RED Files Lawsuit Against Nikon

[Andrew Reid]

On 6/5/2022 at 5:19 PM, webrunner5 said:

Andrew your tweet is sort of going against what you are defending. That is what I don't like about the patent, it stifles people's choices. I think it is Way too broad.

https://twitter.com/EOSHD/status/1533123090552594433/photo/1

It's a completely different argument. Me merely wanting it to be different doesn't make things different!

I want things to be freed up but at same time you have to point why things are as they are.

If the RED patent was too broad when it was granted 15 years ago, it would not have been given.

If the prior inventions at the time did internal compressed RAW at 2K or higher then it would not have been given.

If the invention at the time wasn't novel then again it would have been too obvious to patent, but it wasn't.

I am no great RED defender. I think the way they treated Bruce over Jinnimags was absolutely wrong and anti-competitive. But in this topic we have people arguing that apples are oranges.

- Having a Dalsa camera being first to record 4K RAW is irrelevant, because it is uncompressed RAW to an external recorder. The RED patent didn't patent that. That's why you can still do it today via an HDMI cable.

- Having prior patents from Nikon over RAW on a stills camera doesn't make it an obvious evolution to a movie camera, and they are different concepts. It was like pulling teeth and got me nowhere, but as I said to Iron Film there is a difference between 9fps burst modes and 24fps continuous recording on the market and in patent terms. One is a stills camera, one is a movie camera. Patents are very specific. They don't cover such a broad basis for a product. The difference between 23fps and 24fps is also a valid one. One is a worldwide movie standard. One isn't.

If anyone has any actual facts that will invalidate it then let me know.

I mean come on guys we can do better than this.

I am all ears.

Otherwise we'll get nowhere.

I would be really interested in hearing from someone with actual knowledge.

All this conjecture from the arm chair is a waste of everybody's time on this forum.

[MeDaZzA]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

So?

It isn't relevant to the patent though.

You go off and argue with the judge about it if you like.

"Objection!"

"It is a relevant prior invention because.... It was mentioned on a forum in the same thread!"

*Sigh*

Have you even noticed that external recorders are allowed to do compressed RAW without violating the RED patent?

The patent only covers internal compressed RAW recording where the hardware is all integrated in-camera.

Having an off-board recorder makes the system outside the scope of the RED patent.

We're not talking about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.

The RED patent is not about 4K uncompressed externally recorded RAW.

Have you actually RED the RED patent?

I suggest you give it a RED!

Even more confused now. I used to think it only applied to in-camera but have been told by many that this is not the case at all and it applies to any compressed RAW recording; in-camera or externally. If it was internal only, why would Atomos have had to reach a licensing agreement with Red after the threat of legal action when all their recording is external? If it does apply only to in-camera recording, I still think a battery grip recorder could be a way forward if it bypassed the patent.

[BTM_Pix]

When RED announced at the NAB in 2006 that they were taking orders for a 4K cinema camera that shot visually lossless compressed RAW at 24fps+ internally to CF cards or connected HDs,  I don't recall the reaction being "Oh really, another one? How many does that make of these types of camera now?".

It got the reaction (and the blind faith pre-orders) that it did because it was unique.

In point of fact, it was so disruptive that the late cinematographer Geoff Boyle got into a long running feud with Jim Jannard after an argument at NAB about it being a scam.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/reds-jim-jannard-continues-feud-609701/

Anyway, you can argue until 2028 about whether that means it was deserving of such a broad patent but its after Apple and Sony failed it is clearly not going anywhere so until then, if you want compressed RAW in camera, then we can either howl at the moon about it, hope someone successfully challenges it or buy one of their cameras. 

People forget that another factor that was in play that made the original RED ONE such a big deal was that the compression got around one big issue of the time which was the storage costs for RAW video. When it actually shipped, even generic CF cards were around $8 per gig whereas today an NVME works out at around $0.10 per gig.

On that basis, as well as the huge uptick in computer power, shouldn't we be looking at manufacturers to take the path that Sigma have and got round it by using CinemaDNG anyway instead of waiting another six years for the patent to expire ?

 

 

[IronFilm]

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Dalsa used an off board recorder for RAW.

100% relevant, as it doesn't take a genius with a crystal ball to one day see that offboard recorders would get integrated into a camera body itself. 

