are wrong here. I though the same, but RED patent is not just about camera itself, but any device, including external recorders etc. This is why ATOMOS said that they (without much joy of course) pay RED required fees, so can use ProResRAW.

I'm not sure about that. DJI ? I think they haven't had any issue, but their ProRes RAW recording is also OFF BOARD.

I suspect that RED stood over Atomos right at the point they were about to go public and they capitulated on their key deal that was driving not only their new partnership with Apple, but their quest to raise money from the market. Perhaps they did this without Apple's consent. Remember Apple went for RED AFTER they announced. I'm guessing, but perhaps Apple weren't aware of RED's IP till after launch.

I see it very differently. It's not available now, because of ATOMOS. It's them who started whole idea (no?), not Apple. They most likely have some deal with Apple when and if ProResRAW will be allowed to be an internal format in cameras.

I think typically they would have had a special exclusivity status as a "launch partner" for the first say 6 months or 12 months. Remember DJI were as well ? But that would normally not apply after a certain amount of time.

I do agree, that it was likely Atomos that drove this, and for me, ultimately, recording RAW to an external recorder isn't something I would ever be interested in. Seems a very limited market.


JB

"Inventing" ProResRAW by ATOMOS and then letting it to be used in cameras is like ATOMOS killing themselves They could live from fees, but if those were high no one would want to implement ProResRAW. Idea itself (1 RAW codec for different cameras) is very good, but reality is much more complex, so pushing it through it far from easy.

I'm not sure about that. DJI ? I think they haven't had any issue, but their ProRes RAW recording is also OFF BOARD.

If you could use compressed RAW in the recorder ATOMOS would never pay a penny to RED.
The only format which may be exempt from RED patent is Cineform RAW, due to special deal between RED and David.

I think Apple went for RED after JinniTech revelation about how RED progressed in development in regards to patent rules timings.

I think Apple went for RED after JinniTech revelation about how RED progressed in development in regards to patent rules timings.

Or by Atomos accepting the RED IP on ProRes RAW they realised it sets a precedent that they won't be able to do ProRes RAW recording in-phone / Ipad without also paying RED ?

JB

It's still the case today that NOT A SINGLE CAMERA can record ProRes RAW internally. Why is that ?

In the US, the reason is Red's patent. The Mavo Edge will have internal ProRes Raw recording (because they're a Chinese company, and Red's patent is not valid internationally or in China). https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/27/ ... recording/

BRAW is available natively on BMD cameras...

Because BRAW is partially debayered (not fully raw) to get around Red's patents.

I hope that BM comes to and adds ProRes Raw support to Resolve. It's the only major NLE without it at this point (Premiere, FCPx, Canopus.....)

I hope that BM comes to and adds ProRes Raw support to Resolve. It's the only major NLE without it at this point (Premiere, FCPx, Canopus.....)

There's a little NLE called Avid Media Composer that is also in the pike.

In the US, the reason is Red's patent. The Mavo Edge will have internal ProRes Raw recording (because they're a Chinese company, and Red's patent is not valid internationally or in China). https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/27/ ... recording/

U.S. Patent are enforceable worldwide. It might take a number of legal action and but at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business. Apple won't let Kinefinity get away if any. Probably a cease and decease is coming Kinefinity's way and guess who is going to be the loser - the one who just bought a Kinefinity. It is likely that Kine continues to sell internal Prores raw, and will be licensing it and passing along the cost to the buyers.

In the article that you shared the link, Kinefinity neither confirm or deny any arrangement with Apple, just that they have an implementation agreement of some sort. The author was also just assuming that the extent of patent was out of reach because the camera is not sold in the USA. The law does not assume. Patents are respected worldwide and trust me, I know cause a company I worked for before sued a competitor that was outside the USA for patent infringement, and at the end, the company I worked for ended up owning that competitor, essentially putting the competitor out of business and the industry as a whole. Maybe is might be a way for Apple to get into the camera business. LOL.

I think Apple went for RED after JinniTech revelation about how RED progressed in development in regards to patent rules timings.

Or by Atomos accepting the RED IP on ProRes RAW they realised it sets a precedent that they won't be able to do ProRes RAW recording in-phone / Ipad without also paying RED ?

JB

Do you believe that they did not know/think about RED patent? Everyone knows about it, even public.
They talked about it way before Apple tried to invalidate it.

It's still the case today that NOT A SINGLE CAMERA can record ProRes RAW internally. Why is that ?

