Red pick another fight

[macrecorder]

Maybe slashing their prices hasn't worked. Now Red want new Sony F series cameras destroyed...

 

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2013/02/15/red-plans-to-sue-sony-over-patients/

 

This will be interesting.

[nwstudios]

If it is a legitimate case of copyright infringement why shouldn't Red be taking up litigation?

Given the price tag to take on these kind of legal battles I would doubt they would take on Sony just for the heck of it.

[macrecorder]

Nobody is saying they are.

[Tim M]

Which is quieter that is who I want to win.

[soundtrane]

Which is quieter that is who I want to win.

 

HA!!! +1111

[nwstudios]

Nobody is saying they are.

 

My apologies. It read it a bit like an attack.

 

Red Epics have vastly contributed to post production billing

[Marc Wielage]

Huge discussions about this over on the RedUser group:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?94889-Patent-lawsuit

 

What's puzzling to me is that the two major things Red is suing Sony over are:

 

1) the use of a CMOS Bayer-filtered chip to derive red, green, and blue images from one solid-state display (which was invented by Bryce Bayer of Kodak and patented in 1976)

 

2) the use of data compression to take the image files and squeeze them down efficiently (which was invented by the JPEG group, and Red is a licensed user of JPEG2000 compression).

 

And also that the Dalsa Corporation in Woodland Hills, CA was really the first company to come up with a 4K CMOS pickup for a digital motion picture camera -- a camera they never really got to work very well, though their patents are still active.

 

I'm baffled that their case will hold up. It's especially weird when you consider that back in November, Red CEO Jim Jannard praised Sony for entering the 4K camera market and called their action "an endorsement of 4K production," basically saying that Sony had finally admitted that HD was not enough for serious film production.

 

Note that Red quietly settled their case against Arri over the Alexa a couple of years ago (where an LA rental exec had stolen some proprietary emails to and from Red from a camera rental company). The settlement admitted that Red and Arri each had to cover their own legal expenses, which tells me this was not an all-out victory for either side. 

[macrecorder]

As I understand it, the case hinges on the use of Redcode, which losslessly compresses the raw data. Whether Red are accusing Sony of copying their code, or are trying to claim that similar codes are all covered by their patent, I have no idea. Apple try to patent ideas as much as technology, maybe Red are following suit. The chances are, like the Arri case, it will all be settled out of court. Perhaps Red are hoping for a licensing deal? It will be interesting to watch, especially as Red have filed for a jury trial, if it ever gets that far.

[Marc Wielage]

RedCode is far from lossless. Everything they do is lossy. I think the lowest data rate is 3:1, and there are all kinds of artifacts and image flaws that can (and do) happen at higher compression ratios. I don't think they have a case. 

Even if it does go to trial, I bet it'll take 7 years to go before a judge and jury. And by then, Sony (and Red) will have sold thousands more cameras. In fact, at the rate technology is changing, one wonders whether both companies will still be in business.

 

There's some interesting commentary from the NoFilmSchool website:

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/red-ceo-jim-jannard-lawsuit-sony-raw-compression/

 

Note that, from what I see, Red also did not win the lawsuit against unfair competition by Arri (the case of the stolen emails). To me, everything Red is saying is all about prior art, and the patents -- which are shown on the above link -- are too general to enforce. Sony also has their own proprietary compression schemes, and I fail to see how they're stealing anything. 

 

To me, this is dirty pool. 

[Timlin]

I know one group who will definitely win this case and all the others like it - the lawyers... they'll get paid, win, lose or settle.

 

The lawyers never lose...

 

 

AT

[Marc Wielage]

As the discussion winds on, the crux of the matter seems to be that Red is taking the raw information off the chip and immediately compressing it for storage. Somehow, this broad concept was patentable. Arri got around it with the Alexa because their camera records lossless files with no compression; their newer models buy a standalone lossy recorder and strap it onto the camera, and they take the raw signal coming out of the camera and then compress it outside the camera, going into the recorder. (I agree, a very vague distinction, but since the recorder is not part of the camera and is an option, it appears to be legal.)