That's not at all worthy of a patent. 

12 hours ago, tupp said:

There is nothing novel nor innovative about incorporating a recorder into a camera.  Camcorders had existed for year prior to the release of the Dalsa camera.

Exactly! 

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

24fps is the cinema standard. Lower numbers are not.

16fps (and later on, 18fps) was the standard fps for 8mm films. 

Again I'll say the difference the between 23fps and 24fps is pretty arbitrary, any significance you attach to the magical number "24" is sociological.

24 is not filled with special mystical properties that makes it inherently totally different to the number 23, or the number 25. 

What if some company had a patent for exactly the same but only 24fps and not anything higher? Could RED then have got a patent for "25fps and higher"???

16 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It isn't continuous motion for 2 hours.

Did RED says their patent only applies for clips of "2hrs length" (or longer), or some other arbitrary length or longer?

 

[Andrew Reid]

OK IronFilm I await your 23fps digital camera.

Let's see how it sells!

[Andrew Reid]

No difference here to you then....

[IronFilm]

18 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The difference between 23fps and 24fps is also a valid one. One is a worldwide movie standard. One isn't.

Sure, we as humans are attached an extra special meaning onto 24fps over 23fps

Just like we've attached extra special meaning to the resolution of 4096 × 2160

But fundamentally, there is no great technical difference between 4096 × 2160 and 4000 × 2100

Just like there is no great core fundamental difference between 23fps and 24fps 

Let's step away from filmmaking for another example instead, let's say this was the early days of electrical vehicles. If someone created an EV with 230km range, and then you asked for an EV with 240km range instead would you response with "no way, a leap from 230km to 240km?? That's would require a total technological revolution, worthy of a patent!"

Or to view it from the other direction: if someone tried to patent EVs which go 240kms or further, should that patent be given? And if it was granted, would a prior car that could do 230km be sufficient to invalidate it? 

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, we as humans are attached an extra special meaning onto 24fps over 23fps

It's not about "feelings". One is a worldwide standard and one isn't.

Having a standard frame rate for cinema is important otherwise people would mix 22,23,24,25,26 all on same timeline depending on camera brand.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just like we've attached extra special meaning to the resolution of 4096 × 2160

But fundamentally, there is no great technical difference between 4096 × 2160 and 4000 × 2100

One is a standard, one isn't.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Just like there is no great core fundamental difference between 23fps and 24fps 

Let's step away from filmmaking for another example instead, let's say this was the early days of electrical vehicles. If someone created an EV with 230km range, and then you asked for an EV with 240km range instead would you response with "no way, a leap from 230km to 240km?? That's would require a total technological revolution, worthy of a patent!"

Or to view it from the other direction: if someone tried to patent EVs which go 240kms or further, should that patent be given? And if it was granted, would a prior car that could do 230km be sufficient to invalidate it? 

You have to describe a patent with numbers and figures, and can't be wooly about it.

You have to pick a standard.

If you are designing a cinema camera and the standard for cinema is 24fps, why the fuck would you not mention that in the patent?

The EV range analogy is a load of bollocks nonsense, complete irrelevance to the topic.

A better analogy would be 50hz vs 60hz electricity as that is a fundamental difference in the supply standard.

Thus if you were patenting an electric vehicle you might want to mention some fundamental numbers.

[ND64]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A better analogy would be 50hz vs 60hz electricity as that is a fundamental difference in the supply standard.

Thus if you were patenting an electric vehicle you might want to mention some fundamental numbers.

50hz vs 60hz defines the ecosystem that the device is compatible with. "24fps or more", is intentionally mentioned there to prevent still camera makers, who were already using raw compression for still images, to make Cine cameras that shoot raw internally. If a judge doesn't understand this doesn't mean its not clear.

 

[Andrew Reid]

You would patent a movie camera without mentioning 24fps?

[Ryan Earl]

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

50hz vs 60hz defines the ecosystem that the device is compatible with. "24fps or more", is intentionally mentioned there to prevent still camera makers, who were already using raw compression for still images, to make Cine cameras that shoot raw internally. If a judge doesn't understand this doesn't mean its not clear.

For better or worse that's what a patent is supposed to do, prevent others from selling what you've patented.

[webrunner5]

The trouble now is every government is woefully slow to the react to the rapid increase in Tech development, social media is a glaring outshoot, and there is probably no way to correct it at all. Years ago you Could damn near predict the future, well not today. So I guess it is going to get worse not better. The greater good theory is probably out the window these days.

[Davide DB]

Guys,
the thread has derailed into a wall-to-wall nonsense.
If I wanted to be polemic, I should advise, those who think the patent is meaningless, to offer themselves to Nikon as consultants in the ongoing legal battle 😇

Actually, if the patent has withstood for years several lawsuits filed (not by my mother) but by the likes of Apple & co., it means that it is evidently well written. Mind you, I am not agreeing with Red. This is a classic case where the current patent system demonstrates all its limitations and actually prevents technological progress to the detriment of users.

At present, the only real question that makes sense to ask is: 

Is it possible that a company like Nikon went off the rails in this matter without taking into account the history of previous lawsuits (perhaps misguided? She tried?) or is Nikon in posses of information that we do not have?

[cpc]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Is it possible that a company like Nikon went off the rails in this matter without taking into account the history of previous lawsuits (perhaps misguided? She tried?) or is Nikon in posses of information that we do not have?

Companies can be clueless about these matters. And Nikon comes from a stills background.

On the other hand, Nikon's patents portfolio includes tens of thousands of patents, including thousands in the US. They can probably dig into it for counter infringements, if they are forced to. I don't recall resolution specifics in the Sony case, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sony did exactly this to fend off Red.

[ND64]

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

the thread has derailed into a wall-to-wall nonsense.

It actually turned to a good discussion: what exactly defines a cine camera?

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Guys,
the thread has derailed into a wall-to-wall nonsense.

You can say that again!!

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Actually, if the patent has withstood for years several lawsuits filed (not by my mother) but by the likes of Apple & co., it means that it is evidently well written. Mind you, I am not agreeing with Red. This is a classic case where the current patent system demonstrates all its limitations and actually prevents technological progress to the detriment of users.

At present, the only real question that makes sense to ask is: 

Is it possible that a company like Nikon went off the rails in this matter without taking into account the history of previous lawsuits (perhaps misguided? She tried?) or is Nikon in posses of information that we do not have?

The best case scenario is:

RED has infringed multiple important Nikon patents.

Nikon gets compressed RAW in a settlement agreement.

Worst case is:

Nikon pulls the firmware update and cannot ship Z9 in future with the infringing feature.

And I agree the patents system does prevent technological progress and is to the detriment of competition and consumers.

But people on this thread seem to be blaming RED for this when it is actually a much more complicated issue akin to the upsides and downsides of stuff like copyright.

[Andrew Reid]

44 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

It actually turned to a good discussion: what exactly defines a cine camera?

24p for one.

Which is why they mention it in the patent!

[webrunner5]

24 frames a second was determined back in the 1920's maybe even teens as the slowest you could hand crank a film movie camera and make it not look jerky, any faster you were eating up too much film. It was all about the money, just like everything is now.

[Andrew Reid]

Any faster and it looks like YouTube, that's what they were thinking in the 20s.

Patents are about defining an invention.

You can't patent a car without mentioning whether it has 2 wheels or 4.

[tupp]

On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

So?

So that was the post to which I was responding.

 

 

On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

It isn't relevant to the patent though.

I wasn't referring to the patent.

 

 

On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Have you even noticed that external recorders are allowed to do compressed RAW without violating the RED patent?

The patent only covers internal compressed RAW recording where the hardware is all integrated in-camera.

Having an off-board recorder makes the system outside the scope of the RED patent.

As someone who's name is on one or two patents, I would suggest that such arbitrary claims indicate that a clueless patent examiner possibly rejected/challenged some of the claims.

 

At the date the RED patent application was filed, there was absolutely no novelty nor innovation in specifying internal or external recording, so it was meaningless to do so (and even detrimental to RED), unless they were trying to appease an examiner who had no clue.

 

There is another reason that specific, arbitrary claims sometime appear in patents, but I don't think that is the case here.

 

I sense that the patent is weak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be successfully defended.

 

 

On 6/7/2022 at 4:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Have you actually RED the RED patent?

I suggest you give it a RED!

Ha, ha!

 

I briefly scanned the claims of the patent that you linked earlier in the thread.  I might have to take another look at it.