RED claim victory in Apple RAW patent battle

[Lars Steenhoff]

If also applies to external, your computer can also be defined as external

[joema]

2 hours ago, rawshooter said:

The patent covers any form of compressed RAW video recording, whether internal or external...

Apparently correct. While the RED patent has sometimes been described as internal only, the patent clearly states: "In some embodiments, the storage device can be mounted on an exterior of the housing...the storage device can be connected to the housing with a flexible cable, thus allowing the storage device to be moved somewhat independently from the housing".

The confusion may arise because most implementations of compressed raw recording use external storage devices. Hence it might appear these are evading the patent. But it's possiable external recorders merely isolate the license fee and associated hardware to that additional (optional) device so as not to burden the camera itself, when a significant % of purchasers won't use raw recording.

Edit/add: Blackmagic RAW avoids this since their cameras partially debayer the data before internal recording, allegedly to facilitate downstream NLE performance. BRAW is now supported externally on a few non-Blackmagic cameras, but presumably licensing is handled by Atomos or whoever makes the recorder. 

[BTM_Pix]

"...The storage device can be connected to the housing with a flexible cable, thus allowing the storage device to be moved somewhat independently from the housing..."

AKA the original RED ONE drives.

[mechanicalEYE]

I'm no law expert but it sounds like this is basically asking Apple to try again.

[joema]

21 minutes ago, mechanicalEYE said:

I'm no law expert but it sounds like this is basically asking Apple to try again.

That seems to be the case.

Other issue: despite the hardware-oriented camera/device aspect, it would seem the RED patent is more akin to a software patent. You can patent a highly-specific software algorithmic implementation such as HEVC, but not the broad concept of high efficiency long GOP compression. E.g, the HEVC patent does not preclude Google from developing the functionally-similar AV1 codec. 

However the RED patent seems to preclude any non-licensed use of the broad, fundamental concept of raw video compression, at least in regard to a camera and recorder. Hypothetically it would cover a future iPhone recording ProRes RAW, even if streaming it for recording via tethered 5G wireless link to a computer.

In RF telecommunications there are now "software defined radios" where the entire signal path is implemented in general-purpose software. Similar to that, we are starting to see the term "software-defined camera". 

It would seem RED would want their patent enforced whether the camera internally used discrete chips or a general-purpose CPU fast enough to execute the entire signal chain and data path. 

If the RED patent can be interpreted as a software-type patent, this might be affected by recent legal rulings on software patents such as Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International

[Waynes]

2 hours ago, joema said:

That seems to be the case.

Other issue: despite the hardware-oriented camera/device aspect, it would seem the RED patent is more akin to a software patent. You can patent a highly-specific software algorithmic implementation such as HEVC, but not the broad concept of high efficiency long GOP compression. E.g, the HEVC patent does not preclude Google from developing the functionally-similar AV1 codec. 

However the RED patent seems to preclude any non-licensed use of the broad, fundamental concept of raw video compression, at least in regard to a camera and recorder. Hypothetically it would cover a future iPhone recording ProRes RAW, even if streaming it for recording via tethered 5G wireless link to a computer.

In RF telecommunications there are now "software defined radios" where the entire signal path is implemented in general-purpose software. Similar to that, we are starting to see the term "software-defined camera". 

It would seem RED would want their patent enforced whether the camera internally used discrete chips or a general-purpose CPU fast enough to execute the entire signal chain and data path. 

If the RED patent can be interpreted as a software-type patent, this might be affected by recent legal rulings on software patents such as Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International

Joema, thank you.  This is the problem, instead of the claims covering a specific implementation, they can cover everybody else's obvious workmanship.  If it was up to me, there would be jail for certain overreach in patents for everybody, and compensation.  It's ugly.   I'm really sick of the patent system producing outcomes that restrict competition.

Now, let's look at it, they use obvious terms like resolution and frame rate to define their patent, because it's obvious it is based on prior art as far as compressing Bayer images, so it is obvious that it is obvious.  The judges should have let them through on that grounds alone, and I do hope they try again.  The use of resolution etc to make out its new is rediculous.  It's like patenting walking above 2 kilometres an hour.  If being able to walk just a bit faster was nonobviouse to the human race, we shouldn't have a patent system to patent it in the first place, we wouldn't be able to figure patenting out.  You could try that argument on having prior art as non patentable, and one "obvious" pixel increase in resolution more as suddenly patentable, which if you put in percentage terms, is less than 20, 000th of a percent on top of the natural obvious progressing of increasing resolution.  Strike that part.  This is the issue with the system, once in there, people can claim something, even if that is not strictly what was meant to be claimable by the examiner, and examination has been rubber stamped, and sort it out latter.  If Apple can't get to the point of getting it looked at, then what is the use of doing it that way.  But people have taken out what were obvious patents before and stalked business, even big business, who can't afford to overturn it.  There is even a way of adding things to a patent then use that to extend the whole patent.  That is evil.

