Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid

[Mokara]

On 8/14/2019 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Reid said:

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

Personally I would have thought that their broader claims would have failed in court if challenged due to issues with the obviousness requirement for patents. Claims being obvious to one skilled in the art is the most common objection made by the patent office. There are ways around that though, you can file a statement to the contrary and that would usually overcome the objection (as long as you are not too egregious about it), but it significantly weakens the patent if challenged later in court. Normally you would want to convince the examiner that they are wrong without resorting to that for that reason. Almost every patent issued would have been subject to these objections in some form btw, they are extremely common when you make a filing. I would be very surprised if the raw compression claim did not receive an obviousness objection when it was filed. It seems like a pretty obvious thing to me and the fact that you require more than a certain percentage of compression suggests that other people have been doing similar things previously, just not with that level of compression. 

An application made under circumstances that the PTO regards as intent to deceive can result in a patent being ruled invalid. That includes non-disclosure of relevant information, since you have a duty to inform the PTO of any information that you are aware of that might have a bearing on the patentability of your claim. 

As far as people who might have licensed this IP, they are out of luck, they won't get their money back if the patent is ruled invalid for some reason.

[Andrew Reid]

1 minute ago, Gavin Greenwalt said:

Filing date was originally April 17 2007. Red announcing compressed RAW on April 20 2006.

There are numerous examples of RED announcing REDCODE before April 20th 2006.

NAB 2006 in April they even "sold out" of cameras.

1 minute ago, Gavin Greenwalt said:

The only novel things claimed are the 6:1 raw compression on > 2k. But both of those qualifiers show what bullshit the patent is.

Do you mention this in your RED classes?

4 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

I understand your feeling, Andrew. In any case, RAW was in Jim's mind since very early 2006 when Graeme was hired. Jarred was only an observer back to those days, as it is possible to follow here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?42602-RED-and-Graeme-Nattress&highlight=raw

 

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.

[Mokara]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

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...

Their claim is for the method used, not the concept in general. As long as they did not offer explanation on how the method worked prior to filing they are still ok. Just saying that you are going to do something is not prior art, since at that point the method itself is a trade secret, and it is the method that is the subject of the patent.

Showing the method to individuals/companies under a NDA is not public disclosure either.

If they were demoing their stuff in public where people not covered by NDAs could examine and use it, then that would be public disclosure.

[Andrew Reid]

4 minutes ago, Mokara said:

If they were demoing their stuff in public where people not covered by NDAs could examine and use it, then that would be public disclosure.

So NAB then?

[Video Hummus]

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. 

[Ed_David]

From my anonymous tipster:

"The date is interesting. It seems this was lodged as a testimony because the original patent wasn’t accepted."

Using Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh to testify for the patent amendment. 

WHAT IS THE HOOEY IS GOING ON?

 

[Mokara]

1 minute 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 should be more scary for RED is going into a courtroom where everyone knows Apple and uses their products, but have never heard of RED.

[KnightsFan]

9 minutes ago, Mokara said:

Their claim is for the method used, not the concept in general

Are you sure? Because it seems to be the case that other companies are foregoing all forms of compressed raw out of fear of patents, not the specific redcode method.

[Andrew Reid]

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.

[Mokara]

3 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

From my anonymous tipster:

Using Peter Jackson and Steven Soderbergh to testify for the patent amendment. 

WHAT IS THE HOOEY IS GOING ON?

 

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?

[Andrew Reid]

I'd be interested to see what Peter Jackson thinks of my legal takedown by Jim.

Just now, Mokara said:

How on earth did this get past the PTO?

Starstruck?!

[Mokara]

5 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Are you sure? Because it seems to be the case that other companies are foregoing all forms of compressed raw out of fear of patents, not the specific redcode method.

Most of those companies are small and cannot afford to get into a protracted legal battle. It is cheaper for them to just license or otherwise avoid the IP. This happens all the time in the tech world. In fact, companies will just file random patents covering all sorts of things in their general field of interest they have no intention of developing since their mere existence is usually enough to persuade other companies to do something else. Basically laying down minefields. This is one of the flaws of the patent system. While it fine for protecting the investment of genuine inventions, it is also used extensively as a weapon to inhibit otherwise legitimate competition.

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'd be interested to see what Peter Jackson thinks of my legal takedown by Jim.

Starstruck?!

Did they impose a NDA on you regarding the settlement?

[Ed_David]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'd be interested to see what Peter Jackson thinks of my legal takedown by Jim.

Starstruck?!

