Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid

[sanveer]

55 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

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.

 

Hopefully now it opens a Pandora's box, and RED also loses all claims over some fake RAE codec and some fake patent on compressed RAW. 

[BTM_Pix]

Hey @Andrew Reid 

I'm not sure you and I can still be friends if you are going round the internet bullying *checks notes* a camera company owned by a billionaire who took legal action to shut you up that they knew you couldn't possibly afford to have defended.

Clearly, as Peter says, the internet bullying must be stopped.

Peter's solution to your spiteful bullying is to *checks notes* go on the internet and demand a camera company owned by a billionaire shuts you down by taking legal action they know you couldn't possibly afford to defend.

Anyway, I'm off to 3D print a new irony meter as my current one has just exploded.

 

 

[The ghost of squig]

2 hours ago, Ed_David said:

SIDENOTE: My pontification (JUST MY OPINION):  Jared's reponse to apple v red doesn't make sense to me.  Why is it standard operating procedure for a giant TECH company , Apple, the largest tech company I think in the world, to invalidate another's camera's best feature when this may likely take away any advantage they have and in essence, severely hurt the camera company's future?

Lipstick on a pig.

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

Anyway, I'm off to 3D print a new irony meter as my current one has just exploded.

Remember that time Andrew dissed Blackmagic, and the Blackmagic fanboys said "Blackmagic needs to take this guy down"? Na, me neither.

It's definitely not a cult. ?

[Andrew Reid]

6 hours ago, Waynes said:

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.

Well Waynes that's a good question.

When a billionaire and a corporation file a lawsuit with a Los Angeles court against you on the sofa, you have 3 options. Fight, flight or roll over like a little puppy and do what they tell you to do. You can settle out of court, which can be at zero cost. You can challenge the lawsuit, let it go before a judge, but you need to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers and it takes over your life. And if you do nothing you get a default judgement if it goes before a judge and they decide you have a case to answer. I thought about allowing that to happen, because I didn't think the lawsuit had any grounds whatsoever - and that the judge would throw it out - but it would have been a blind risk. I had no expert advice to inform that decision. This was at a time in the very earliest days of EOSHD and just before I was about to move to Berlin and I wanted to focus on the cameras and filmmaking, not fighting a billionaire sunglasses salesman. Obviously the least risky option is to simply sign whatever it is they want you to sign and shut up. So that's what I had to do, and I had to do it without any legal advice whatsoever. When I asked their lawyer what the deadline was, they said "48 hours", otherwise they'd move the court filing before a judge and get on with suing me.

That's a threat, that's intimidation, and an abuse of the legal system.

My hunch at the time was this: The lawsuit request was initiated by DVXUser's forum mods (yes it is as absurd as it sounds), who were friends with their founder Jarrad Land. I don't know this for sure it's just a hunch, but if true, the lawsuit is partly a result of a trivial DVXUser web argument in the GH1 days where some moderators wanted to settle a score and knew people in high-enough places to do so.

I ask myself where does the legal bluff stop and criminal behaviour begin?

Can you get a patent lawyer to threaten somebody with a bogus lawsuit, and force them to sign a non-disparagement agreement because they don't have legal representation?

If I abused the legal system to shut down competitors or censor critics, I'd probably go to jail. I don't see why it should be one rule for us and another for a Hollywood corporation.

In the words of Jinni Tech. "More to come"

[BTM_Pix]

10 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

It's definitely not a cult. ?

Oh absolutely in no way, shape or form is it a cult.

It is merely a collection of people with a shared interest in a particular brand of camera.

And pseudo-military four wheel drive vehicles.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?65569-Jannard

Take your pick really of absolutely not cult like posts in that thread but I think you'd go a long way to beat this one using the reverential capitalisation of 'He' usually reserved for a deity or divine being.

 

[Ed_David]

11 hours ago, salvagedcircuitry said:

Please forgive me as this is my first post. I have been reading eoshd for a while now and have replied to eoshd several times on twitter so it's about time I made an account. ?

Something to keep an eye on. Apple has a history of driving companies out of business that they want to consume, so apple pays less for them. They did it with dialog semiconductor. They did it with the qualcomm / intel lawsuit (gobbled up intel's mobile modems division at a steep discount). They did it with P.A. Semiconductor. It's debatable that they were going to do it to GT Advanced Technologies.

It is a stretch, but is apple interested in making cinema cameras? Do they want to rekindle the cinematographer relationship they undermined with the fcpx release / taking forever to update the mac pro? Do they want to push the new mac pro sales by getting into video again?
Maybe apple wants the new mac pro desktops to accelerate all raw camera footage, and RedRaw was somehow getting in the way.
There just so happens to be that apple-specific integrated FPGA accelerator option on the new mac pro that apple has so conveniently released zero information on.
Apple likes the look and feel of big brands. They randomly purchased beats for reasons unknown to many. Is RED their next acquisition? Would RED look good on Apple?