 

To me, what Sony is really doing is going after Arri, who practically owns the American dramatic network TV business these days. The Arri has a very simple, straightforward, fast workflow, and that has great appeal to producers: you literally take the files right out of the camera and start editing. With the Red, you have to take the files and deBayer and render them first -- in effect, "processing the dailies." Red is about to come out with a module that bolts onto the back of the Epic that will provide this feature, but it's not out yet. Once you add up the cost of the Epic and the module and the other stuff, it's about equivalent in price to the Sony F55... hence the lawsuit.

 

I don't see how Red can get an injunction against Sony and yank all these cameras off the market, which is what they're asking for. As I said earlier, if this is a typical patent dispute/civil case, it could take 6 or 7 years to wind through the courts. And how many cameras will Canon, Sony, and Arri sell during that period? Thousands? I think this is an unwinnable case, and Red should just concentrate on building the best camera they can and hope to win based on quality, not on vague patents. Strictly IMHO.

[Marc Wielage]

And as an update:

 

Sony Files Suits Against Red Camera for Violating Seven Patents

 

Sony Comments re Patent Suit Filed Against Red Digital Cinema

 

On April 5, 2013, Sony Corporation (“Sony”) sued Red Digital Cinema (“Red”) for infringing 7 of Sony’s patents in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Sony believes that the Red ONE, EPIC and SCARLET cameras, various digital still and motion camera modules, and various accessories such as the REDMOTE infringe our patents. Sony is seeking both money damages and an injunction to stop the continued sale of Red's infringing products. Sony makes significant investments into the research & development of technology related to the cinema camera industry and intends to protect those investments against companies that infringe our patents.

 

Much discussion about this on the RedUser group:

 

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?97758-Sony-s-lawsuits-against-RED

 

Some Red owners are concerned that Red may have awakened "the sleeping giant" by annoying Sony with their previous lawsuits. For all of Sony's problems, they are still a $150 billion company that employs 162,000 people. And I expect they're going to sell a lot of cameras in the pro world for years to come.

[John Blankenship]

In staying with Marc's "...sleeping giant" analogy (and noting an ironic reversal of national origins):

Red suing Sony = Pearl Harbor.

Sony suing Red = Hiroshima!

[studiomprd]

[Jim Feeley]

Marketing through litigation?

[Chris Woodcock]

Marketing through litigation?

Apple's business model?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Marc Wielage]

My guess is two or three years from now, Red and Sony will settle with each other by cross-licensing their patents. And then maybe they'll go after Canon and Arriflex.

 

The biggest camera market really is for television, and at the moment, the Arri Alexa is king for American TV networks and scripted cable dramas.

[Rich Reilly]

"Which is quieter that is who I want to win."

 

When a Red shuts down for inexplicable reasons (budgeted as "Red time")..it is VERY quiet...but there are often very audible screams from stressed out ADs.

[Jim Feeley]

The biggest camera market really is for television, and at the moment, the Arri Alexa is king for American TV networks and scripted cable dramas.

 

I hear what you're saying. But how many Alexas have been sold? How many Scarlet and Epic cameras (since we're not talking about ancient-history cameras like the D21 and RED one)?

 

It would be interesting to compare number of hours of material produced that was seen by more than 5,000 people (ie- not film festivals and vanity DVD releases). I don't know how that would compare. Anyone know if such an analysis (or a better analysis not conjured by a guy waiting for his flight to NAB) exists?

[studiomprd]

" The biggest camera market really is for television, "

and ARRI has licensed their technology to TV  Camera (favorite) Ikegami.

[Marc Wielage]

I hear what you're saying. But how many Alexas have been sold? How many Scarlet and Epic cameras (since we're not talking about ancient-history cameras like the D21 and RED one)?

 

Neither Red nor Arri have been very forward with their sales figures. Red is totally a privately held corporation (owned by former Oakley sunglasses billionaire magnate Jim Jannard), and Arri is a German company, so getting specific numbers is not easy. I'd bet the actual sales are far lower than you might expect. 

 

Some of the Red people have compared serial numbers and drawn conclusions, but we don't know for a fact that all the numbers are consecutive. What is known is the kind of camera files dealt with by all the major post houses in LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, London, and so on, and I think Alexa is still miles ahead for television. I think for features, it's a three-way split between Alexa, Red, and Sony. 

