Andrew Reid

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?

Sony https://doddlenews.com/reds-jannard-speaks-out-on-sony-lawsuit/ Updated 2012 RED camera system / raw codec patent document https://www.scribd.com/doc/125170172/Video-camera-US-patent-8174560 Wooden Camera cages and V-mount http://cinescopophilia.com/red-sues-wooden-camera/ "Sunglasses are mentioned quite a few times throughout the claim"

There's supposed to be Hydrogen 2 coming and surely RED would rather Komodo used that as a screen, rather than the Atomos that allegedly infringed their patents for years.

Interesting to note the Atomos deck. No RED Touch?

"Failure to file a patent application within the one-year period will result in the invention being passed onto public domain, where it will no longer be eligible for a patent." https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/one-year-rule/ https://www.studiodaily.com/2019/01/red-atomos-settle-patent-dispute-promise-integrated-recording-products-come/ http://www.studiodaily.com/2018/12/atomos-goes-public-australian-securities-exchange/ So if the patent is invalidated, will RED refund Atomos backdated licensing fees?

Backstory is becoming very wide knowledge. 1.6m views

Which RAW codecs did these use?

UPDATE: 2 provisional patents, one was filed April 11th 2007 and other in December 2007. Tick the clock backwards 12 months from December 2007 and RED camera was publicly discussed and on sale according to JT's video. This doesn't seem to be his conjecture, rather historical, factual information from the internet, forums and Jannard interviews, where RED publicly display and demonstrate the technology later patented. Be it NAB 2006 (sales) or IBC 2006 (exhibit) or initial tests and the stuff from 2005... It's all out there. In JT's video he points to RED putting up "sold out" signs at NAB 2006 for instance which is more than 1 year before one of the provisional patents the final one relied upon, and 2 years before the final patent was granted. Of course I'm not a lawyer and would encourage anyone to look only at the facts before jumping to opinions, myself included, which is what I am doing! When it comes to the fine details of the law, I am making no claims until I know the facts. Yes JT could be wrong and RED could have a perfectly legal and valid patent, and that would be the end of the discussion. It's for the FTC to decide... Also over the Made in USA claims. I won't be taking a firm opinion either way yet. But I do want people to keep on examining the facts and understanding the info, and we have free speech so are able to do that. RED should apologise for me for the forced settlement agreement terms and the impact this had on my blog and free speech. I want internal compressed RAW in many more of our cameras. It's important RED's patents are checked and their behaviour held to account. If they are invalid, it has huge consequences. RED should be allowed to put their side of the story in response to this video and I invite them to do that here, not just play the distraction game with Komodo.

Where's that photo from? Putin's patent office?