Andrew Reid

Well Waynes that's a good question. When a billionaire and a corporation file a lawsuit with a Los Angeles court against you on the sofa, you have 3 options. Fight, flight or roll over like a little puppy and do what they tell you to do. You can settle out of court, which can be at zero cost. You can challenge the lawsuit, let it go before a judge, but you need to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and it takes over your life. And if you do nothing you get a default judgement if it goes before a judge and they decide you have a case to answer. I thought about allowing that to happen, because I didn't think the lawsuit had any grounds whatsoever - and that the judge would throw it out - but it would have been a blind risk. I had no expert advice to inform that decision. This was at a time in the very earliest days of EOSHD and just before I was about to move to Berlin and I wanted to focus on the cameras and filmmaking, not fighting a billionaire sunglasses salesman. Obviously the least risky option is to simply sign whatever it is they want you to sign and shut up. So that's what I had to do, and I had to do it without any legal advice whatsoever. When I asked their lawyer what the deadline was, they said "48 hours", otherwise they'd move the court filing before a judge and get on with suing me. That's a threat, that's intimidation, and an abuse of the legal system. My hunch at the time was this: The lawsuit request was initiated by DVXUser's forum mods (yes it is as absurd as it sounds), who were friends with their founder Jarrad Land. I don't know this for sure it's just a hunch, but if true, the lawsuit is partly a result of a trivial DVXUser web argument in the GH1 days where some moderators wanted to settle a score and knew people in high-enough places to do so. I ask myself where does the legal bluff stop and criminal behaviour begin? Can you get a patent lawyer to threaten somebody with a bogus lawsuit, and force them to sign a non-disparagement agreement because they don't have legal representation? If I abused the legal system to shut down competitors or censor critics, I'd probably go to jail. I don't see why it should be one rule for us and another for a Hollywood corporation. In the words of Jinni Tech. "More to come"

Come on. enough. Taking delight in personal squabbles isn't going to do this thread any favours. Let's contribute on the facts and focus on the topic.

I am with Ed here, Phil, let's simmer down. Sorry for some of the things I've said. I think we can do better and have a better discussion about all this far away from the limelight and the heat of the moment. Feel free to stick around and to tell your side of the story though. I don't have an anti-RED agenda. Am I pissed off? Yes. I am pissed off at what happened in 2010. It shouldn't have happened. In fact, I have a deep respect for what Graeme Nattress and the crew have achieved with these cameras. It's a shame to sully their effort by intimidating bloggers and users. Remember what happened with Philip Bloom's camera and the arguement with Jim? Again totally unnecessary behaviour. Many people would kill to lead a company as successful as RED. He needs to CHILL OUT. If I have an "agenda" it is a full-on truth agenda. I am deeply concerned by the claims made by Jinni Tech. The claims of propriety SSD components, etc. "Made in USA". Misleading the FTC and US Patents Office. These things matter to customers. As a blogger it's my job to inform them. I want to know the truth. Jim Jannard's past behaviour doesn't sit well with me, and not just his behaviour towards me. It isn't all about me. It's about Michael Bravin. About Sony. Blackmagic. Band Pro. I want to find out the truth. That's all. People deserve to know. And If they try to shut me down I will go out fighting big style. Thank you.

You are trying to harass me. Let's be honest. I've seen the Red User agitation and it perfectly fits with the broader pattern of bullying RED-related behaviour. I have evidence of it all over the place from past 8 years I have been in the camera industry. I'd encourage you not to join in yourself. Nobody intends to disinform the public here. We are are trying to do quite the opposite, to get the facts out. Are we perfect? No. Is it a fast moving situation, understanding wise? Yes. Are we legal experts? No. The situation is dynamic, our understanding is often not perfect, we're filmmakers, not highly specialised patent lawyers or legal people. As a filmmaker, I don't have the 110% legal expertise to write the perfectly worded fucking headline on my personal blog first time, every time. And you shouldn't be hanging me for it. Especially not in the hornets nest of Red User where Jarrad can see it. I'd welcome Jarrad on this forum, as you are also welcome, to put his side of the story in detail. To talk about facts. There is a lot to address and not just the Apple situation. I would like to address the harassment directed at me in 2010 for instance. And to explain the claims made by Bruce Royce (Jinni Tech). I am all ears for a good explanation, and I mean that.

