Andrew Reid

Does anyone have the patent battle papers for Sony v RED? Are these not public? I would like to see how this was decided and in whose favour.

Atomos might have yes. But ask yourself why the Nikon Z6 firmware update still isn't out yet.

Good enough for Soderbergh!

If we can't have ProRes RAW we can at least have ProRes. Good enough for Arri!

Doh, sold out already.

Pocket cam original with dongle? Then sell the camera.

Yes raw footage could mean any files straight off the card but people understand it better when you say RAW. Not perfect sense but it does the job.

An absolute bargain at that price, basically a mini S1!

We know it's not an acronym but RAW looks cooler +10000000

Ok if Kiselev is so wonderful, I'll let him challenge Jim Jannard in court and see how he does

Thanks for that post, very interesting. Were you aware in 2006 of the Russian Kinor camera with similar sensor to the RED ONE at the time? Same question regarding Pavavision's development of the Genesis, or was that only started later on? How about the very early digital cinema work with Lars Von Trier of Anthony Dod Mantle who pioneered digital cinematography in the industry. Peter Jackson didn't, in my opinion. Anthony Dod Mantle did. Was RED and Peter Jackson's approach novel in light of the cameras Anthony Dod Mantle used? I can't say as not a patent lawyer but food for thought. How about the Sony Cine Alta range. F35, etc.? Panavision Genesis? Early Panasonic stuff? SiliconImaging? Kinor? I agree with you, Graeme Nattress and the team deserve credit for disrupting the market. We want affordable compressed RAW and open source codecs to play nicely in the same industry alongside RED and they aren't keen on it happening, so that loses them some support from me, as I am, writing EOSHD and waiting for the Nikon Z6 raw firmware update. What about Cinema DNG 3:1 as it is under the 6:1 minimum compression in the RED patent... Can't that pass without infringement, I wonder? Magic Lantern 10bit lossless maybe? Or even just plain old 1080p uncompressed RAW?! Must be a way to give us something in the current cameras, without having to pay RED for the license to do so. Interesting take, cheers.

Maybe he's bitter he never patented Kinor?!

Nobody is banning anyone. Just be mindful not to libel RED or Jim Jannard. At my request.

Cheers for the contributions above guys. For brevity, the article doesn't explain everything Graeme says in the defence. You can download the full thing here https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01064 One interesting passage is below... Where RED contests for example the Presler prior art used by Apple's consultant Mr Reader: *** Presler Does Not Qualify As Prior Art Petitioner relies on Presler as its primary obviousness reference for all three asserted grounds, arguing that Presler has a 102(e) priority date of April 13, 2007. Pet. at 10-11. Petitioner also argues that the ’299 patent is not entitled to the April 11, 2007 filing date of its earliest provisional application. Pet. 3-5. However, as demonstrated in the sections below, RED’s reduction to practice of the Boris and Natasha RED ONE motion-picture cameras by March 2007 disqualifies Presler as prior art to at least 25 of the 29 challenged claims of the ’299 patent. Moreover, as shown in Sections II.A.2-3 above, the inventors Messrs. Jannard and Nattress knew by at least March 2007, based on their own successful testing of the Boris motion-picture camera, that their invention worked for its intended purpose – an understanding that was further bolstered by director Sir Peter Jackson’s use of Boris later that month to successfully shoot a motion picture. Ex. 2001 (Nattress) ¶ 25; Ex. 2011 (Jannard) ¶¶ 11-16; Ex. 1002 at 393-94 (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4); Ex. 1002 at 418 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶ 6). Finally, RED’s successful reduction to practice is corroborated by photographs, documentation, the testimony of current and former non-inventor employees who had direct personal knowledge and involvement with the RED ONE project, and the testimony of Academy Award winners Sir Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh. Indeed, with respect to their qualifications to assess the visually lossless nature of the video produced by the Boris and Natasha cameras, Messrs. Jackson and Soderbergh have few peers as Oscar-winning directors. Their formidable professional reputations are staked upon the visual quality of their films. Artifacts from digital compression are simply unacceptable. Tellingly, both Messrs. Jackson and Soderbergh are profuse with their praise of, and steadfast in their loyalty to, RED digital video cameras, and believe the RED ONE technology embodied in Boris and Natasha to have been pioneering. Ex. 1002 at 394-95 (Jackson Decl. ¶¶ 5-10), 419 (Soderbergh Decl. ¶¶ 15-16). Under a rule-of-reason analysis, the weight of the totality of the evidence and corroboration of RED’s antedating reduction to practice – that occurred over ten years ago – provides a sufficient basis for, and lends credibility to, Messrs. Jannard and Nattress’s testimony. In the interests of judicial economy and conservation of Office resources, the Board should deny institution of the present Petition.