This thing of resisting thorough review of a patent should be allow a preliminary review, in a new way not tried before, then verify and approve a deeper review.  If there is question of wherever the proposed review us on a new way or not, or should be refine, then it goes before the panel.  Once a preliminary review is successful, the deeper review, and preliminary, should be financed by the Patent office, as their mistake.

Now, let somebody figuratively go and patent walking above the speed of 1km an hour relatively straight upright posture, and demand cameras be put in everybody's houses to clock if they are walking more than 1km an hour after they get up in the morning...

3 hours ago, joema said:

Apparently correct. While the RED patent has sometimes been described as internal only, the patent clearly states: "In some embodiments, the storage device can be mounted on an exterior of the housing...the storage device can be connected to the housing with a flexible cable, thus allowing the storage device to be moved somewhat independently from the housing".

The confusion may arise because most implementations of compressed raw recording use external storage devices. Hence it might appear these are evading the patent. But it's possiable external recorders merely isolate the license fee and associated hardware to that additional (optional) device so as not to burden the camera itself, when a significant % of purchasers won't use raw recording.

Edit/add: Blackmagic RAW avoids this since their cameras partially debayer the data before internal recording, allegedly to facilitate downstream NLE performance. BRAW is now supported externally on a few non-Blackmagic cameras, but presumably licensing is handled by Atomos or whoever makes the recorder. 

So, that means you can record raw wirelessly then?

16 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Big bummer. The RED patent also poses a threat to MagicLantern as MLV is compressed RAW video.

Well, not really if they keep the size below their 'specs' in the patent.  So, they might possibly divide the image up into two of more separately recorded side by side images.  Which is how CCD's were reading higher resolution images to get around transfer issues producing heard, or how initial Sharp 4k monitors were reading images as four 2k images.

Red may force the issue, but somebody like Apple could protect it.

[Waynes]

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Any decision is taken by men. On Apple's claim. As of now. That's it. Nothing more. Even Jarred's statement is very prudent and none of showing off other than their humble right to try their own property protection.

 

Okay, Common Law system where US realm is based means legal precedents to follow up further at a certain point later on.

But...

Which doesn't literally mean that any other compressed RAW cannot be taken as valid to coexist along RED's patents.

I guess it is only a matter of solid grounds and innovate approach on their contenders' filing if any.

 

Without mention where exactly RED patents are covered?

And under what authority jurisdiction to somehow stand same position/opinion for the subject matter on analogous claiming?

 

That said, by some other words, IP management and their rights are far to be restricted exclusively to US authorities no matter what office the records have been made. As much as the whole planet doesn't belong to US jurisdiction or attained under their officers, institutions and Courts. Or perhaps Thomas Edison claim to charge royalties over any operator using his invention would have prevailed as effectively did not by any chance ; )

What I see here is the nonobservance of a lot of variables to explore by any other player with a good team of experts and lawyers team to handle the task. As simple as that.

I'm sorry I can sound too plain on topic but all this has been addressed in a much strict standpoint. The issue and myriad of possibilities are beyond that.

Made in China a few of moralists are always ready to jump on is the utmost example of that. The world and the way business works is much more complex than apparently seems. For the market's sake itself.

Yep.  What they can do is challenge the patent in other pragmatic jurisdictions.  If there is no valid patent in a market, or Europe or Asia, others can sell cameras there, and it is evidence there is question in order to look at it.

Ok, Kinefinity licensed cineform raw early on.  Did they cross into this patent earlier?

[Sid]

Sounds like someone may have invented a compressed version of the truth too.  Btw, notice how Canon announce 1DXMk3, and a head honcho immediately flees with his holographic flipcam.  Remember that whole thing with the original C300 and Scarlet, even though Canon had done absolutely nothing to provoke Red in any way ?

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?63669-SCARLET....&p=825560&viewfull=1#post825560

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?63669-SCARLET....&p=825630&viewfull=1#post825630

How does it look now ?

[Waynes]

Lol, I remember those times.  Somebody published a nighttime comparison shot between the scarlet fixed and a Canon, and it was OVER they lingered on and then claimed their lens wasn't good enough, and something about not soocer mums, and cancelled the fixed at the last moment and substituted a much more expensive scarlet epic like.  Boo!  I was waiting to buy that thing for years.

