Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid

[Andrew Reid]

Anybody still wondering where Nikon Z6's ProRes RAW is?

4 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Maybe a project for someone on EOSHD when the dust settles? ?

 

Yes. I will do one. And in an ironic twist I'll shoot it in ProRes RAW.

Reminder...

Watch it

[Video Hummus]

Rabbit hole goes deep.

[Eric212]

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

I don’t know details but my guess is RED was getting greedy with license fees. Apple has a lot of cash this would be scary for RED. 

What licensing fees?  So basically you're saying that Apple was like "RED is charging too much licensing fees! Let's go after them with our $1,000 per hour lawyers and $600 per hour expert to scare them straight!"  SMH why ever comment if you don't know the details LOL

[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.

[The ghost of squig]

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

That is ridiculous. Basically what he is saying is that equipment to do compressed raw over 2k was not practical at the time. It is obvious that it could be done however, and would be once technology had advanced to the point where it could handle the bandwidth involved. How on earth did this get past the PTO?

In a brown paper bag?

[Otago]

I don't think this is for ProRes RAW, it's so they can put RAW video in the iPhone and the licensing there would be crippling. I wonder if the Hydrogen is some sort of play to show that Red is in the phone market and the iPhone doing RAW video would be a loss to them directly. If you can wrap RAW in a ProRes stream then you can probably wrap it in a more consumer oriented format, 1/3 of the data rate has got to be compelling once phones get fast enough ( they may even be already )

[Emanuel]

41 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Everybody should watch the video above BTM_Pix posted

Posted there or described here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

 

Life is not an easy place, that's the minimum we can say at least.

In some other note, the State is the thief number one in person and no one seems to complain about... No puritan morals over (t)here : -)

[cpc]

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I thought the patent is an entire camera system, not just the codec?

Red do have multiple patents assigned.  Some include claims that are worded very broadly, and some do include quite a lot of specifics.

Compare the claims in these two (they use the typical obfuscated language and structure that make patents look impenetrable):

https://patents.google.com/patent/US9596385B2/ 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8872933B2/

Note, for example, how claim 1 in the "electronic apparatus" patent lists the very specific way a blue or red channel is predicted from nearby green values. Contrast this with the wording in the "video camera" patent's Claim 1, which pretty much covers any raw camera with a resolution of 4K or more (compressed or not).

Red do have patents on codec specifics, but most of Red's camera/apparatus/device patents mentioning compression explicitly list a bunch of compression approaches as possible means to achieve said compression. They are, informally speaking, patenting the idea of implementing the (compressed) RAW recording camera, rather than any specific compression technique. It is hardly a coincidence that Blackmagic's own "raw" codec, a response to Red's patent violation claims, appears to be designed so that it isn't actually raw.

Now, compression itself is an extensively studied field. It is, very, VERY hard to come with significant innovations in this field. A "raw" codec will use any of a few well known image compression techniques and adapt it for Bayer data. That is all there is to raw compression. Raw codecs are universally rehashing old ideas, and (slightly, if at all) differing in the details of data formatting and layout, which has little to do with actual compression technique. Yes, you can pre-process raw data in a bunch of ways, and these are usually (and I use this as an euphemism for "always") trivial for anyone "skilled in the art" (with being "non-trivial" assumed as a prerequisite for patentability).

For the curious, probably the biggest advancement in compression in the last two decades is ANS which, incidentally, was explicitly released into the public domain by its creator, Jarek Duda, with the intention to prevent any patents around it.

[Video Hummus]

27 minutes ago, Eric212 said:

What licensing fees?  So basically you're saying that Apple was like "RED is charging too much licensing fees! Let's go after them with our $1,000 per hour lawyers and $600 per hour expert to scare them straight!"  SMH why ever comment if you don't know the details LOL

Licensing fees, agreements, whatever you want to call it. Obviously RED has a patent on compressed RAW data and apple has a compressed RAW coded as well. Doesn't take a much to connect dots.

And you joined 28 minutes ago to write that single comment.

[Emanuel]

18 minutes ago, cpc said:

(...)

Red do have patents on codec specifics, but most of Red's camera/apparatus/device patents mentioning compression explicitly list a bunch of compression approaches as possible means to achieve said compression. They are, informally speaking, patenting the idea of implementing the (compressed) RAW recording camera, rather than any specific compression technique. It is hardly a coincidence that Blackmagic's own "raw" codec, a response to Red's patent violation claims, appears to be designed so that it isn't actually raw.