In the US, the reason is Red's patent. The Mavo Edge will have internal ProRes Raw recording (because they're a Chinese company, and Red's patent is not valid internationally or in China). https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/04/27/ ... recording/

Patent may not be valid outside US, but it still means you can't sell camera in USA anyway (as far as I understand it).
ProResRAW is free of RED patent as Apple/Atomos pay RED licensing. It just means you have to "include it" in the price of your camera. Question is how big is this cost. If not too big then ProResRAW will spread.

U.S. Patent are enforceable worldwide. It might take a number of legal action and but at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business.

...

The author was also just assuming that the extent of patent was out of reach because the camera is not sold in the USA. The law does not assume. Patents are respected worldwide and trust me, I know cause a company I worked for before sued a competitor that was outside the USA for patent infringement, and at the end, the company I worked for ended up owning that competitor, essentially putting the competitor out of business and the industry as a whole.

This is just wrong. Other countries are in the business of enforcing their own patent law, not U.S. patent law, which in fact may not be the same. The issue is made more complicated by the enormous cost of defending patent claims, questionable assertions of patent protection and the emergence of companies whose sole business is to purchase and litigate patents, also known as patent trolls.

Zaxcom, a maker of audio equipment for film and television production, is a well-known example of a U.S. company that has been aggressive on patent enforcement. It has managed to prevent the sale of certain audio products in the U.S., but not elsewhere.

The result is two versions of some audio gear, a U.S. version and an international version. Sonosax, a highly respected European maker of audio recorders and mixers, provides an example. An American who wants to purchase the European version of certain Sonosax gear has only to cross the border to Canada to make his purchase. Indeed, as a practical matter, a person who purchases the gear in question in the U.S. can take their unit out of the country for a changeout of parts. Similarly, Tascam sold two different versions of certain of its recorders, a U.S. version and a version sold elsewhere. This is not an option for Sound Devices because its head office is in Wisconsin.

The U.S. Trade Representative (currently Robert Lighthizer), who is in charge of U.S. trade policy and negotiations, regularly tries to get other countries to agree to U.S. administration policy on patent protection, but with chequered success. It is an issue in the U.S./E.U. trade negotiations, which are going nowhere, it was an issue in the NAFTA update/USMCA negotiations and it is an issue in the post-Brexit U.S./U.K. negotiations. As some may know, the current U.S. Government's aggressive position on patent protection for drug companies is particularly controversial, including within the U.S. itself. Indeed, the U.S. Congress overtly rejected some of the U.S. Government's drug patent demands in the NAFTA update/USMCA negotiations.

As for the FBI, the idea that "the FBI will be in someones ass" in Germany, Canada, Australia or elsewhere is based on an assertion about U.S. extraterritoriality that has no basis in reality. The FBI has no authority whatever outside the U.S., and it has no role, even in the U.S., over civil, non-criminal, patent disputes. The FBI was not involved in the Sony/Apple/RED patent dispute for the simple reason that it was none of the FBI's business. If the FBI wants assistance from enforcement agencies in other countries to investigate an alleged crime that took place in the U.S., that is what mutual legal assistance treaties are for, none of which empower the FBI to go around "getting on the ass" of people in other countries. The good news is that the FBI, unlike some U.S. citizens, is well aware of this.

Patent may not be valid outside US, but it still means you can't sell camera in USA anyway (as far as I understand it).

Then your understanding of this is wrong, but I wouldn't put it past Red to try to challenge this. Red tried to patent this internationally and the patent was rejected, meaning that it has no enforceable patent internationally covering internal raw recording > meaning that a company in China is not violating any patents. Also worthy to note that Kinefinity does not sell cameras in the US. Why would a product that is manufactured/sold in China and therefore breaking no enforceable patent in that country not be able to be sold in the US? Read robedge's response for a more nuanced explanation.

So, contrary to what others have stated, ProRes raw is now supported natively by: Premiere (beta, mac/windows), FCPx, Canopus Edius 9, and Avid Media Composer (since 09/19 I think!). Resolve is the only major holdout at this point. Also contrary to what others have stated, there are more than 2 cameras that support it (see the lists others have provided). I'm only pointing this out with the hope that Resolve adds support. If you don't like PrRaw, no one is going to force you to use it, but give it to those that want it and let consumers decide.

U.S. Patent are enforceable worldwide. It might take a number of legal action and but at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business.

...

The author was also just assuming that the extent of patent was out of reach because the camera is not sold in the USA. The law does not assume. Patents are respected worldwide and trust me, I know cause a company I worked for before sued a competitor that was outside the USA for patent infringement, and at the end, the company I worked for ended up owning that competitor, essentially putting the competitor out of business and the industry as a whole.