Granted, this is pure speculation, but I do wonder if Apple has any interest in stepping up and catering more toward the top tier cinematographer. Maybe a RED acquisition is that step.

Thank you for this post.  Really does help give background on why Apple is possibly doing this.

My guess (this is just my opinion) I think this is about Pro Res RAW, as others have said.  Right now Red has a patent on using compressed raw internally on a camera, and this would open it up for pro res RAW, much like many cameras use pro res 422, 444, etc.  Pro Res RAW from the Apple pro res raw white paper https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_RAW_White_Paper.pdf

is more efficient and smaller size than pro res 4444.  Can really help when recording 4k or higher, especially if the industry is now moving towards 8k.  8k pro res 4444 would be HUGE FILES SIZES.  SO they are probably thinking down the line .

  screenshot attached.

whether it's about licensing this tech to current cameras like the arri alexa, sony venice, canon c700, blackmagic ursa, etc etc, or being in an iphone or ipad pro camera, it's anyone's guess.

I  think it's a very good move for Apple.  Even if they use Jinnimag's claim that the patent was filed too late, that would be interesting.  Little guy Bruce helps GIANT Apple make compressed raw internally free for all - or at least now controlled by Apple, which, seeing how many cameras have pro res in them, probably is a better shake than cameras trying to license redcode.

Also great analysis by slashcam:

https://www.slashcam.de/news/single/Werden-REDs-RAW-Patente-fuer-ungueltig-erklaert--15285.html

Need help:

Can everyone start reaching out to reporters from the NYTimes, the Verge, Gizmodo, engadget, wired, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, etc?

It's best to go on the webpages, find an author, then google them and find their twitter or email.  Submitting a tip usually doesn't get to them.

Let's make this story go mainstream, not just in our camera worlds.

[Kisaha]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

Anyway, I'm off to 3D print a new irony meter as my current one has just exploded.

 

 

I read the same comment last night and it is both sad and scary that someone would reply like this in the wake of the 21st century on a western state.

All these are completely out of my league but what do I get is that the world suddenly have become too violent, and our "enemies" have to be eliminated or shutting up forever..this brings a certain middle-Aged smell in the atmosphere, of burned human flesh!

Of course I am exaggerating, or maybe not? I mean, it is a simple matter of finding the truth about some codec and the other part is willing to annihilate ethically and/or professionaly one person, what's next? Far far west solutions?

Alas, this is happening, people are taking the "law" into their hands and became judge/jury and punisher, this is a reality of our time, if we do not carefully protect our freedoms and laws after thousands of years of human struggle then a dog eat dog/big fish eats small/the law of the jungle will be tommorows law.

The war for the human rights is an eternal struggle, if socities relax for a couple of years, boom! Suddenly we are a couple of decades back!

It wasn't long ago that women and minorities didn't have a saying on most countries of this world, and surprisingly they still don't on a big part of this planet.

I just hope Red is better than this, and they should be careful with the posts in their friendly forums.

It is one thing to disagree with someone and have a civilized response and another thing to silence them with show of force or scare tactics.

Same here, we shouldn't hope for the demise of anyone and anything, the camera market is enough for everyone of us, and I hoped a much more civilized and above average industry.

[Andrew Reid]

So much for me trying to hide. Looks like they have found me out...

 

 

At the time, I don't think appreciated my Redpress / Wordpress joke either.

 

 

I thought it was quite a funny satire but I was wrong. It was in fact "EXHIBIT A" in a trial.

JIM JAMMARD was very upset being bullied this way by the mighty Andrew Reid. It caused him enormous emotional distress. Redpress literally caused the billionaire in Orange Country MENTAL ANGUISH.

Now, where did I put that spare $75,000?

Opinions in the land of the free!

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I just hope Red is better than this, and they should be careful with the posts in their friendly forums.

It is one thing to disagree with someone and have a civilized response and another thing to silence them with show of force or scare tactics.

Same here, we shouldn't hope for the demise of anyone and anything, the camera market is enough for everyone of us, and I hoped a much more civilized and above average industry.

My view of it is that its basically only a fucking camera and why would anyone want to go to the mattresses over it?

As for the sycophancy of that reverential capitalisation stuff well...my response to reading that was literally "Christ on a bike". Which is quite apt considering the Lance Armstrong associations.

I think we should all be mindful of how our loved ones would react if they saw some of the battles we fight over pretty silly stuff.

As this video illustrates quite well

 

[Waynes]

Andrew.  I could see this coming up.  Would it have been possible to write to the judge asking this to be chucked out with damages, as it was not in the right jurisdiction?  However, now you have signed and done it, it's another thing.  But I wonder how much damages could be claimed, as unlike a contract there doesn't seem to even be renumeration, and if the original complaint was actually without merit, then there would be little actual to claim except getting you to sign it in the first place.  I wonder, but you need proper legal advice to determine.   I wonder if Apple would be willing to fund you?

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

So much for me trying to hide. Looks like they have found me out...

