Jump to content

Jinni.Tech vs. RED Part 4 (1hr long)


Anaconda_
 Share

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Can somebody summarise the latest info?

Sure.

RED sued Jinnitech for their JinniMAG saying it was patent infringement (On a patent application filed days after RED sued him!) and several other bogus claims.

Turns out the judge threw out all the alleged charges against Jinni and the case was official closed.

He goes into detail about the company structure. Shows evidence that two corporate officers are lawyers, who apparently have almost no identity on the internet (their LinkedIn page is now deleted...their website is broken).

He shows evidence of him trying to get a minimag replaced and asking for a breakdown of the cost to fix it since they quoted him $1,600 dollars. He presses them on why he is basically told to shove off and that since he threatened them with legal action that they are refusing services to him (apparently illegal).

He shows evidence that REDs terms of service violates US UCC law which prohibits unconscionable contracts.

He goes into great detail about why they are...anyway the short of it is the terms are service are about as scummy as you can write them.

The bomb though is he says he filed suit against RED and the case will be held in December of this year.

He then goes on to say that days after the suit was filed against RED.com Inc that RED dissolved that entity, And filed a new business entity in Nevada under RED.com LLC and Jim Jannard is not listed as the corporate officer and in addition they listed the capital of this new company has having $0.

Dissolving you’re multimillion dollar company ahead of a potential class action lawsuit says something about how RED is run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
45 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Can somebody summarise the latest info?

RED's license agreement for the camera makes you agree that all of its software is used at your own risk and that they do not guarantee it does anything at all in terms of functionality.

If you then try to go after them for any consequential damages for the impact of it not having not done something (i.e. anything from not working or corrupting data on its media) then you will have agreed by accepting the license that the maximum amount of compensation will be $50.

The claim is that this puts it in violation of the USA's Universal Commercial Code as this makes the contract "Unconscionable" as it represents "Unequal Bargaining Power" and "Limiting Warranty".

The opening of the floodgates for claims against RED for damages over losses sustained by malfunctioning cameras by those contracts being declared null and void would be the implication but that remains to be seen.

Similarly there is a clause on the sensor upgrade programme where if RED (and RED alone) determined your camera was not in good condition they could charge you the whole value of the new camera for the upgrade and only give you $1 compensation for your camera.

I'm guessing there are a lot more cases involving the $50 one than the $1 one but you never know.

The meat of the rest of it was about potential chicanery over morphing corporate structures that might be taken to imply that RED is in preparation for shielding the "new" company from lawsuits that may occur from the previous revelations about the "old" company.

 

 

Just now, Video Hummus said:

That was probably an awful TL;DW But you should really sit down with a cuppa and watch the video.

Oops, I wish I'd read it before typing mine as it would have saved me some time !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last bit is important as it shows some evidence of guilt. Can they explain why they made such a drastic change to the company? Is Jim’s “retirement” part of this scheme. