Red is back on the litigation warpath

At Cinegear Los Angeles last week, I saw much of the major cine cameras players showing their new wares (BMD, Arri, Canon, Sony, Panasonic) but no RED at all. However, most of the vendors who were showing their products like rigging systems and some lens makers were demoing their product with RED cameras.

Most feature films are nowadays made with Alexa cameras (or Panavision film). They may not be the best in every aspect but DPs feel at ease with them and they are reliable and widely available for rent.

Some are shot with RED Monstros (with Komodos as B cam) by directors who have a special relationship with RED.
I can understand the negativity toward this company as they sometimes have an aggressive posture with war-themed stuff and the likes, probably inspired by early Oakley shades mythology.

12 years ago, I bought a Red Scarlet camera because I could afford it. I was pleased with the organic picture quality and the efficient handling of Redcode.

Once, the day before Christmas, RED company Honcho, a giant Canadian guy called Jarred Land, threw a challenge to anyone to replicate a german TV music video in 4K resolution in 12 hours.

The winner will receive a brand new RED Weapon camera valued at around 45K.

My partner at this time and I decided to give it a try for fun, as a challenge like this is not very common nowadays.

They were 12 entries, including ours, mostly by Hollywood crews using cranes and sophisticated machinery.
We immediately thought we were out of the game.
The one-man jury, Mr. David Fincher, a well-known RED aficionado, pretended amiably not to be able to choose a winner, so Jarred Land generously decided to reward every entry.
For some reason, my partner did not want to keep the camera so we sold it to a famous Belgian DP.

Even though I decided to mostly use BMD stuff now, I will be forever grateful to these guys at RED for their unexpected Christmas gift.

Just my two cents.

The only reason I really like 4K is because it has packaged with it HDR. That's the best innovative improvement has been. So with the various streaming companies 4K HDR means I know I'll see a great image because I'll get HDR. 4K is meaningless.

I 100% agree on the HDR and about 50% agree on the 4k part. Everything shot on digital from 2000 to 2012 or so was mastered in 2k, so the UHD releases are all upscaled, but the HDR is nice. The UHD releases that were shot on film and not upscaled look really nice but the extra resolution is not readily apparent below a 9' screen, or if you are close, a 40" or more monitor.

It was an alluring vision and I was absolutely on board! "Rendering obsolesence obsolete." Remember that?

But it was a scam really.

It was a way to keep you in the RED ecosystem. It forced you to continue to upgrade your camera, at your own expense of course for a nominal discount. If you fell out of the chain, then you "lost" the upgrade value. And it was also used to pressure you into buying other products like the red phone.

I mean, if you made a commitment to buy the newest model when it came out and have a good relationship with your dealer, this motto could apply to ANY camera brand really...

And, my conclusion is that it looked the best I had seen it in the last 20-years from SD DVD when I first was amazed at how great it looked to HD Digital I got around 2013. Now it looks better. The remaster is fantastic.

We'll....film ALWAYS had the resolution. We're just sued to watching using inferior display and transfer technology. I mean just because everyone's doing 2K and 4K DCI transfers doesn't mean there isn't MORE on the camera negative itself.

I saw a visually stunning film a few years ago at the Sydney Film Festival and the filmmaker happened to be there. I complimented the director on how beautiful it looked. He told me it was shot mostly on OLD Russian LOMO anamorphic lenses and that the reason it looked so good was that it was a brand new answer print(first generation)

We're so used to seeing film scanned and then DI'd I really think we've forgotten how good film itself looks projected and how much there is in that original camera negative.

That's why a film can look better today than it did when it was first released.

Why so much negativity towards RED, they have contributed a lot and are probably to thank for that we have the BMD cameras on the price point they are.

They have done a lot to introduce raw workflows, but they are an unethical company in my view. I've seen them force filmmakers to sign NDAs before they would "help" with problems that are because of their own cameras. Maybe this is why we don't often hear of issues working with RED cameras. I've personally had issues in the past with dealing with them in similar circumstances. I think they make some nice cameras, but working with Red themselves and the culture that THEY proudly cultivate doesn't sit well with me.

And frankly, I was there at the beginning of BMD getting into cameras, and it wasn't anything to do with RED.

JB

Interesting share of experience John, as always.... NDAs ...wow.


Seems Nikon isn't backing of.... wonders if RED is gonna come up with some "new tech" in the next months....

https://www.cined.com/nikon-z-9-firmware-v2-10-released-n-raw-is-here-to-stay/


Their pattent is due to expire in April 2028.... if they can hold on to it... what happens with them once every camera company will have their RAW codec / workflow established....

Six years are a long time in digital technology. We may have some recording technologies by then which make that patent unimportant.

Booooooom!!!! Looks like Nikon is putting the smack down on this lawsuit....

https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/11/nikon-d ... s-lawsuit/

Apple (who could buy Nikon with cash) put the smackdown on the lawsuit as well... A legal precedent only gets stronger over time. The lawyers will quote Red V Sony, Apple, Blackmagic, Nikon, Z Cam, Kinefinity, et al. Are Nikon's lawyers better than Apple or Sony's? Probably not, in five years it will be academic.

Good Luck

Apple (who could buy Nikon with cash) put the smackdown on the lawsuit as well... A legal precedent only gets stronger over time. The lawyers will quote Red V Sony, Apple, Blackmagic, Nikon, Z Cam, Kinefinity, et al. Are Nikon's lawyers better than Apple or Sony's? Probably not, in five years it will be academic.

Good Luck

In my opinion, you can't quantify "talent" (as in lawyers) by how much money a company has. AMD vs Intel. AMD is like 10x smaller money wise and their engineers still make great products that are equivalent or superior to Intel's offerings. In the server space Epyc cpus (especially the vcache ones) are so much better than the Xeons its not even funny.

I'm hoping Nikon has some of that talent type and kicks REDs patent trolling in the proverbial sack.

Here's to wishful thinking! Cheers!

Did the other lawsuits try the same defense that Nikon is pursuing now? As I understand it they're claiming RED sold cameras at events long before they filed the patent and therefore it's not enforceable.

Did the other lawsuits try the same defense that Nikon is pursuing now? As I understand it they're claiming RED sold cameras at events long before they filed the patent and therefore it's not enforceable.

No clue. I also don’t know that a prototype demo or pre-order deposits constitute adequate “display” of the technology. Was Redcode on display or just the Red One? The UM46 existed more than a year before Braw, does that mean Blackmagic’s Braw patent is invalid?

Good Luck

Did the other lawsuits try the same defense that Nikon is pursuing now? As I understand it they're claiming RED sold cameras at events long before they filed the patent and therefore it's not enforceable.

No clue. I also don’t know that a prototype demo or pre-order deposits constitute adequate “display” of the technology. Was Redcode on display or just the Red One? The UM46 existed more than a year before Braw, does that mean Blackmagic’s Braw patent is invalid?

Good Luck

Braw wasn't shown in public before it was patented.

Did the other lawsuits try the same defense that Nikon is pursuing now? As I understand it they're claiming RED sold cameras at events long before they filed the patent and therefore it's not enforceable.

No clue. I also don’t know that a prototype demo or pre-order deposits constitute adequate “display” of the technology. Was Redcode on display or just the Red One? The UM46 existed more than a year before Braw, does that mean Blackmagic’s Braw patent is invalid?

Good Luck

No because the codec is what is patented, not the camera.

I think this is similar to what Apple tried to argue, and it seems Apple, with much deeper pockets, weren't able to overturn the patent and this is why we still don't see Apple ProRes RAW inside a camera anywhere....

so I'm assuming Nikon will turn out the same. They're not arguing that their codec is doing it differently (which is what BMD do) but they are simply arguing the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

JB

No because the codec is what is patented, not the camera.

I think this is similar to what Apple tried to argue, and it seems Apple, with much deeper pockets, weren't able to overturn the patent and this is why we still don't see Apple ProRes RAW inside a camera anywhere....

so I'm assuming Nikon will turn out the same. They're not arguing that their codec is doing it differently (which is what BMD do) but they are simply arguing the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

JB

Apple argued that Red used two existing technologies in its patent and therefore was unpatentable. Nikon's argument is different, claiming that Red lied and misled the PTO, and it looks to be following a path laid out by a certain youtube channel that viciously attacked Red and exposed their shady business practices to say the least.

I'm sure they can afford better lawyers than someone following a YT clip …

Interesting strategy.

I’m sure they can and have, but it is interesting that their argument is almost verbatim to Jinni Tech. People were saying that their YouTube channel laid out the groundwork to fight Red’s patent. This makes me believe that they were on to something and Nikon is following through with it.

...and it looks to be following a path laid out by a certain youtube channel that viciously attacked Red and exposed their shady business practices to say the least.

It wasn't a YT channel, as far as I recall, but the maker of the reverse engineered and much cheaper media drive, that was naturally sued by Red, for it.

...and it looks to be following a path laid out by a certain youtube channel that viciously attacked Red and exposed their shady business practices to say the least.

It wasn't a YT channel, as far as I recall, but the maker of the reverse engineered and much cheaper media drive, that was naturally sued by Red, for it.

It was both Steve.

Jinni was sued for making RED media that spoofed reds own closed media.

He then posted about it, and I’m sure a lot of the information came from his own legal process, which may even still be going.

https://youtube.com/c/JinniTech

JB

Jinni was sued for making RED media that spoofed reds own closed media.

He then posted about it, and I’m sure a lot of the information came from his own legal process, which may even still be going.

Thanks John for the clarification.

In any case I think this Nikon thing may have the tacit support of other vested parties. I too have my doubts of it's success but I think many are getting mighty tired of Red on this one. I admire Graeme Natress and what he achieved in the early days particularly, but the combination of raw and compression, as a patentable invention, is a very dubious and tenuous one. It's not his or Red's fault though - you can't blame them - but more the very loose interpretation the US Patent Office allows on prior art, which would not have flown in many other jurisdictions, were first application made there.

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise - we could still be using the cumbersome cDNG and the innovation that has followed, to get round this patent, is very creative. But I think no matter the outcome, it is approaching something like critical mass and the fallout for Red could be ultimately self-defeating.

As of 1st November 2022 it seems the Jinni-Tech vs RED saga is off again... A re-upload with comments having, it appears, cleared some legal challenges fron RED when it was first posted.

There is also a comment from Jinni-Tech when asked if there will be a part 6: "Yes. That would be a look inside REDCODE"
So it would seem that JinniTech has, at least, has cleared some of the legal roadblocks from RED

Time to order more popcorn

I don't have a dog in this fight so I am merely an ammused bystander.

Yup,

While there is this topic on reduser :
https://www.reduser.net/forum/red-cameras/komodo/3803021-komodo-warranty-hell-need-4000-to-replace-sensor-after-1-year-of-use-be-aware

Which is the exact application of whats it is denounced in terms of behavior in Jinnitech last reupload.

Man, I had problem with my URSA's and Blackmagic have been nothing but incridibly helpfull and respectfull.

While RED technical advancement are super interesting, their behavior suck so much that I can't see myself investing in their system.

Long but nice video, Jim Jannard's guilty body language and brain freeze when asked when he had first seen the patent is priceless

I was a Reduser in the early 2010's when I bought the original Scarlet. There was something about the forum that rubbed me the wrong way but I couldn't put my finger on it - in hindsight it's clear it was the aggressive bigotry and worshipping of it's leaders.

At the end of the video it appears that the suite by RED against Jinni has gone away because RED didn't get their patent untill 8 months after Jinni were doing their thing. So AFAICS RED were suing becuase they were about to file a Patent. I wonder if this is why Nikon have decided to move now?

As we are all video people who is going to make the factual documetnatry and the "based on a true story" (with Tom Cruise, Matt Damon and Brad Pitt) film of all this?

But that patent was about the mags, I don't think that's related to the Nikon lawsuit.

But that patent was about the mags, I don't think that's related to the Nikon lawsuit.

Agreed that the Jinni-RED dispute was about the magazines (initially Jinni went on to a lot of other things including the sensors see all 5 videos) but the patent refered to AFAICS is the basic RED patent covering their system and Redcode ie the raw image recording which alegedly included recording on to the magazines. (this is from memory so I stand to be corrected).

If Jinni have blown a hole in part of that that due to the dates meaning Jinni already had technology out before the Red Patent which is why Red did not try and patent in the EU or UK (the EU/UK Patent offices work differently and I dbout the patent would have stood) then the Patent is dubious and flawed in the US. this may be enough for Nikon to pull at the thread and if A is not valit (prior art) then B is not safe so C can not hold etc.