No, that was Canon by accident and Panasonic on purpose.

The Russian over at Personal-View makes me chuckle. Having a good at laugh at our expense!! LOL! I hand it to him for that comment. It's hilarious. We should tell him to go back to hacking the bitrate on the GH2 though.... It's a much more productive use of his time in communist land. Or maybe Vitaliy is turning capitalist? Wanting the limelight all for himself and a nice Russian bride?!

Resolve and FCPX are 100% learning fully. Even paying for a good course in FCPX is worth it compared to what Adobe Corporation would fleece you for over 5 years.

In Apple's attempt to overturn RED's claims over visually lossless compressed raw video, the US Patent Office has published documents submitted by RED. These explain their side of the story with particular regard to REDCODE. If RED can continue to prove that the approach to their codec was novel, RED will win and Apple will have to compensate RED or make a deal in order to sell ProRes RAW in our devices and cameras, such as the Nikon Z6. Read the full article

Very much appreciated sir. I will get back to you OliKMIA. I have to pick my battles very carefully and make sure that revealing hidden truths does not make me a martyr. I have a nice blog to look after, some nice cameras, a girlfriend in Berlin to look out for and the last thing I want is more intimidation tactics from Jim Jannard. Reassuring to know I can rely on the support of likeminded people in the industry though, if serious trouble does come knocking. In the latest news... RED have responded to the Apple petition. The date of the provisional response was 15th August, which was yesterday! Just pressed DOWNLOAD ALL. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01064

Indeed, very interesting stuff. They are arguing against the RED patent being novel and thus un-patentable. Is that right?

Interesting stuff. Which patent holder is that? I don't think I'm yet on that page in the petition, reading very slowly as I am from my patented EO shed surrounded by lovely RAW vegetables.

Did the i go messing during a cut and paste from a sunglasses lawsuit? I should be editing my $200 challenge entry but I'm off to read the Apple patent documents in full over a cup of tea and a stick of RAW celery. This is entertaining.

Classic lazy NFS cut-and-paste journalism. Are they even on our side? I doubt it. "JinniTech even used cleverly disguised facts to make it look like a RED camera would take any third party MiniMag. But in reality, that isn't true" I guess no! (That's factually wrong by my understand anyway. Jinnimags work for a start. The Micron SSD and standard pass through adapter are third party and generic) "RED Fire Chief Jarred Land" Fire Chief LOL. "...defended the use said components, admitting some parts weren't made in the USA, as advertised." "MADE IN USA" means what it says. What NFS doesn't mention is it's firmly against the FTC rules and the law, what RED have done there by my understanding and quite a few other people's. And I have not seen a proper rebuttal from Mr Fire Chief to put out this fire yet either. "But then ended up lowering the price of their MiniMags as a result." Nothing but an admission of guilt in my view. In the end, Jinni Tech has been bravely fighting fire with fire and the Fire Authorities have been unable to put it out, because facts matter and so does consumer law. Yes we live in an age of toxic masculinity and billionaires able to twist the truth to get what they want, dragging society with them back into the middle ages... But they should remember we also live in the era of these two heroes as well... Maybe I should fight fire with fire and start a libel case against somebody who claims I am breaking a professional agreement with a camera company? See how he likes that?

Is EOSHDED.com an online sunglasses store?

So much for me trying to hide. Looks like they have found me out... At the time, I don't think appreciated my Redpress / Wordpress joke either. I thought it was quite a funny satire but I was wrong. It was in fact "EXHIBIT A" in a trial. JIM JAMMARD was very upset being bullied this way by the mighty Andrew Reid. It caused him enormous emotional distress. Redpress literally caused the billionaire in Orange Country MENTAL ANGUISH. Now, where did I put that spare $75,000? Opinions in the land of the free!