• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

"RED Is destroying the camera industry"

chelgrian

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
333
Likes
363
So it was original art that they were the first to achieve. That’s when you were a granted a patent. If the patent is worthless there’s no argument but there was, even in this thread. Argument over.
No they were the first to patent there is a difference.

The USPTO are fairly terrible at granting low quality patents in areas they don't understand or where prior art is written in languages they don't understand. I know I have several such patents to my name, which work had me file...

In my opinion this patent shouldn't have been granted as it fails the obviousness test to someone skilled in the art but since it was and since IPR review was denied on it for frankly technical reasons the patent stands until it is actually litigated before a court.

Despite all the cases and legal machinations these patents have never been litigated and there is a chance Red would lose if they were.

We'll only get to see if the Nikon case actually gets to court rather than being settled. So far Nikon's opening gambit as far as I can tell is that the patents are invalid because Red themselves disclosed the supposed invention in marketing material before they filed.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,393
Location
Seattle Area
If they are not licensing their patent and just shutting down cameras, then a company could sue them on anti-trust grounds although that is challenging. Most likely, they are demanding 5% of the revenues of the product which is standard offer. If so, then companies like DJI can accept those terms, add the cost to their cameras and keep going.

With respect to other companies like Sony, Canon, etc., I shed zero tears for them. They have literally earned billions of dollars from video compression patent royalties to date. And have nastiest approach to collecting, making companies like RED look like saints. Ditto for companies like Apple which gouge people/developers with their closed ecosystem and predatory licensing.

Finally, as noted, RED is not a patent "troll." A patent troll is an empty entity that just owns patens, and sues people. Specifically they have no product of their own so you can't bargain with them. As noted, Sony likely managed some kind of cross license with RED precisely because they could attack them back with their portfolio of patents. So let's not call them trolls.

Yes the system is broken. Companies routinely get together, create new standards, and then create a licensing cartel around it to charge whatever they want from the industry. At one point the estimate for building a DVD player was $25 in royalties!

There is an entity that is working to undo some of the damage from patent trolls/trouble makers. Just got email from that they invalidated a patent from Divx company who was going after every major streaming company. The kicker? They had patented what we, the start up which we sold to Microsoft, had invented 10 to 15 years earlier! They literally had no shame in re-patenting the same idea. And patent office granted it originally with little due diligence.
 

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
3,015
Likes
5,617
Location
San Francisco
It’s morally correct patent protection.

Even if the patent is a good and valid one, it's a stretch to say it's really MORALLY right to sue people who are using what amounts to commodity technology, to protect an idea that's currently nowhere near state of the art.

An average smartphone can currently do what RED is preventing their competitors from doing, the idea that there's some real justice or moral good in that is pretty strange.

Legally correct, sure. Morally...? In what religion? ;)

I am not really convinced RED are major villains here, but I don't see any values here beyond profit-seeking.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,393
Location
Seattle Area
Even if the patent is a good and valid one, it's a stretch to say it's really MORALLY right to sue people who are using what amounts to commodity technology, to protect an idea that's currently nowhere near state of the art.
What would be the patent system without such right? Patents are given long life (20 years or so) which by definition creates such a situation.
 

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
3,015
Likes
5,617
Location
San Francisco
What would be the patent system without such right? Patents are given long life (20 years or so) which by definition creates such a situation.
I don't really disagree, but the idea of this being some kind of moral victory is odd to me. The implication is that RED lawyers are good people for filing these lawsuits. They're not bad guys for doing it necessarily, but in this case I don't see any evil villains being defeated either. It's just business, I guess.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
You do not know what RED RAW is. It’s obvious with your comparison to h264.