 

 

Do you have a cape for this alter ego ?

 

[The ghost of squig]

12 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Of course I am exaggerating, or maybe not?

No, you're not. This thread reminded that I needed to retweet a message from a guy who has been locked up in an Australian government concentration camp for the past 6 years due to the color of his skin. If toxic masculinity in the nuclear age doesn't finish us off fast, climate change will do us slowly (not that slowly). The sociopathy of greedy rich men and their worshipers is one hell of a doomsday device. RED and its fanboys are the least of our problems, but it's all relative.

[Michael Steiner]

This whole story shines a completely new light on RED, one that doesn't make that company look too nice (to say it politely).

Seeing they forced Mr. Reid to shut up with a lawsuit back in 2010 is telling. In german you'd call that "Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen" – use the big gun to shoot the small guy. It's ridiculous and contradicts everything RED (in my understanding) wanted to stand for back then. I don't agree with everything Mr. Reid writes, but I firmly support that he can write whatever he wants in his own blog. Nothing wrong with that. 

While I think RED does indeed merit respect for turning the camera industry upside down with their first cameras, there doesn't seem to be much left from that underdog attitude and REDs self promoted goal of empowering the little guy with affordable Cinema grade gear. Or worse, it was just a nice image they gave themself to attract attention. Remember them teasing a small fixed-lens camera with 3K for 3K? They even had a teaser-video with pimps, whores, cops and skaters shot on that little beast.

Now in contrary RED seems to be responsible for preventing the next step in the evolution of motion pictures. They were first to the party but didn't let anybody else enter since then. From a business standpoint that's kind of understandable.  But considering how RED promoted itself it's just sad and they deserve being called out for that. 

[Anaconda_]

@Andrew Reid - I think you were accidentally sent somebody else's lawsuit.

[Ed_David]

6 minutes ago, Michi said:

This whole story shines a completely new light on RED, one that doesn't make that company look too nice (to say it politely).

Seeing they forced Mr. Reid to shut up with a lawsuit back in 2010 is telling. In german you'd call that "Mit Kanonen auf Spatzen schiessen" – use the big gun to shoot the small guy. It's ridiculous and contradicts everything RED (in my understanding) wanted to stand for back then. I don't agree with everything Mr. Reid writes, but I firmly support that he can write whatever he wants in his own blog. Nothing wrong with that. 

While I think RED does indeed merit respect for turning the camera industry upside down with their first cameras, there doesn't seem to be much left from that underdog attitude and REDs self promoted goal of empowering the little guy with affordable Cinema grade gear. Or worse, it was just a nice image they gave themself to attract attention. Remember them teasing a small fixed-lens camera with 3K for 3K? They even had a teaser-video with pimps, whores, cops and skaters shot on that little beast.

Now in contrary RED seems to be responsible for preventing the next step in the evolution of motion pictures. They were first to the party but didn't let anybody else enter since then. From a business standpoint that's kind of understandable.  But considering how RED promoted itself it's just sad and they deserve being called out for that. 

WOW.  Love this analysis.

[Waynes]

Andrew, isn't there protections for satire and comedy there too?  I wish judges would preview stuff and chuck it out until it only covered stuff needed, then initiated mandatory counselling or mediation, then that failing, negotiation, then a limited court case, with long lead times and minimum cost of process, then limited damages for fair play, higher for unfair play.  The judge also being able to see a case is unmerited in some way, or bullying, and award damages against the one bringing it at the start.  Imagine if we could get rid of many court cases this way?  If only the court could force lawyers on to low wages, and the same amount of money the other party could afford, when they sue poor people? 

 

Anyway, I see you had words there about Red, but were they fair comment or not.

[Andrew Reid]

Is EOSHDED.com an online sunglasses store?

[Michael Steiner]

22 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

 

Ok. Now reading this, it's even more ridiculous than I thought. If, as a billionaire, a small blog can cause this kind of "sufferings" I think the one to consult is not a lawyer.

[Ed_David]

News story up on Nofilmschool . https://nofilmschool.com/apple-goes-war-red

 

As of now:

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

https://nofilmschool.com/apple-goes-war-red

https://www.slashcam.de/news/single/Werden-REDs-RAW-Patente-fuer-ungueltig-erklaert--15285.html

[Waynes]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Hey @Andrew Reid 

I'm not sure you and I can still be friends if you are going round the internet bullying *checks notes* a camera company owned by a billionaire who took legal action to shut you up that they knew you couldn't possibly afford to have defended.

Clearly, as Peter says, the internet bullying must be stopped.

Peter's solution to your spiteful bullying is to *checks notes* go on the internet and demand a camera company owned by a billionaire shuts you down by taking legal action they know you couldn't possibly afford to defend.

Anyway, I'm off to 3D print a new irony meter as my current one has just exploded.

 

 

OK.  Now, 8 posts.  Who is this, and has anybody looked up to see what the other 7 posts are?