Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid

[Andrew Reid]

It is widely known in the camera industry that RED owns a key patent for a cinema cameras featuring compressed RAW.

It is also alleged the technology has featured in a number of past legal claims RED have had over rival camera companies.

Now third party accessory manufacturer Jinni Tech alleges RED "deceived the US patent office" and filed the critical patent late.

Read the full article

[Philip Lipetz]

Opps, was that the sound of the industry being turned upside down?

[BTM_Pix]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

"Frankly, I find this Jinni Tech video absolutely explosive."

The hint at the end about what awaits in Part 4 might well actually top it !

[Andrew Reid]

Don't mention the communists to Jim!!

Ironic choice of music Mr Jinni Tech.

[BTM_Pix]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Don't mention the communists to Jim!!

I can't wait for the final Scooby Doo style unmasking.

[Andrew Reid]

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

[ntblowz]

About bloody time! We want compressed raw in our cameras!

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

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

Vlad changed the "Bayer array to RGB" patent into the "Buyer will pay to KGB" patent.

[Video Hummus]

RED is a patent troll. The fact that they sued Andrew in 2010 to keep his mouth shut tells you all you need to know. That is patent troll behavior.

Ready to hear more facts.

[Emanuel]

7 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

RED is a patent troll. The fact that they sued Andrew in 2010 to keep his mouth shut tells you all you need to know. That is patent troll behavior.

Ready to hear more facts.

Is this true or only rumor @Andrew Reid?

[BTM_Pix]

3 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Is this true or only rumor @Andrew Reid?

Its in the piece.

[Emanuel]

18 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its in the piece.

Thanks mate, I haven't read it yet : -)

Did it now... The way a L.A. Court would extend their jurisdiction is beyond me.

To my knowledge, there's a lot of BS about the efficiency of their legal actions.

More a case of legal bullying than anything else to my view. You Andrew might be entitled to fire back for that with more success than them to speak it frankly. Defamation is a crime. To state that someone practices libel, if not proved, ends in slander very likely. To follow a civil action with much more predicted outcome.

The spell could turn against the sorcerer.

My jurist two cents : -)

[KnightsFan]

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration.

@Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because  people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

[ntblowz]

5 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration.

@Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because  people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

Yeah, see people at newshooters, they are clearly clueless as they have no idea where is the hate in the comment section come from as they keep reposting IG post from red

 

 

[Philip Lipetz]

I made my previous comment before watching the Jenni Tech video.  After seeing heir claims here is my response.  I am far from a RED fan boy, so this is just based on my experience working with tech patents. 

OK, first public use or sale starts one year clock, before one year is up RED files provisional patent that starts new one year clock for full patent application on what was claimed in the provisional patent. RED filed the full patent in less than one year. So, the question is if filing a provisional patent satisfies the one year clock that started ticking with public disclose or sale.  It does but only if it makes sufficient disclosure in the provisional patent. So, the Jinni Tech claim appears to be valid only if the provisional patent did not cover the tech that was covered in the non-provisional patent.  At first glance, and I do not have the time to find and read the patents, that appears to be the critical  issue under American  patent law, and it is not addressed in this video.  

If you look at the dates of the provisional and non-provisional patents they are barely less than one year from first public disclosure and from filing the provisional patent respectively. I cannot think that is a coincidence, is appears that they were scrambling to meet these two one year deadlines. At first glance it appears  that RED was aware of this provisions of US patent laws and complied with them, The only issue is if the non-provisional patent application included any material not in the provisional, if that is the case then RED lost the the ability to patent any feature not in the provisional patent and publicly disclosed more than one year previously.

[CoolRunnings]

Dude, good on ya for speaking up. They’re acting like a corporate mob and this needs to stop. 

 

Do you not have journalistic indemnity to keep a fair press? I mean, this way, corporates can sue newspapers they don’t like into bankruptcy? Are there no media organization that help with this sort of stuff? 

 

Bit more clarity on this would be appreciated. 

 

Cheers 

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, Philip Lipetz said:

If you look at the dates of the provisional and non-provisional patents they are barely less than one year from first public disclosure

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.

[sanveer]

I would love to see RED taken to the cleaners.

They're Patent bullies and need to be cut to size. So much for R&D, and Made in the US, and unique design and all that BS.

I hope someone does a sting with them and the US Patent office. Giving them a patent in video camera was beyond ludicrous. The patent office also needs a series of sting operation.

I hope RED gets sued across all continents and all countries where it sells. 

 

I am suddenly wondering whether Oakleys were ever completely made in the US or partially in China, and only later represented to  Luxottica to be partially made in China, when it was bought. 

[Andrew Reid]

Backstory is becoming very wide knowledge.

1.6m views

 

[Andrew Reid]

"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/

 

Quote

 

Red Digital Cinema and Atomos have settled their differences over alleged patent infringement, reaching an agreement that has Atomos licensing IP from Red.

As part of the announcement, the companies said they had decided to work together on integrating the Red and Atomos product lines to produce new camera recording systems.

 

https://www.studiodaily.com/2019/01/red-atomos-settle-patent-dispute-promise-integrated-recording-products-come/

Quote

The prospectus also revealed that Red has alleged that some Atomos products infringe four Red patents related to recording and playback of video codecs. Atomos said it has so far declined to license the patents, meaning the dispute could end up in court if the camera company decides to sue.

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?