RED was years ahead of everyone else, they gave filmmakers the power by giving them access to the sensor data in a way that it's taken other companies nearly a decade to catch up to. Do that with h264!
It looks like you're unaware of patent 7.656,561 B2, filed 2004, granted 2010, which was the foundation of Apple's case. Apple lost on the grounds of 'substantially visually lossless', i.e. they didn't introduce testimony in which people directly compared the images, and that was enough for the judge to find against them:
Petitioner has not shown that the proposed input to Mølgaard’s compression—i.e., Presler’s output—is substantially visually lossless image with respect to the original, never-compressed image. The original image is significant here because we construe “substantially visually lossless” to require a comparison with the original, never-compressed image

You may find it instructive to read the expert witness document prepared by Cliff Reader (court documents: page 3, 'Ex.1003 - Expert Declaration (Red.com '314)[/URL]') in which he explains how obvious Red's claims were in terms of the prior art that existed at the time their patents were filed. Again, the judge dismissed Reader's conclusions because he hadn't made it utterly blindingly obvious that these existing systems produced a 'substantially visually lossless' image:
Dr. Reader’s analysis lacks, for example, a discussion about a comparison with an original (never compressed) image with the image from Presler’s software

Basically, Apple lost because their legal team was too preoccupied with the technical details and had forgotten to start out by dumbing things down to the basics by pulling people in off the street and asking them to compare some pictures.
 
Last edited:

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
It looks like you're unaware of patent 7.656,561 B2, filed 2004, granted 2010, which was the foundation of Apple's case.
That’s about a composite compression. RED RAW is about sensor data compression keeping channel data separate. A huge difference if you know how colour grading works. It was the first time video camera output was able to be colour graded in the same way as film. it was a seismic change in post production.
 
Last edited:

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
That’s about a composite compression. RED RAW is about sensor data compression keeping channel data separate. A huge difference if you know how colour grading works. It was the first time video camera output was able to be colour graded in the same way as film. it was a seismic change in post production.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
Did you read the patent, particularly the part where it says, "no new pixel values have been added to the data e.g. by color interpolation ... Since it is an object to get the data transmitted and stored as fast as possible there is no need for generating more data, and the present invention preferably operates with raw data."

I seriously suggest you go and read the links I posted. Yes, Red camera systems were the first to offer what people wanted in a usable digital system, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to a legal monopoly on technology that was quite obvious in the first decade of this century.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
Yes, Red camera systems were the first to offer what people wanted in a usable digital system, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to a legal monopoly on technology that was quite obvious in the first decade of this century.
I'm neither a patent lawyer, nor an imaging specialist, however, I have enough experience in both that if what you said is true and a patent 12 years prior to RED's does the exact same thing, requesting and succeeding the patent to be nulled during the decade long period by companies like Apple, Sony & Nikon. In this instance I believe the lawyers, I'm afraid.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,822
Likes
4,514
And patent office granted it originally with little due diligence.

This point was basically made by @SIY in another thread, but it seems to me that many of the current issues with US patent issuance could be addressed with the same mechanism already used for most federal administrative proceedings - a public notice and comment period. Admittedly I don’t know the constitutional jurisprudence (if any) or legislative history of USPTO, so there may be deep reasons for that.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
I'm neither a patent lawyer, nor an imaging specialist, however, I have enough experience in both that if what you said is true and a patent 12 years prior to RED's does the exact same thing, requesting and succeeding the patent to be nulled during the decade long period by companies like Apple, Sony & Nikon. In this instance I believe the lawyers, I'm afraid.
I’m really not sure what you’re saying here.

As I explained, the failure of Apple’s case had nothing to do with compression of raw mosaicised data, but was the result of their legal team failing to appreciate the weight the judge gave to something that anyone working in the field would take for granted. That was a goof on the part of the lawyers - they got paid a lot and should have recognised the need to address the question of quality in a way the judge would understand.

I strongly recommend that you read the expert testimony by Cliff Reader that I linked to earlier. He has an extensive background in this field and is intimately familiar with the state of the technology at the time in question.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
I’m really not sure what you’re saying here.
Let me clarify one last time: I do not accept that companies like Apple, Sony & Nikon failed to contest RED’s patent only because of the failure of their legal teams.

