Andrew Reid

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!

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: