RED Files Lawsuit Against Nikon

[IronFilm]

48 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Not this mad bastard though.

hahaha! Well, he also hasn't had to worry about selling a camera yet. 

[webrunner5]

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

[ND64]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They patented the whole thing. The entire video camera system with RAW recording

Which means they're guarding the act of compression itself. Frame rates and level of compression are also stupid. Its like to patent a CPU with 8 cores to prevent anyone else making any CPU with more than 7 cores. Nobody should be allowed to patent the scale of something. 

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

There is a massive difference between 9fps and 8fps that is worthy of a patent? Well ok then, I think that is a strange perspective to believe in though.

You said between 24fps and 9fps.

24p is cinema, and 9fps is a stills burst mode so yes there is a big difference.

 

[Andrew Reid]

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Not this mad bastard though.

He looks perfectly sane to me.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You said between 24fps and 9fps.

No, I said this:

On 6/5/2022 at 1:14 PM, IronFilm said:

Not really, is there a massive difference between 24fps or 23fps?? Or 22fps and 21fps? Or 18fps and 17fps? Or 9fps and 8fps? 

That's why by a simple process of induction, I say no. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

If going from 23fps to 24fps is not worthy of a patent, neither is going from 8fps to 9fps, or any other 1fps (or 2fps, or 3fps... ) step up up, then going from 8fps to 24fps is not worthy of a patent either. 

 

[Andrew Reid]

Yes massive difference between 24fps and 23fps.

In a patent you have to draw the line and define what standards it applies to.

RED is saying that 23fps would be a burst mode for stills cameras but 24fps is a cinema standard.

Do you really expect a patent lawyer to not bother with details like that?!

"Ah 23, 24 all the same to me!"

[IronFilm]

Should 24fps and 25fps be two different patents?

[Andrew Reid]

You don't get it do you.

Patents have to be specific and you have to draw a line at specific numbers and features.

[IronFilm]

They can draw the line wherever they like, but there is still nothing groundbreakingly unique that's worthy of a patent. 

Just because someone else has done 8fps but not 9fps, doesn't mean you can then patent 9fps. That's utterly ridiculous! 

[Andrew Reid]

They described a cinema camera shooting 24fps or more at 2K or more.

You are suggesting they write the patent in an unclear way, and that just isn't how it's done.

If they had not defined a SPECIFIC minimum frame rate and resolution, the claims of the patent would be legally unclear.

I don't see how this is hard to comprehend even for a non-lawyer.

[MurtlandPhoto]

32 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They described a cinema camera shooting 24fps or more at 2K or more.

You are suggesting they write the patent in an unclear way, and that just isn't how it's done.

If they had not defined a SPECIFIC minimum frame rate and resolution, the claims of the patent would be legally unclear.

I don't see how this is hard to comprehend even for a non-lawyer.

I think the major issue is that the defined, specific minimum frame rate (and lesser extent resolution) RED used in their patent is the standard for an entire industry that existed for a century before RED. Not a great analogy, but it would be like Tesla patenting electric cars capable of going over 65mph while the U.S. interstate system is largely built for that exact speed of traffic with combustion cars for over a century.

[KnightsFan]

I guess I disagree that anyone should have been allowed to patent 8K compressed Raw, or 12k, or 4k 1000 fps--a decade before any of that was possible. I see arguments that the patent is valid because Red were the first to do 4k raw, so to the victor go the spoils... but since we're talking about differences like 23 vs 24, it's a valid point that they patented numbers that they could not achieve at the time.

And in a broader sense, I don't understand why a parent should be able to prevent other companies from applying known, existing math to data that they generate. Without even inventing an algorithm, Red legally blocked all compression algorithms.

[tupp]

31 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I see arguments that the patent is valid because Red were the first to do 4k raw

Dalsa was the first company with a 4K raw cinema camera.

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't see how this is hard to comprehend even for a non-lawyer.

But that's not at all what I'm saying. 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They described a cinema camera shooting 24fps or more at 2K or more.

I'm saying their patent for 24fps should not exist, just like if they had tried to patent 9fps (or 23fps, or 25fps, etc.. the number they used doesn't matter! Any number would be wrong) that also should not exist. 

 

[KnightsFan]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They described a cinema camera shooting 24fps or more at 2K or more.

Honestly the "or more" part is the only bit I really take issue with. Once Elon Musk reaches Mars, he should patent transportation devices that can go 133 million miles or more so he can collect royalties when someone else invents interstellar travel. If he specifically describes "any device that can transport 1 or more persons" that would even cover wormholes that don't technically use rockets!

If the patent had listed the specific set of frame rates that they were able to achieve, like 24-48 in 4k and 24-120 in 2k (or whatever the Red One was capable of at the time), at the compression ratios that they could hit, that would seem more like fair play. That leaves opportunity for further technical innovation, Which, by the way, Red might very well have been first at as well.

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, tupp said:

Dalsa was the first company with a 4K raw cinema camera.

Yes and it's 100% not relevant to the RED Patent on compressed RAW.

The Dalsa used an off board recorder for RAW. Equivalent to using an external HDMI recorder today.

The RAW was also completely uncompressed.

Says right there on your Wiki link:

"The camera outputs raw data to an off board storage unit at a rate of approximately 400 megabytes per second"

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But that's not at all what I'm saying. 

I'm saying their patent for 24fps should not exist, just like if they had tried to patent 9fps (or 23fps, or 25fps, etc.. the number they used doesn't matter! Any number would be wrong) that also should not exist.

Starting to get into real head banging on wall territory for me here dude.

24fps is the cinema standard. Lower numbers are not. It matters. It isn't considered motion by the standards of the film industry if it is lower than 24fps. Otherwise we would still be shooting in 20fps on the original Canon Rebel 500D.

So if you are going to apply for a patent for motion, you determine 24fps minimum.

If you apply for a patent for stills, you are talking single frames or bursts and not continuous motion for hours.

A patent that applies to a single frame or 9fps, or whatever, has different claim to one targeting motion picture cameras.

RED patented the codec as part of a video camera patent.

That's why it applies to video cameras.

You're saying it shouldn't exist because other cameras before it did compressed RAW for stills.

This is nonsense.

Stills are stills. It isn't continuous motion for 2 hours.

Even if the burst rate is above 24fps, it is still a complete different concept to a movie camera.

[tupp]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes and it's 100% not relevant to the RED Patent on compressed RAW.

Well, it is 100% relevant to the post in this thread to which is was directed:

7 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I see arguments that the patent is valid because Red were the first to do 4k raw

 

 

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Dalsa used an off board recorder for RAW. Equivalent to using an external HDMI recorder today.

Not sure how that is relevant to my post nor to any patents in question here -- 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.

 

 

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The RAW was also completely uncompressed.

Says right there on your Wiki link:

"The camera outputs raw data to an off board storage unit at a rate of approximately 400 megabytes per second"

Nevertheless, RED was not the first "to do 4K raw" -- that honor goes to Dalsa.

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Well, it is 100% relevant to the post in this thread to which is was directed

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!"

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Not sure how that is relevant to my post nor to any patents in question here -- 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.

*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.

10 hours ago, tupp said:

Nevertheless, RED was not the first "to do 4K raw" -- that honor goes to Dalsa.

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!