It's true that Apple have filed a re-exam request with the Patent Office but it's everything he doesn't address which is important, such as trying to censor bloggers, or people who have different opinions, or allegedly doing what Jinni Tech explains in his videos, misleading customers, the FTC and the US Patent Office. I'd like to see Jarred address all that, and then we can see what happens with Apple and RED's patent.

Have a look at Phil Holland's behaviour over at Red User against me. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?177766-Apple-seeks-to-invalidate-Red-s-Raw-patent-claims Agitating to get me sued again by RED. It's harassment pure and simple, already started.

Jim Jannard on his patent in 2013:

Trying to cancel the very patent you say Apple would like to own suggests otherwise.

--- Heads-up to some users. I am going to clean this thread. Nothing personal, but I would like it to flow and to be readable by an important third party tomorrow.

Welcome to the forum. Likewise I've been reading your posts on twitter for quite a while. Great stuff. My opinion is that ProRes RAW is at the centre of things for now. I suspect RED would have forced Apple into challenging their patent, after telling Apple they were violating it. I'd like to learn more about it, including what the consequences are for RED is their key patent if it is successfully challenged and annulled. Your theory about Apple wanting to buy RED would make sense but they would need to do their due diligence on the company. And perhaps read this thread.

Absolutely shocking. Thanks for putting this out in the open so we can study the story, do our own research and know all the facts. A lot of the victims of these kind of situations deserve that good old long arc of justice to finally come to their help. Was he specific about how his life could have been in danger? Where there specific threats, or just ambiguous scare tactics?

Let's see if that's still the case in a month or two.

Maybe Apple should withdraw REDcode support from FCPX and MacOS until this is resolved.

Thanks to Ed David's exciting reveal of the Apple petition of appeal at US patents office, you may wonder if some of Jinni Tech's claims in his video are comprehensively endorsed by Apple Inc. although I am not a patent lawyer, it certainly seems that way in my humble, non-expert opinion - A. The ’314 patent is not entitled to its earliest effective filing date. The ’314 patent issued on January 26, 2016 from U.S Patent App. No. 14/485,612 (“the ’612 application”) filed on September 12, 2014. See Ex. 1001. The ’612 application is a continuation of a string of applications that originate with a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/101,882 (“the ’882 application”).Id. The ’882 application claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/017,406 (“the ’406 application”) filed on December 28, 2007 and Provisional Application No. 60/911,196 (“the ’196 application”) filed on April 11, 2007. Id. The ’196 application (the earliest provisional application) does not provide §112 written description support for at least independent claims 1 and 16. The ’314 patent is therefore not entitled to the ’196 application’s filing date of April 11, 2007.

Anybody still wondering where Nikon Z6's ProRes RAW is? Yes. I will do one. And in an ironic twist I'll shoot it in ProRes RAW. Reminder... Watch it

Everybody should watch the video above BTM_Pix posted

I'd be interested to see what Peter Jackson thinks of my legal takedown by Jim. Starstruck?!

Ed you are a hero with this research. I will have to spend tomorrow going through it properly and try to understand all the facts. There's a lot to get one's head around that's for sure.

So NAB then?

There are numerous examples of RED announcing REDCODE before April 20th 2006. NAB 2006 in April they even "sold out" of cameras. Do you mention this in your RED classes? Yes I am fully aware of Jarrad's role at the start of RED. He set up a forum. Jim wanted a forum. He set up REDUser. Now he's CEO.

Opinion, without prejudice: It is a shame. RED had and still has great technology, all they had to do was sell and generate goodwill with creatives. All this going mental with lawyers and dodgy patent licensing fees, if that is indeed the case, puts all that good stuff in danger but after what they did to me and so many others, people like Jannard get what they deserve at the end. According to our favourite Russian friend Vitaliy Kiselev:

Yes, we will have to speak about the facts ourselves and do it in a way that is respectful and can withstand scrutiny in court. Freedom of speech is protected in the USA and in my country as well, the UK. Other blogs are very timid, most I'd even say were spineless. We can't rely on any of them. Don't bother trying Cinema5D and good luck, go straight to the big US and British newspapers, tell them the facts and see what happens.

Indeed!