 

My guess is also that Sony is pushing the F55 very hard for TV, anxious to steamroll past Arri. About ten years ago in post, we saw Sony do this when they were unhappy at the success of Panasonic's D5 digital HD videotape format. Sony drastically cut the price of blank tape for their HDCam-SR machines, and suddenly around 2004-2005, HDCam-SR became the new network TV standard. Sales of D5 bottomed out, and it disappeared not too long afterwards. So when Sony wants to, they can stomp on their competitors like Godzilla terrorizing downtown Tokyo... or at least try. 

[johnpaul215]

Apple's business model?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

You know that's not true right?  Sorry for the tangent, but this misinformation drives me nuts. 

When the iPod started to look like a success, Apple was nailed to the wall by Creative and ended up having to pay them $100 million. At the time, it was a lot of money for Apple. That was the watershed moment where Steve Jobs said, "fine, if this is how technology companies play the game now...." and Apple started to patent everything to cover their bases. Supposedly the stuff Creative sued them over had been in Apple labs for YEARS, but Apple was used to keeping everything super secret till it hit the market, and it bit them in the ass. Heck, Google bought Motorola's phone division just so they can use their patents to sue Apple under the Moto banner and try to protect the Google name from being muddied. The Google brass even disses the Moto products in presentations, and rolls out the newest features on Samsung and HTC hardware. 

Go back and look at the Apple vs Microsoft settlement over MS Windows patent infringements. Apple could have buried Microsoft, but that wasn't how things were done back then. They took a relatively minimal settlement and both companies charged ahead (which was best for the consumer). Now instead of out-innovating, they sue each other into oblivion.... which sucks for the consumer. 

[atheisticmystic]

You know that's not true right? Sorry for the tangent, but this misinformation drives me nuts.

When the iPod started to look like a success, Apple was nailed to the wall by Creative and ended up having to pay them $100 million. At the time, it was a lot of money for Apple. That was the watershed moment where Steve Jobs said, "fine, if this is how technology companies play the game now...." and Apple started to patent everything to cover their bases. Supposedly the stuff Creative sued them over had been in Apple labs for YEARS, but Apple was used to keeping everything super secret till it hit the market, and it bit them in the ass. Heck, Google bought Motorola's phone division just so they can use their patents to sue Apple under the Moto banner and try to protect the Google name from being muddied. The Google brass even disses the Moto products in presentations, and rolls out the newest features on Samsung and HTC hardware.

Go back and look at the Apple vs Microsoft settlement over MS Windows patent infringements. Apple could have buried Microsoft, but that wasn't how things were done back then. They took a relatively minimal settlement and both companies charged ahead (which was best for the consumer). Now instead of out-innovating, they sue each other into oblivion.... which sucks for the consumer.

So youre saying it is Apples business model, as well as everyone elses.

[dfisk]

I haven't gotten deep in the weeds on the patents, but from the basic stuff I've seen it looks like RED's arguments might not stand up. I see litigious manufacturers all the time. They sue everyone under the sun in order to control their market share, even if the lawsuit is weak. They'll do it just to try and keep someone from getting to market and/or hope the legal costs alone will drive a smaller company out of business. I've seen patent lawsuits over the dumbest things just to keep a smaller manufacturer down just for spite. It's quite sad. 

[johnpaul215]

So youre saying it is Apples business model, as well as everyone elses.

 

Chris called it "Apple's business model" implying they created it, and that's far from fact. If you want to name it after a prime offender, there are much larger offenders. You only know about Apple's lawsuits because everything they do is news, there is no mainstream press coverage about Google buying Motorola purely as a vehicle to sue Apple. That's too confusing to explain to the masses in 60 seconds. The Apple v Samsung case was news because it's kind of bizarre in many ways, and because Samsung had a phone that was selling pretty well. We also know a lot of the "nuke Android" was Steve Jobs feeling stabbed in the back because Eric Schmidt (of Google) was put on the board of Apple, and had privileged info on the iPhone knowing that Google was secretly writing Android at the time. That's shady. 

These lawsuits have unfortunately become the way business is conducted, and you can't do anything about it because the US Patent office and court system encourages it with incredibly vague patents and a court system that seems behind the curve on understanding technology. That's not only bad for big business, it allows big business to stomp out a lot of startups and frankly is stifling competition.