Everyone failed to prove that RED’s patent has no merit but you think otherwise.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
Let me clarify one last time: I do not accept that companies like Apple, Sony & Nikon failed to contest RED’s patent only because of the failure of their legal teams.

Everyone failed to prove that RED’s patent has no merit but you think otherwise.
Apple’s legal team failed to present a complete case, as I’ve explained quite clearly. Sony gained a settlement, the terms of which have not been disclosed. Red’s case against Nikon is still in pretrial hearings and discovery and won’t start in earnest until 2024.

Yes. I am in agreement with industry experts that Red’s patent on the compression of raw data is invalidated by prior art and simply consists of the obvious combination of pre-existing technologies. I have provided a detailed analysis by an industry expert to that effect.

If you wish to disagree you’ll have to come up with something better than, ‘I think you’re wrong.’
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
If you wish to disagree you’ll have to come up with something better than, ‘I think you’re wrong.’
You are saying you are are right and I’m saying no. That’s what a disagreement works. Your “proof” is what you read from an expert. My point is the fact that hugely resourceful companies like Apple failed and Sony settled, hence patent has merit.
 

radix

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
1,365
Likes
1,295
I'm not a lawyer either, but also have a fair bit of patent experience. While claim 1 is very broad, it is limited to compression ratios of 6:1 and "substantially visually lossless" and frame rates > 23 fps. I suspect they had a fair bit of back-and-forth with the examiner to carve out that space. This patent is not about the RED algorithm, only about the application of some algorithm with those properties to a mobile video device. I think, clearly, without those numeric limits in claim 1, the patent would be denied as obvious.

So, other companies could, for example, use any compression of, say, 5.9:1. And until the super-high frame rates of mirrorless, the patent would not cover any DLSR that has a frame rate below 23 fps.

It is typical of a company to file a broad portfolio of patents around their core technology to protect its use in as broad a field as practical. That broad patent portfolio is also what gives a technology value, in many cases, as it sets up a significant moat to competition.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
You are saying you are are right and I’m saying no. That’s what a disagreement works. Your “proof” is what you read from an expert. My point is the fact that hugely resourceful companies like Apple failed and Sony settled, hence patent has merit.
So you don’t actually have any argument at all, other than the fact that Apple’s legal team messed up their case. Obviously, pride is going to prevent you acknowledging this, ok. But I really think you’d benefit by quietly educating yourself about the underlying issues here, even if you can’t bring yourself to admitting doing so.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
So you don’t actually have any argument at all, other than the fact that Apple’s legal team messed up their case. Obviously, pride is going to prevent you acknowledging this, ok. But I really think you’d benefit by quietly educating yourself about the underlying issues here, even if you can’t bring yourself to admitting doing so.
I do not say that Apple team messed the case. You said that. I said I do not believe that the legal teams failed. This is what I said:

Let me clarify one last time: I do not accept that companies like Apple, Sony & Nikon failed to contest RED’s patent only because of the failure of their legal teams.

Everyone failed to prove that RED’s patent has no merit but you think otherwise.

Can't you understand what is said above?

PS. You are personally attacking me, my integrity, and my knowledge. I'm not impressed. Very childish thing to do. You do not even know me.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
I do not say that Apple team messed the case. You said that. I said I do not believe that the legal teams failed. This is what I said:



Can't you understand what is said above?

PS. You are personally attacking me, my integrity, and my knowledge. I'm not impressed. Very childish thing to do. You do not even know me.
I’ve been patient with you. I’ve provided links to the relevant documents and quotes to back up what I say. You just keep repeating the same unsupported assertions. You’ve failed to present any sort of cogent argument and when confronted with that have no recourse other than a bizarre claim that this constitutes a personal ‘attack’.

My patience is at an end.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
691
Likes
442
Location
Los Angeles
If we stay to the facts there are only 2 important points:
Does any camera manufacturer pay for RED patent?
Is it normal that many RED users are paying overpriced REDmags because of this RED patent?

I know it is US business and every way is good to make $$$.
 
Top Bottom