This is just wrong. Other countries are in the business of enforcing their own patent law, not U.S. patent law, which in fact may not be the same. The issue is made more complicated by the enormous cost of defending patent claims, questionable assertions of patent protection and the emergence of companies whose sole business is to purchase and litigate patents, also known as patent trolls.

This is not wrong. You are right that countries are in the business of enforcing their own patent law and not U.S. patent law. However, countries do co-enforce patent laws (like some countries have extradition laws). US businesses assert patent protection from the US patent office, legal litigators, and law enforcement agencies to collaborate with the respective countries in seeking out violators. It's not an automatic process but companies that can afford to litigate will go after just to shut down competitors. It is naïve to think that this cannot happen, won't happen.

I have said what I need to say about this. I know where this will go with some who just like to debate the matter. Bottom line, unless there is a legal agreement with the patent holder, it is illegal to use regardless where in the world you are. Otherwise, what is the use of a patent if it is not enforceable?

Oh, please don't answer the last question... as I said, I can only see this go with some folks here. Let's get this topic back on track with the original OP post.

Patent may not be valid outside US, but it still means you can't sell camera in USA anyway (as far as I understand it).

Then your understanding of this is wrong, but I wouldn't put it past Red to try to challenge this. Red tried to patent this internationally and the patent was rejected, meaning that it has no enforceable patent internationally covering internal raw recording > meaning that a company in China is not violating any patents. Also worthy to note that Kinefinity does not sell cameras in the US. Why would a product that is manufactured/sold in China and therefore breaking no enforceable patent in that country not be able to be sold in the US? Read robedge's response for a more nuanced explanation.

You're literally arguing with yourself, you tell Andrew he's wrong then continue to make his point. Why aren't Kinefinity and Sonosax sold in the US? Maybe it's time for some fresh air.

You are right that countries are in the business of enforcing their own patent law and not U.S. patent law. However, countries do co-enforce patent laws (like some countries have extradition laws).

...

I have said what I need to say about this. I know where this will go with some who just like to debate the matter. Bottom line, unless there is a legal agreement with the patent holder, it is illegal to use regardless where in the world you are. Otherwise, what is the use of a patent if it is not enforceable?

Oh, please don't answer the last question... as I said, I can only see this go with some folks here. Let's get this topic back on track with the original OP post.

Ellroy, where this went was the correction of a lot of assertive, misinformed bluster. The correction came from someone who was one of the negotiators, including of the intellectual property provisions, of a major international trade agreement known to every person reading this. In other words, the post four up wasn't the result of a Google search. My statements about Zaxcom, Tascam, Sound Devices and Sonosax, which you appear intent on ignoring, are based on widely known facts, including Jacques Sax's own explanation of the situation in a webinar that I watched two weeks ago.

Re your latest post, countries do not "co-enforce patent laws" or anything remotely close to it. For the reasons that I've already explained, your similar but blunter claim that "at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business" is not based on reality.

Your "bottom line" constitutes an ongoing refusal to recognise that uniformity of patent law, at least outside the TRIPS Agreement (see below), doesn't exist. Indeed, differences over intellectual property rights are the very reason that they are the subject of international trade negotiations, and one of the more difficult subjects at that. In recent years, U.S. administrations have taken a particularly expansionist position on intellectual property rights that has been faced by significant resistance, most recently (indeed, five months ago) in the U.S.'s own Congress.

The last broad-based international intellectual property agreement was the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). That was 25 years ago and a few things have changed since then. Protection of software/firmware/algorithms, along with such subjects as biotechnology and drugs, just happens to be one of the subjects of debate. IP rights (as they are known in trade/legal jargon) were a significant issue in both the U.S./E.U. negotiations, now off the rails, and the 2019 NAFTA/USMCA negotiations, and are certain to be an important issue in the U.S./U.K. negotiations, currently at the "working party" stage. It's perhaps worth noting that governments and corporations are not the only parties with an interest in the issues and their resolution, as the U.S. Congress demonstrated in December.

Re your latest post, countries do not "co-enforce patent laws" or anything remotely close to it. For the reasons that I've already explained, your similar but blunter claim that "at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business" is not based on reality.

Well, I guess China, Korea, and India, if you're reading this, apparently you can go to the USA Patent Office website and download patent documents and develop/manufacture products as designed on the patent and have at it. As long as you don't market and sell those products [that has infringed on the patent rights] in the USA, you can sell it to the rest of the world without any repercussion so no worries there - in unenforceable. Our US Patents are open source too.

