Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid

[Emanuel]

I'm sorry, Andrew, but some drama is too funny though : ) Certain unrealistic approach is also hilarious to some external point of view on the facts. Go figure strictly from a legal or even business/professional perspectives. Seems RED omnipotence's fame precedes their odds. Hence such remark of mine, as well. To be rather fair with the reality in fact.

E : -)

[Kemalettin Sert]

Please somebody explain to me why all these people attacking RED? Whats the motive? 

I dont see any furious messages or videos against Arri Codex prices and how Arri screwing people with those crazy inflated prices.

[Emanuel]

You're right : )

However, one doesn't rule out the other in any way whatsoever.

I think because RED promised much more than actually has given in a strict end user friendly way, as previously hinted when announced before to become mainstream. I guess that's why : )

And let's not forget Andrew represents today the indie community as Jarred did in the middle of the previous former decade... : -)

[The ghost of squig]

31 minutes ago, Kemalettin Sert said:

Please somebody explain to me why all these people attacking RED? Whats the motive? 

I dont see any furious messages or videos against Arri Codex prices and how Arri screwing people with those crazy inflated prices.

As far as I'm aware, Arri doesn't have a culture of toxic masculinity.

[Kemalettin Sert]

1 minute ago, The ghost of squig said:

As far as I'm aware, Arri doesn't have a culture of toxic masculinity.

Yeah because if you go arri forum and complain about Codex prices they are probably gonna say ''fuck off if its expensive for you maybe you shouldnt own any ARRI product ''

[KnightsFan]

23 minutes ago, Kemalettin Sert said:

Please somebody explain to me why all these people attacking RED? Whats the motive? 

I dont see any furious messages or videos against Arri Codex prices and how Arri screwing people with those crazy inflated prices.

I think that the price of RED's components is not at all the issue. The issues, as far as I can tell, are:

- RED has a patent on compressed raw recording, which many people believe is too broad, and is either an invalid patent, or an example of the failure of the patent system. RED's patent is so broad that other camera companies cannot even develop their own compressed raw formats--hence Blackmagic's Braw is "partially debayered." It's not just filmmakers, apparently Apple is currently challenging the patent's legitimacy.

- In the past, RED has threatened individuals such as Andrew with lawsuits to get them to be quiet. As written in the blog post, a private individual would be financially unable to counter the lawsuit, whether it's valid or not. Many consider this to be bullying.

- In regards to the Jinni Tech controversy, Mr. Royce has provided evidence that RED's claims of custom firmware and "made in the USA" statements are false. If Royce is right, then RED has broken the law and lied to its customers. Additionally, RED claimed that Jinni Tech stole intellectual property, which Royce has also disputed. Again, if Royce is right, then that is libel.

- The issue of overpriced components is really incidental to the whole story, despite being an exciting headline. The only issue with the pricing is that there may be false advertising--RED can charge whatever price they want, but only if they are honest about what they are selling.

That's my summary of events thus far, hopefully fairly accurately (feel free to set me straight).

[HockeyFan12]

12 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

As far as I'm aware, Arri doesn't have a culture of toxic masculinity.

I didn't even want to touch this thread, but I had to laugh at this. 

"Red Hardy."

[zerocool22]

Why does apple bother anyway? (They arent creating cinema cameras as far I know, or are they planning to implement compressed raw onto the next Iphone? Imagine a full frame sensor with compressed raw with usbc out to record to t5's on an iphone, that would be a real pocket camera you always have with you)

Is this also the reason why we have been stuck with shitty codecs for the last 10 years on dslr and mirrorless cameras? If not for this patent, would we already had compressed raw in our 5d, a7s, gh,... cameras like 10 years ago?

[Skip77]

That filmmaker Steven testimony seems fishy.  He claims to be talking about digital specs like he's reading the back of cake mix ingredients.  No one was talking about detailed specs that RED was using when the RED ONE came out in 2006-07.  It's as if he's reading the patient page word for word. 

31 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Why does apple bother anyway? (They arent creating cinema cameras as far I know, or are they planning to implement compressed raw onto the next Iphone? Imagine a full frame sensor with compressed raw with usbc out to record to t5's on an iphone, that would be a real pocket camera you always have with you)

Is this also the reason why we have been stuck with shitty codecs for the last 10 years on dslr and mirrorless cameras? If not for this patent, would we already had compressed raw in our 5d, a7s, gh,... cameras like 10 years ago?

ProRes RAW is Apple.  Seems like Apple doesn't want road blocks from RED or RED has already started fighting Apple in some way.  

Seems like you're right on the shitty codec comment.  That's seems to be why Atomos championed ProRes RAW out to their recorders.  And we all blamed the camera makers. 

[zerocool22]

2 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

That filmmaker Steven testimony seems fishy.  He claims to be talking about digital specs like he's reading the back of cake mix ingredients.  No one was talking about detailed specs that RED was using when the RED ONE came out in 2006-07.  It's as if he's reading the patient page word for word. 

ProRes RAW is Apple.  Seems like Apple doesn't want road blocks from RED or RED has already started fighting Apple in some way.  

Well on reduser RED is saying something else. But only time will tell though, as anybody can say what they want on the internet.

[Skip77]

10 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Well on reduser RED is saying something else. But only time will tell though, as anybody can say what they want on the internet.