Everytime I wait to but something of theirs, they cancel it, every ..... Time.  What is up?  Killing it, literary.

[greenscreen]

7 hours ago, Emanuel said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company#Creation

Ironically, that's how Hollywood was born... Where Indie spirit rose up! : P

Useless battle at a certain point or degree, sooner or later, to just one side IMHO (gang, don't be party poopers! LOL : -)

Great point. Thank you bringing the information here. Possible to see a few struggle to find the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[joema]

3 hours ago, Waynes said:

So, that means you can record raw wirelessly then?

That might be a grey area. The RED patent describes the recorder as either internal to the camera or physically attached. Maybe you could argue the hypothetical future iPhone is not recording compressed raw video and there is no recorder physically inside or attached outside (as described in the patent), rather it's sending data via 5G wireless to somewhere else. Theoretically you could send it to a beige box file server having a 5G card, which is concurrently ingesting many diverse data streams from various clients. Next year you could probably send that unrecorded raw data stream halfway across the planet using SpaceX StarLink satellites.

However it seems more likely Apple will not use that approach, but rather attack the "broad patent" issue in a better prepared manner.

[majoraxis]

12 bit log is RAW enough for me. I thought I needed CNG RAW so I got the USRA mini pro v1 and it turned out I did a session with both CNG and BRAW the difference did not make a difference for the project.

Really, this decision is a win for Blackmagic who is already marginalizing RED.

That said: RED thanks for the cinema camera revolution!  Those were good days when RED was the good guy, on the side of the little guy and I went to bed at night dreaming of 3k for $3k. I miss rooting for RED.

Now I’m rooting  for Blackmagic. I feel like my future success depends on Blackmagic’s future success, which is just silly, but that’s how my mind sees it.  I like believing that there are companies who gets what I need and are trying to deliver it.

At this point, as far as I can tell, Blackmagic is the company who Is trying to best meet my needs as a wannabe filmmaker.  

There I said it:  Blackmagic is for all us upstart-no budget-wannabe-filmmakers and I am very thankful!

[Ilia3101]

Quote

Or are they going to let Blackmagic in through the back door with Resolve and BRAW?

I'm personally hoping we can get MLV in through the back door. I think it would be great if MLV could see some more widespread use, it is a very versatile format that should be compatible with any camera, open source too, which makes it the best option in my opinion.

I am finding ways to convert all the main raw formats to MLV. I'm also writing a library that video editing software can use to support MLV.

I downloaded someone's Sigma FP footage on this forum, and it converts to MLV easily. Opened up in MLV App:

Also does anyone know where I can download more FP dng samples?

[Video Hummus]

5 hours ago, Waynes said:

The use of resolution etc to make out its new is rediculous

Yep.

Or Ferrari had the genius idea to add two more cylinders to a 6 cylinder engine and was granted a patent for “internal combustion engine with no less than 8 cylinders and a speed of at least 80kph”

No other car could now go as fast as 80kph unless they had an engine with less than 8 cylinders.

Its madness 

 

[Jimmy G]

Hrm, it's looking like things are being conveyed as being rather warm-and-cozy between the two parties here...

<<

According to RED’s president, Jarred Land, this was a part of a standard due diligence process performed by the two companies so they can proceed further with development. As stated by RED: “We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge. RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well, and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited about the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow. To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future”.

>>

...from here...

RED REDCODE Patents Withstand Apple’s Petition - Y.M.Cinema - News & Insights on Digital Cinema:

https://ymcinema.com/2019/11/10/red-redcode-patents-withstand-apples-petition/

:)

[andrgl]

54 minutes ago, Jimmy G said:

Hrm, it's looking like things are being conveyed as being rather warm-and-cozy between the two parties here...

This is about RED litigating against companies using ProRes RAW.

RED went after any company adding ProRes RAW into their product, they didn't litigate against Apple directly.

 

Petitioning the USPTO to invalidate a patent is basically the cheapest, least risky way to fight a company.

Unless some sort of agreement comes about, the likely second round to this fight is: RED sues a company for using ProRes RAW, Apple would then file a brief claiming it has the right to intervene because the company licensed ProRes RAW from Apple.

 

RED doesn't have the capital to go multiple rounds in court with Apple.

Apple probably doesn't want to risk losing this kind of case.

 

tldr; Some sort of licensing agreement will be reached between Apple and RED.

[Mokara]

18 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Unfortunately, not. The patent is about any form of compressed RAW.