Re your latest post, countries do not "co-enforce patent laws" or anything remotely close to it. For the reasons that I've already explained, your similar but blunter claim that "at some point the FBI will be in someones ass and that country's government will taking down your business" is not based on reality.

Well, I guess China, Korea, and India, if you're reading this, apparently you can go to the USA Patent Office website and download patent documents and develop/manufacture products as designed on the patent and have at it. As long as you don't market and sell those products [that has infringed on the patent rights] in the USA, you can sell it to the rest of the world without any repercussion so no worries there. Our US Patents are open source too.

Whether countries "co-enforce patent laws", and the authority of the FBI, have nothing to do with your reply. U.S. patent holders can enforce their patents in the U.S. and in other countries where they have a claim. It is not the norm for a company's national government to get involved. This is pretty elementary.

However, there are exceptions. Until recently, the U.S. could start dispute settlement proceedings, essentially for the benefit of a U.S. corporation or corporations, at the WTO. Unfortunately, that is not possible at the moment. The WTO dispute settlement body has stopped functioning because the Trump Administration is refusing to appoint new members to its Appellate Body, depriving it of a quorum.

As a result, the 26 E.U. states and 15 other countries have just set up a temporary WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Obviously, the U.S. is not included. This means that U.S. companies, as a result of their Government's own actions, have no access to WTO dispute settlement. The countries that they have no recourse against include China, which is a member of the temporary system:

On 27 March 2020, the EU concluded an MPIA, an interim appeal system aimed at resolving trade disputes between parties until the Appellate Body can function again, with 15 other WTO Members. The participating WTO Members are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EU, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and Uruguay.

.

As you can see, the U.S.'s geographic neighbours, Canada and Mexico, as well as several other countries in the hemisphere, are part of the temporary mechanism. Indeed, Canada, which unlike the U.S. also has a free trade agreement with the E.U. and is a member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, was one of the architects.

You can read the whole story, dated April 28, here: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 45c229187b

Whether countries "co-enforce patent laws", and the authority of the FBI, have nothing to do with your reply. U.S. patent holders can enforce their patents in the U.S. and in other countries where they have a claim. It is not the norm for a company's national government to get involved. This is pretty elementary.

Of course the government does not immediately get involved. That's obvious without me having to write 10 paragraphs to explain. It's apparent that you like to write long argumentative commentaries. I don't... so in a nutshell, I'll summarize it for you. Companies file suits which when deem criminal, will involve the authorities. That's how it gets started, and how company lawyers usually fast track with working up a criminal posture thus getting authorities involved (whether or not it is the right thing to do - a legal strategy most corporate lawyers do). It's faster than litigating and costing the company money. Most large enough corp will let their government do the work for them - that's how likely they'll project their claim. It is pretty elementary. If you think this is nonsense, then there's no point of going. Let's get back to the OP's original post.

Ellory, it is "legal" until someone fights you in the court for it and the outcomes of this depends on a lot of factors (including the country of origin of the company). Rob is saying that is not an automatic process and he's giving good arguments to affirm that United States IP is not accepted in the whole world, his arguments and examples seem interesting to me.

Bottom line, unless there is a legal agreement with the patent holder, it is illegal to use regardless where in the world you are. Otherwise, what is the use of a patent if it is not enforceable?.

What kind of argument is that ? You are reversing everything here. The existence of the US patent system is not justified by its enforceability. It comes from historic facts and it has evolved a lot since then, to the point that no, not everything is enforceable worldwide because someone in the US thinks that the idea of "compressing the bayer pattern out of your camera sensor at 1:6 ratio" is the "property" of Mr Jannard from RED

lol hilarious

People have a lot of time on their hands...

Whether countries "co-enforce patent laws", and the authority of the FBI, have nothing to do with your reply. U.S. patent holders can enforce their patents in the U.S. and in other countries where they have a claim. It is not the norm for a company's national government to get involved. This is pretty elementary.

Of course the government does not immediately get involved. That's obvious without me having to write 10 paragraphs to explain. It's apparent that you like to write long argumentative commentaries. I don't... so in a nutshell, I'll summarize it for you. Companies file suits which when deem criminal, will involve the authorities. That's how it gets started, and how company lawyers usually fast track with working up a criminal posture thus getting authorities involved (whether or not it is the right thing to do - a legal strategy most corporate lawyers do). It's faster than litigating and costing the company money. Most large enough corp will let their government do the work for them - that's how likely they'll project their claim. It is pretty elementary. If you think this is nonsense, then there's no point of going. Let's get back to the OP's original post.