Something else about what exactly?  The codec issue

[cls105]

Im fine with red users overpaying for consumer ssds.
But the removal of cdng on blackmagic cameras really diminished the amount of potential allies in this scenario.

its like free speech, sure you’re free to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean you’re free of a change in public perception.

Red has been exposed as sue crazy, and they’re free to do that, but it’s proven to be a PR disaster. As a consumer why would I want a company crippling the features of my future purchases?

[Waynes]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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.

Hi Andrew.  I think in America it might be that the person slandered or libeled has to prove what said isn't true, and in the UK, the person who says something has to prove it's true in court.  Unfortunately the media and everybody has gotten on this American slant, filling the air with fumes like in the US, but it opens things up to litigation.  So, it's too costly for either the big guys to disprove everything in the US, and too costly for the little guys to prove be things in the UK on court.

 

I think the resolution in this sort of area, is to start suing everybody involved in issuing invalid parts of patents, and prosecute criminally where deliberate.  This would give people motivation to take the process seriously.   The law is written with leavers to make it work, unfortunately the leavers in patenting are far to lacking or burdensome, depending on which, in a way which suites people who are well financed.  They need to change, but prosecution across the issuing of invalid parts of patents would do a lot overnight. 

[Waynes]

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

How do you delete this Andrew?

Andrew, why did you sign this agreement with Red.  If you are in the UK, it would be a threat through a UK court.  But if eoshd in some way is hosted or serves to the US, then that jurisdiction might be involved.  But the issue is, this is so open ended.  I would have seen a lawyer first, and it it wasn't valid, probably see somebody about suing them for trying to apply (effectively applying) pressure, and getting me to sign such a thing.  I would look at the legitimacy of the claim and pressure.  Lawyers use a lot of bluff, and boiler plate clauses, so you really need to see proper legal counsel to see what is valid.  If I found things were actually not valid, I could complain to the governmental and representative bodies over this, on that basis.  I think not enough people do this, which I would think might stop a lot of legal bluff out there.

[lin2log]

14 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Apple have to gain by suing RED?

Because RED also tried suing Apple/AtomOS for what they are doing! Supposedly they made "a deal", but that deal would appear to have been "Better STFU RED, if you want any chance of being treated nicely once we drag you to court and rip that bullshit patent out of your hands!". It's also the exact reason why no one has implemented IN CAMERA recording of ProRes RAW, which is far superior to any and everything that anyone else is doing with raw btw (or what they like to call raw and isn't… here's looking at you BRAW), let alone what RED has, since everyone is scared to get sued by these douches and rather leave it up to Apple to fix it. Good thing, too!

So this is for the free and FAIR proliferation of (ProRes) raw for any and everyone that wants it, which is the entire point behind even making PRraw in the first place!! Extremely high-performance, high-quality, low-data rate raw for everyone! To assume it's for Apple's bottomline is utter bullshit, since what they would stand to make from additional licensing (that's assuming PRraw won't in fact just simply be included in existing ProRes licenses!) is the equivalent to about 2 seconds worth of regular income!

If this turns out the way Apple wants, and I sure as **** hope it does, then you can look forward to PRraw on an Arri and many many more, WITHOUT the need for an AtomOS recorder. Unless of course Apple strikes a deal of sorts to protect their partnership with AtomOS… which would REALLY suck! We'll see.

[Kisaha]

I am not sure if that is posted already

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/08/16/apple-challenges-red-over-raw-patent-legitimacy/

Some interesting comments - speculation of course! - under the article.

It is good that Newsshooter exposes the matter, it is the only site I read regularly with some trust on them and I wouldn't like to be disappointed.

 

[Anaconda_]

ah I didn't realise ProRes RAW infringed on the patent. I assumed it was like Braw, just outside of the perimeters to be unaffected. Thanks for pointing it out.

[lin2log]

7 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

I assumed it was like Braw, just outside of the perimeters to be unaffected. Thanks for pointing it out.

Nope, it ACTUAL RAW.

BTW… Z Cam just released their own "ZRAW" codec now, too! And guess how raw it is… and then guess why. ?

http://www.z-cam.com/e2/updates/ … check under the latest firmware update.

[Ed_David]

5 hours ago, Waynes said:

How do you delete this Andrew?

Andrew, why did you sign this agreement with Red.  If you are in the UK, it would be a threat through a UK court.  But if eoshd in some way is hosted or serves to the US, then that jurisdiction might be involved.  But the issue is, this is so open ended.  I would have seen a lawyer first, and it it wasn't valid, probably see somebody about suing them for trying to apply (effectively applying) pressure, and getting me to sign such a thing.  I would look at the legitimacy of the claim and pressure.  Lawyers use a lot of bluff, and boiler plate clauses, so you really need to see proper legal counsel to see what is valid.  If I found things were actually not valid, I could complain to the governmental and representative bodies over this, on that basis.  I think not enough people do this, which I would think might stop a lot of legal bluff out there.

I think the threat of legal issues and RED's NDA towards Andrew should maybe go in a different thread?  Or maybe a new thread for Apple v. Red?

Maybe  save this space to amateur sleuthing, and digging thru the Apple v Red case documents?

[Anaconda_]

5 minutes ago, lin2log said:

Nope, it ACTUAL RAW.

Jeez, alright man.

--

I thought this was interesting.