IIRC it has to be 6X or greater. Less lossy compressed RAW would still be OK.

It is only really a problem for internal recording, external media is increasingly cheaper these days so large file sizes are less of an issue.

And of course of someone comes up with subpixel arrays, essentially generating an image without debeyering (which is where we will be going in sensor design) then the RED patents won't cover that. 

[Waynes]

10 hours ago, joema said:

That might be a grey area. The RED patent describes the recorder as either internal to the camera or physically attached. Maybe you could argue the hypothetical future iPhone is not recording compressed raw video and there is no recorder physically inside or attached outside (as described in the patent), rather it's sending data via 5G wireless to somewhere else. Theoretically you could send it to a beige box file server having a 5G card, which is concurrently ingesting many diverse data streams from various clients. Next year you could probably send that unrecorded raw data stream halfway across the planet using SpaceX StarLink satellites.

However it seems more likely Apple will not use that approach, but rather attack the "broad patent" issue in a better prepared manner.

I am talking about others.

I'm an inventor, and we could develop a wireless connector that hovers in the port magnetically but does not touch the device.   I know how it can be done and how to no physically keep it in the port.  Considering the nature of the patents relation to prior art it would be a stretch on a stretch to not allow it.

I've been considering designs for a camera case for a phone years ago to contact Google about, and it just occurred to me I could use it for wireless recording.  But yeah, I think I can totally get around these requirements using my tech propsal from maybe up to a decade ago.  They violated one of the rules of patent writing, probably because they couldn't see it.

9 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Yep.

Or Ferrari had the genius idea to add two more cylinders to a 6 cylinder engine and was granted a patent for “internal combustion engine with no less than 8 cylinders and a speed of at least 80kph”

No other car could now go as fast as 80kph unless they had an engine with less than 8 cylinders.

Its madness 

 

You are talking figuratively?

[Waynes]

6 hours ago, Jimmy G said:

Hrm, it's looking like things are being conveyed as being rather warm-and-cozy between the two parties here...

<<

According to RED’s president, Jarred Land, this was a part of a standard due diligence process performed by the two companies so they can proceed further with development. As stated by RED: “We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge. RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well, and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited about the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow. To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future”.

>>

...from here...

RED REDCODE Patents Withstand Apple’s Petition - Y.M.Cinema - News & Insights on Digital Cinema:

https://ymcinema.com/2019/11/10/red-redcode-patents-withstand-apples-petition/

You have to be careful in how you state things, in business, not to sound differently from what you intend.  I'm not saying whatever was intended here.  People could reinterpret things as they like, even potentially misinterpret and ask about the definition of collusion.  You see, it's very difficult in business and you have to be careful in how things are stated.

So, has there ever been a challenge to this patent that gets to actual re-examination of the terms and context we are interested in.  There is no real victory without that happening on all contexts of relevant objections.

Here, the panel criticised the submission for not enough, and Apple had an professor expert in Bayer lined up, I thought I read.  Sony settled put of court too, didn't they?  This process should also include an examination for likely problems with a whole patent upon submission of objection independent of the submission but before and after it has been examined, a close check to be sure, then all the notes and conclusions be passed onto the examiner if successful.

 

[Jimmy G]

9 hours ago, andrgl said:

This is about RED litigating against companies using ProRes RAW.

RED went after any company adding ProRes RAW into their product, they didn't litigate against Apple directly.

 

Petitioning the USPTO to invalidate a patent is basically the cheapest, least risky way to fight a company.

Unless some sort of agreement comes about, the likely second round to this fight is: RED sues a company for using ProRes RAW, Apple would then file a brief claiming it has the right to intervene because the company licensed ProRes RAW from Apple.

 

RED doesn't have the capital to go multiple rounds in court with Apple.

Apple probably doesn't want to risk losing this kind of case.

 

tldr; Some sort of licensing agreement will be reached between Apple and RED.

Interesting scenarios, however, by my reckoning, this might all just come down to more-benign "plain business sense" reasoning between two entities engaged in investing (read: millions) in proprietary and complimentary techologies.

I should think that in creating the complimentary tech, in this instance of "acquisition/creation device" (read: RED camera and RED RAW format) and "deliverable/processing platform" (read: MacPro, OS and FCPX), that both companies would need to both understand and establish the appropriate, er, guardrails that define the lanes in which their tech does and doesn't drive as well as define how they work together in their partnership.

Sort of like "establishing the table ante" for any other potential "smart money" players (read: competitors) in the industry, as well, as I see it.