 

*CUE INSPIRATIONAL MUSIC*

We live in an imperfect world.  We're all humans.  Mistakes happen.  Maybe Patent office was starstruck like Andrew said.  It's PETER FRIGGIN JACKSON!  THE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE HOBBIT!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That's why, in my opinion, we have the law to try to fix things up.  And always, always, change comes from the bottom up.  

It's every day people like Bruce from Jinnimag who change the world.  Not politicians.  Not billionares.  Whistleblowers, and people who stick their necks out.  The little guys.  And they do this maybe out of pride, or revenge, or god knows what, but they do it.  And with a silly video series on youtube with mario coin sound FX.  

[KnightsFan]

1 minute ago, Mokara said:

Most of those companies are small and cannot afford to get into a protracted legal battle. It is cheaper for them to just license or otherwise avoid the IP. This happens all the time in the tech world. In fact, companies will just file random patents covering all sorts of things in their general field of interest they have no intention of developing since their mere existence is usually enough to persuade other companies to do something else. Basically laying down minefields. This is one of the flaws of the patent system. While it fine for protecting the investment of genuine inventions, it is also used extensively as a weapon to inhibit otherwise legitimate competition.

I guess I was asking specifically if you knew in this instance whether the patent was specific to the redcode format. From the jinnitech video, where he showed all(?) the patent parameters, it was much more generic.

[Mokara]

1 minute ago, Ed_David said:

 

*CUE INSPIRATIONAL MUSIC*

We live in an imperfect world.  We're all humans.  Mistakes happen.  Maybe Patent office was starstruck like Andrew said.  It's PETER FRIGGIN JACKSON!  THE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That's why we have the law to try to fix things up.  And always, always, change comes from the bottom up.

It's every day people like Bruce from Jinnimag who change the world.  Not politicians.  Not billionares.  Whistleblowers.  People who stick their necks out.  The little guys.  And they do this maybe out of pride, or revenge, or god knows what, but they do it.  And with a silly video series on youtube with mario coin sound FX.  

He is a director. I doubt he knows anything about the technology involved. 

1 minute ago, KnightsFan said:

I guess I was asking specifically if you knew in this instance whether the patent was specific to the redcode format. From the jinnitech video, where he showed all(?) the patent parameters, it was much more generic.

From my perspective it looked pretty vague when I looked at the patent in question. Some of their more specific claims might be valid but I don't see how one could argue that the general ones would pass the obviousness test.

[Raafi Rivero]

Apple is no stranger to overly broad patents either. Steve Jobs himself is credited as one of the authors for the patent of “swipe to unlock” on the original iPhone. 

[BTM_Pix]

Its certainly got the makings of a great investigative documentary.

I like a great investigative documentary.

Like this one called "Stop At Nothing" about the con trick that Lance Armstrong pulled on the whole world and which he sustained by the bullying tactic of suing everyone that he knew was too weak financially to stand up to him with what they knew.

They were all written off and derided publicly by Armstrong and his acolytes as jealous or bitter or conspiracy theorists or even all three.

The biggest scorn was reserved for those who had been privy to the biggest secret which was when he admitted to his doctor just after brain surgery in 1996 that he had taken performance enhancing drugs.

People like Stephanie Mcilvain.

I've cued it up to the part where the allegations are discussed about the pressure she came under from both Armstrong himself but also her employer at the time.

And in particular, her ultimate boss at that employer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-VBNoEC0&t=3958

 

 

[Mokara]

37 minutes ago, Raafi Rivero said:

Apple is no stranger to overly broad patents either. Steve Jobs himself is credited as one of the authors for the patent of “swipe to unlock” on the original iPhone. 

Everyone does it if they can remotely get away with it, for the simple reason that it discourages competition, especially from upstart new players in the industry.

[Andrew Reid]

Everybody should watch the video above BTM_Pix posted

[Video Hummus]

24 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its certainly got the makings of a great investigative documentary.

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

31 minutes ago, Raafi Rivero said:

Apple is no stranger to overly broad patents either.

Yes, and this simply might be a cause of a bully (RED) getting taken to court by another bigger bully (Apple). Apple does it's homework and has probably weighted the cost of this court fight with what it could possible get out of it (even if they lose the case). I mean, look at the fight with Qualcomm. Apple lost and had to pay 4.5 Billion dollars (pocket change to them when they have almost a quarter of trillion dollars in cash!) but they got the company a six-year global patent licensing agreement with Qualcomm.

I have a feeling this is the same thing with regards to compressed RAW.

RAW is an essential component going forward with high resolution sensors because it's simply more efficient to compress the RAW bayer data and to work with it later.

1 hour ago, Ed_David said:

WHAT IS THE HOOEY IS GOING ON?

That hooey is highly irregular.