Now, compression itself is an extensively studied field. It is, very, VERY hard to come with significant innovations in this field. A "raw" codec will use any of a few well known image compression techniques and adapt it for Bayer data. That is all there is to raw compression. Raw codecs are universally rehashing old ideas, and (slightly, if at all) differing in the details of data formatting and layout, which has little to do with actual compression technique. Yes, you can pre-process raw data in a bunch of ways, and these are usually (and I use this as an euphemism for "always") trivial for anyone "skilled in the art" (with being "non-trivial" assumed as a prerequisite for patentability).

For the curious, probably the biggest advancement in compression in the last two decades is ANS which, incidentally, was explicitly released into the public domain by its creator, Jarek Duda, with the intention to prevent any patents around it.

In short, Mihail, there's no how to re-invent the wheel, isn't it? So here we enter in the true realm of BS...

[Andrew Reid]

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

[BTM_Pix]

When the RED EPIC was released and being touted as a combined cinema and stills camera, I took it to shoot alongside my regular stills gear to shoot the Tour De France to see if it was viable for stills extraction for live editorial use. 

On BMCUser, someone else was also planning to shoot the Tour de France that year but ourtesy of two EPICs apparently loaned via RED through the well known Minnesota based pro cyclist who was going to expose the evidence of doping by Armstrong and who's friend was the CEO....

According to this post, it fell through in unusual and quite disturbing circumstances.

If you watched the clip of Stephanie Mcilvain in that video, the person who did the recording of the phone call with her was three times (legitimate) Tour de France winner Greg LeMond who lost his business and endured 12 years of hell after questioning Armstrong's legitimacy.

Imagine being a friend of Greg LeMond,who was losing everything he had legitimately won purely because he was exposing the cheating of another man that you yourself knew was cheating and just letting that happen?

With a friend like that, Greg LeMond of Minnesota wouldn't need enemies.

 

[Eric212]

2 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Licensing fees, agreements, whatever you want to call it. Obviously RED has a patent on compressed RAW data and apple has a compressed RAW coded as well. Doesn't take a much to connect dots.

And you joined 28 minutes ago to write that single comment.

Well normally one joins to make a comment....

Anyways name an instance in the past where RED has licensed their technology to another brand?

[Andrew Reid]

1 minute ago, Eric212 said:

Anyways name an instance in the past where RED has licensed their technology to another brand?

 

[Video Hummus]

3 minutes ago, Eric212 said:

Well normally one joins to make a comment....

Anyways name an instance in the past where RED has licensed their technology to another brand?

Atomos.

After they were threatened by RED for patent infringement. Guess who gets royalties with ever sale of an Atomos device that can record compressed RAW?

[Andrew Reid]

5 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

When the RED EPIC was released and being touted as a combined cinema and stills camera, I took it to shoot alongside my regular stills gear to shoot the Tour De France to see if it was viable for stills extraction for live editorial use. 

On BMCUser, someone else was also planning to shoot the Tour de France that year but ourtesy of two EPICs apparently loaned via RED through the well known Minnesota based pro cyclist who was going to expose the evidence of doping by Armstrong and who's friend was the CEO....

According to this post, it fell through in unusual and quite disturbing circumstances.

If you watched the clip of Stephanie Mcilvain in that video, the person who did the recording of the phone call with her was three times (legitimate) Tour de France winner Greg LeMond who lost his business and endured 12 years of hell after questioning Armstrong's legitimacy.

Imagine being a friend of Greg LeMond,who was losing everything he had legitimately won purely because he was exposing the cheating of another man that you yourself knew was cheating and just letting that happen?

With a friend like that, Greg LeMond of Minnesota wouldn't need enemies.

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?

[The ghost of squig]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The rebuttal to the legitimacy of RED's patents from Apple's imaging scientist might as well have said "In summary...This is like Vanilla Ice claiming he owns the rights to Under Pressure"

This is like Nestle claiming it owns the rights to Vanilla ice cream.

[Andrew Reid]

 

[BTM_Pix]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Was he specific about how his life could have been in danger? Where there specific threats, or just ambiguous scare tactics?

LeMond claimed the threats ran the whole way from his business to his life.

https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/sport/armstrong-threatened-my-life-claims-lemond-559230

https://www.twincities.com/2015/06/17/cycling-legend-greg-lemond-on-lance-armstrong-future-of-the-sport/

One of the nastiet aspects of it (though it led to a positive with LeMond becoming involved in a very good cause) was a threat intended to stop him testifying against Floyd Landis after Landis was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France for doping.

Landis was part of the USPS team with Armstrong and would eventually blow the whistle on him after the usual strongarm tactics attempt to make him keep the bigger secret of Armstrong's cheating.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-aug-18-sp-crowe18-story.html

[BTM_Pix]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Quite spooky how apt the title of the next video in my YouTube window was when that finished!