No Ellroy, I'm explaining how intellectual property law and enforcement works, and in the process I'm correcting statements that you've made, and have persisted in, that are simply untrue.

The entire discussion about intellectual property rights in this thread as been about IP rights as a civil, non-criminal matter. That is the norm. A few posts up, you made claims about a role for the FBI that I explained have no basis in reality.

Now you want to discuss IP enforcement as a criminal matter. Okey doke. Basically, it is very rare for a national government to pursue an intellectual property violation as a crime. To take the U.S. as an example, realistically we're talking about offshore piracy of goods sold back into the U.S. market where the U.S. is prepared to apply for the extradition of the perpetrator. If the U.S. enforcement agency needed evidence from outside the U.S., it would have to enlist the aid of enforcement agencies in other countries, through mutual legal assistance agreements, to gather that evidence. Then it would have to pursue extradition. In the case of China, a country that you are now raising, there is no extradition treaty in the first place.

The kind of enforcement action that you are talking about is really rare - there may well be an example, but I can't think of one - and hardly worth talking about. National enforcement agencies have bigger priorities both domestically and internationally than investing the kind of manpower required to chase after this kind of thing. IP piracy just isn't up there with mass shootings, armed robbery and terrorism. There have been very occasional, highly publicised raids by Chinese enforcement officials in China under Chinese law, but this is political. Given the current state of U.S.-China relations, such actions are unlikely to happen again anytime soon.

If the problem of China's disregard for intellectual property rights is going to be resolved, it will be through negotiation and through the WTO. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government's own actions (see four posts up) have made WTO recourse on behalf of U.S. corporations impossible.

I'm explaining how intellectual property law and enforcement works, and in the process I'm correcting statements that you've made, and have persisted in, that are simply untrue.

The entire discussion about intellectual property rights in this thread as been about IP rights as a civil, non-criminal matter. That is the norm. A few posts up, you made claims about a role for the FBI that I explained are just plain wrong.

As I said, it may be nonsense to you so I'll end this back and forth. Just a note, it is not untrue as you want to believe and yes, FBI involvement may just be plain wrong, but it's happened, happened many times. When some large corporation's IP is infringed, the conversation in the board room and the corp lawyers are not light and cozy like you think it is. It's more like Jack - corporate lawyer, gets a call from CEO Larry, and Larry saying... "hey Jack who do you know at the US Atty. General's office (or the Chinese back-office wink...wink...) who'll do some kick ass work for us on this problem"? Jack jumps, make the IP infringement a case that can bring criminal offenses and off the races they go. I hope you get the drift. If you have to know, this is one of the reasons why investors invest in companies that own "patents" and why they are important. That's the point I was going with this, not the education on how the US enforces it IP through diplomatic channels. That's too naïve for me.

When some large corporation's IP is infringed, the conversation in the board room and the corp lawyers are not light and cozy like you think it is. It's more like Jack - corporate lawyer, gets a call from CEO Larry, and Larry saying... "hey Jack who do you know at the US Atty. General's office (or the Chinese back-office wink...wink...) who'll do some kick ass work for us on this problem"? Jack jumps, make the IP infringement a case that can bring criminal offenses and off the races they go. I hope you get the drift.

No, I don't get the drift. Most IP infringements, including patent infringement itself, which is what the discussion in this thread has been about, are not crimes. If your pal the corporate lawyer doesn't know that, he shouldn't be practicing.

The reason that I referred to counterfeiting when you insisted on diverting this discussion to criminal liability, even though it has nothing to do with this thread, is that it's the only case, other than some cases of trade secret theft, which also has nothing to do with this thread, where talking about criminal liability makes any sense at all.

Here's the real drift: patent infringement is not a crime. Period.

I was just trying to humour the latest series of factual claims that exist in your head, but not in the real world.

As someone who has been paid very well to conduct intellectual property negotiations at an international level, it's pretty clear that I'm dealing with someone who knows nothing about the subject, is making it up as he goes along and doesn't know when to stop asserting and start listening. I couldn't care less about you. The problem is that you keep saying things that are read by other people here that are just plain wrong.

No, I don't get the drift.

Here's the real drift: patent infringement is not a crime. Period.

I was just trying to address the latest series of factual claims that exist in your head, but not in the real world.

Sorry Pal. There's no winning an argue with a door knob.

jack.jpg (36.93 KiB) Viewed 9127 times

Got to go. It's Miller time.