Jump to content

Jinni Tech claims RED Compressed RAW patent filing is invalid


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
18 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its in the piece.

Thanks mate, I haven't read it yet : -)

Did it now... The way a L.A. Court would extend their jurisdiction is beyond me.

To my knowledge, there's a lot of BS about the efficiency of their legal actions.

More a case of legal bullying than anything else to my view. You Andrew might be entitled to fire back for that with more success than them to speak it frankly. Defamation is a crime. To state that someone practices libel, if not proved, ends in slander very likely. To follow a civil action with much more predicted outcome.

The spell could turn against the sorcerer.

My jurist two cents : -)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration.

@Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because  people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

With each of these videos, I'm reminded why I support open source, standardization, and collaboration.

@Andrew Reid, I'm glad you wrote this despite being under substantial threat. In my opinion, this Jinni Tech saga is not getting the press it deserves, and I only hope it isn't because  people are too afraid to say anything. RED should be given a platform to respond, but should not be able to sue away negative press.

Yeah, see people at newshooters, they are clearly clueless as they have no idea where is the hate in the comment section come from as they keep reposting IG post from red

 

 

newshooter.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made my previous comment before watching the Jenni Tech video.  After seeing heir claims here is my response.  I am far from a RED fan boy, so this is just based on my experience working with tech patents. 

OK, first public use or sale starts one year clock, before one year is up RED files provisional patent that starts new one year clock for full patent application on what was claimed in the provisional patent. RED filed the full patent in less than one year. So, the question is if filing a provisional patent satisfies the one year clock that started ticking with public disclose or sale.  It does but only if it makes sufficient disclosure in the provisional patent. So, the Jinni Tech claim appears to be valid only if the provisional patent did not cover the tech that was covered in the non-provisional patent.  At first glance, and I do not have the time to find and read the patents, that appears to be the critical  issue under American  patent law, and it is not addressed in this video.  

If you look at the dates of the provisional and non-provisional patents they are barely less than one year from first public disclosure and from filing the provisional patent respectively. I cannot think that is a coincidence, is appears that they were scrambling to meet these two one year deadlines. At first glance it appears  that RED was aware of this provisions of US patent laws and complied with them, The only issue is if the non-provisional patent application included any material not in the provisional, if that is the case then RED lost the the ability to patent any feature not in the provisional patent and publicly disclosed more than one year previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, good on ya for speaking up. They’re acting like a corporate mob and this needs to stop. 

 

Do you not have journalistic indemnity to keep a fair press? I mean, this way, corporates can sue newspapers they don’t like into bankruptcy? Are there no media organization that help with this sort of stuff? 

 

Bit more clarity on this would be appreciated. 

 

Cheers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Philip Lipetz said:

If you look at the dates of the provisional and non-provisional patents they are barely less than one year from first public disclosure

UPDATE: 2 provisional patents, one was filed April 11th 2007 and other in December 2007. Tick the clock backwards 12 months from December 2007 and RED camera was publicly discussed and on sale according to JT's video.

This doesn't seem to be his conjecture, rather historical, factual information from the internet, forums and Jannard interviews, where RED publicly display and demonstrate the technology later patented. Be it NAB 2006 (sales) or IBC 2006 (exhibit) or initial tests and the stuff from 2005... It's all out there.

In JT's video he points to RED putting up "sold out" signs at NAB 2006 for instance which is more than 1 year before one of the provisional patents the final one relied upon, and 2 years before the final patent was granted.

Of course I'm not a lawyer and would encourage anyone to look only at the facts before jumping to opinions, myself included, which is what I am doing! When it comes to the fine details of the law, I am making no claims until I know the facts. Yes JT could be wrong and RED could have a perfectly legal and valid patent, and that would be the end of the discussion.

It's for the FTC to decide... Also over the Made in USA claims.

I won't be taking a firm opinion either way yet.

But I do want people to keep on examining the facts and understanding the info, and we have free speech so are able to do that.

RED should apologise for me for the forced settlement agreement terms and the impact this had on my blog and free speech.

I want internal compressed RAW in many more of our cameras.

It's important RED's patents are checked and their behaviour held to account.

If they are invalid, it has huge consequences.

RED should be allowed to put their side of the story in response to this video and I invite them to do that here, not just play the distraction game with Komodo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see RED taken to the cleaners.

They're Patent bullies and need to be cut to size. So much for R&D, and Made in the US, and unique design and all that BS.

I hope someone does a sting with them and the US Patent office. Giving them a patent in video camera was beyond ludicrous. The patent office also needs a series of sting operation.

I hope RED gets sued across all continents and all countries where it sells. 

 

I am suddenly wondering whether Oakleys were ever completely made in the US or partially in China, and only later represented to  Luxottica to be partially made in China, when it was bought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

"Failure to file a patent application within the one-year period will result in the invention being passed onto public domain, where it will no longer be eligible for a patent."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/one-year-rule/

 

Quote

 

Red Digital Cinema and Atomos have settled their differences over alleged patent infringement, reaching an agreement that has Atomos licensing IP from Red.

As part of the announcement, the companies said they had decided to work together on integrating the Red and Atomos product lines to produce new camera recording systems.

 

https://www.studiodaily.com/2019/01/red-atomos-settle-patent-dispute-promise-integrated-recording-products-come/

Quote

The prospectus also revealed that Red has alleged that some Atomos products infringe four Red patents related to recording and playback of video codecs. Atomos said it has so far declined to license the patents, meaning the dispute could end up in court if the camera company decides to sue.

http://www.studiodaily.com/2018/12/atomos-goes-public-australian-securities-exchange/

So if the patent is invalidated, will RED refund Atomos backdated licensing fees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...