Andrew Reid

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!

Fascinating Ed. My opinion: Loos like Jim Jannard went after Apple over RAW and this then landed on his door step. Apple has a lawyer British imaging scientist on $600 per hour Hunter just became the hunted.

Fear is a man's best friend.

What I want to understand is: NAB unveil in 2006 - did RED mention compressed RAW here, or at IBC later same year? Did Jannard mention the specs in interviews in 2005/2006? Did RED take sales based on a camera with this capability? First non-provisional REDCode & camera system patent application was in 2008. So what JT is saying is that if a company exhibits their work or sells it 1 year before patenting then it's prior art, admittedly their own prior art, but public domain as far as the patent office is concerned...

Fun off topic thread but how about we create one that's more relevant to the forums, like posting a picture of your editing rig and desk? :) I can start one off if you like.

I thought the patent is an entire camera system, not just the codec? Filing date is 2008. When was the 6:1 or greater compression first demonstrated or sold? Were the first RED ONE cameras sold on basis that they had no RAW capabilities whatsoever? How about the Made In USA part of Jinni's claims? Not assuming guilt on either side or disparaging RED but I am eager to learn what the facts are, it's an interesting case. For the record I fully support the technical work done by Mr Nattress on the codec, it's a superb achievement and it deserves to be as successful as it is. But I just think RED need to chill out, drop the case vs Jinni, apologise over way they treated me, and start going about improving their relations.

Soon I'll put the link to the vote on the front page of the blog to drum up some more people to take part and vote. Then let's close the poll around Saturday-ish and do the big reveal of gear. Get some photos of the gear and post it. I'll do the same and reveal what I shot. I made two videos with two different cameras. Then the winner of the public vote gets the last place person's camera If he wants to give it him. We're not going to force it out of his hands This is supposed to be a bit of fun really. Then I'll choose a winner of the judge's prize, who will get one of my cameras.

A drive that is the best of the best and highest price would do that. Doesn't it say in the RED patent compressed 6:1 minimum? So I assume 3:1 Cinema DNG or 5:1 compressed RAW is not covered by the RED patent? Also 2K minimum, so RAW 1080p wouldn't be covered either. What prior art is the RED patent based on? CineForm? Russian Kinor camera tech?