NOTE this is legaly unqualified suposition. I have experience of electronics, firmware and trademarks but not patents or patent law.
I am just 2nd guessing and ordering popcorn.

I am unlikely to own any RED gest so it is just entertainment for me.

Jini mags were introduced years after the patent was filed.

The question he brings up is an attempt to invalidate the patent that covers recording media by showing it shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.

If you can show that a product is in the public domain before the filing date and/ or was “obvious” then it can’t be considered novel and therefore isn’t patentable. This is also what Nikon are arguing.

This is also similar to the approach Apple took, though I think they were arguing more the idea that it was an obvious invention / had already been done.

JB

The lawsuit is about patent # 9,596,385.
It was granted 8 month after Jinnitech was accused of infringement of the patent.
It’s in the video, 32:55 to 37:23.

The lawsuit is about patent # 9,596,385.
It was granted 8 month after Jinnitech was accused of infringement of the patent.
It’s in the video, 32:55 to 37:23.

Yes it was filed 2 days(?) after RED started having a go at Jinni. They expedited it at, apparently, great expence and it took 8 months. How long does it usually take?

I am not sure if this is the same Patent John is on about?

Jini mags were introduced years after the patent was filed.

The question he brings up is an attempt to invalidate the patent that covers recording media by showing it shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.

If you can show that a product is in the public domain before the filing date and/ or was “obvious” then it can’t be considered novel and therefore isn’t patentable. This is also what Nikon are arguing.

This is also similar to the approach Apple took, though I think they were arguing more the idea that it was an obvious invention / had already been done.

JB

There are two different patents in question.
The REDCODE patent and the REDMAG patent.

RED leaders remind me of this guy.

Yes it was filed 2 days(?) after RED started having a go at Jinni. They expedited it at, apparently, great expence and it took 8 months. How long does it usually take?

I am not sure if this is the same Patent John is on about?

The patent you are referencing is the original 2007 patent that RED updated in 2017. It still maintains the 20 year expiration from the original date.

I'm not sure how effective it would be at attacking companies for selling a 3rd party mag, if a bigger company were to attempt it.

"RED further asserts that its memory devices, including the Mini-Mag, are covered by the claims of U.S Patent No. 9, 596, 385."

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

There are two different patents in question.
The REDCODE patent and the REDMAG patent.

Is there a REDMAG patent specifically? It looks like they are using the term "eco system" to encapsulate the mag under the original patent. My impression is that RED sued Jinni Tech first and Jinni Tech alleged they were defamed on RED USER and counter sued. The Jinni Tech mags didn't gain any sales traction and as a smaller company became weighed down with legal fees.

That is what I believe I read in the Jinni Tech vs RED appeal after Jinni Tech's lawsuit was dismissed.

I believe RED claim that the mini mag they make is covered by their REDCODE patent because the media (mini mag) is part of the REDCODE process.

Which is why you HAVE to buy their mini mags.

What Jini is arguing is that there’s no unicorn blood or special thing that’s done to the red mags. They simply have an encryption that means you can only use RED mags as media and he figured out how to use his mags to spoof the handshake that the camera wants to “see” a red mag.

RED argue that their special mags are integral to REDCODE working and thus are covered as part of the REDCODE patent.

Jini argues there’s nothing special other than an encryption that only allows RED sold mags and does nothing at all to make REDCODE work, despite many informal claims by senior RED management on their own forum (which is also quoted in the above)

JB

I believe RED claim that the mini mag they make is covered by their REDCODE patent because the media (mini mag) is part of the REDCODE process.

Which is why you HAVE to buy their mini mags.

What Jini is arguing is that there’s no unicorn blood or special thing that’s done to the red mags. They simply have an encryption that means you can only use RED mags as media and he figured out how to use his mags to spoof the handshake that the camera wants to “see” a red mag.

RED argue that their special mags are integral to REDCODE working and thus are covered as part of the REDCODE patent.

Jini argues there’s nothing special other than an encryption that only allows RED sold mags and does nothing at all to make REDCODE work, despite many informal claims by senior RED management on their own forum (which is also quoted in the above)

JB

The interface is nothing special either. Scrambling some pins on a standard interface using a chinese adapter and descrambling them at the other end also has nothing to do with software and its extra anti- consumer.

How RED label Redmags 'Made In USA' when all parts are dirt-cheap imports from Taiwan and China is exemplary for the management's relationship with the truth and ways of operating.

I believe their company ends together with their RAW patent.

RED got another patent granted for Video Image Data Processing in Electronic Devices and Compressed RAW:

https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/01/red-dig ... essed-raw/

Seriously - what's up with the US patent system? How is it possible to get this granted?

Paging all those that said wait till the patent runs out….

This is very typical behaviour for a company that owns IP and wants to try to extend their patent.

It’s theoretically not possible but companies do this successfully all the time (if you look at pharma)

This is RED trying to re-up their IP.

JB

Paging all those that said wait till the patent runs out….

This is very typical behaviour for a company that owns IP and wants to try to extend their patent.

It’s theoretically not possible but companies do this successfully all the time (if you look at pharma)

This is RED trying to re-up their IP.

Yeah, I was thinking the same.

Look at what pharma companies do…

Look at point 2 and then re-read their “new” patent…

https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/5- ... to-expire/

Jb

All this does is reinforce the widely held belief that the US Patent Office is not very good and issues patents for things that could not be patented in most of the rest of the world.
It actually might make things worse for RED

https://www.businessinsider.com/patents ... 2011-7?amp

JB

https://www.businessinsider.com/patents-innovation-tax-2011-7?amp

JB

I don't entirley agree when Patents are genuine and protect the inovator from being ripped off. Especially the small inovator. Under the US system this is not what happens. It is party historical dirty tricks but that culture should have been changed long ago.

A new JinnTech video is up.

TD;LR
RedCode is a Jpeg 2000 image in a QuickTime container renamed to .R3D

RedCode is a Jpeg 2000 image in a QuickTime container renamed to .R3D

This has been really well known for a decade + now. You talk to anyone who is involved in camera manufacturing and tech and they know exactly the ins and outs of what RED is doing. There is absolutely nothing particularly innovative about their technology, standing on the shoulders of giants totally applies here.

My understanding is that Apple completely fumbled their past lawsuit to challenge RED's patent -- they went in unprepared and with a poor legal strategy thinking that they were Apple and they can do no wrong...and they lost.

I have been told repeatedly that a second Apple lawsuit has been in the works for the past two years, this time with Apple (hopefully) being considerably more prepared with an argument that has a much bigger chance of success. Only time will tell I suppose.

Looking for a bulk order of popcorn and tickets for the court room
It is going to be fun to watch both for the politics and both the electronics and legal technicalities.

Best video of the series so far imo.

Didn't know about the absolutely disgusting RedRocket cards scam. RED is an absolute cancer company. I hope the courts get it right this time.

EDIT: I should say 'the lawyers' get it right - Apple lawyers must have botched it, not too uncommon.

JinnTech has uncovered most of the things the Patent office should have used to reject the patent in the first place. Clearly the patent office did a really poor job. In actual fact other company lawyers also did a poor job in their defence when sued by RED. Lets hope Nikon have more success.

Above all else this has opened my eyes as to way I should be boycotting RED. They make fine cameras, but their company ethics are very dubious. The irony is that now all their new cameras are using the Canon proprietary RF Mount. Obviously it's a trade so Canon can use compressed RAW in some of their cameras. But, if Canon doesn't need RED's permission to use compressed RAW because the Patent is thrown out I wonder what incentive they would have to keep allowing RED to use their mount.

The patent may have been awarded wrongly, but that doesn't mean it is thrown out. And if Red's infringement lawsuit against Nikon loses, Nikon's win doesn't green light everyone else to infringe. Others could still be sued and lose for the same alleged infringement. A patent serves to warn others considering an infringement but if they do, the patent holder must be willing to defend the patent in court at their own expense. Obviously then, the courts and juries lean in favor of patent holders who's innovation has been recognized by the office.

It is up to the lawyers involved to explain the reason the patent is in valid. A loss could result in it being totally ineffective because of legal precedent. I hope this is the case to cover the poor analysis the patent office did in the past. They got so many things wrong.

Precedent is just a prior example case to point to, and it works both ways. Remember, this time it is Red suing Nikon, not the other way around. It's an uphill battle for Nikon to win. Nikon is not challenging Red's patent legitimacy as Apple had tried to do.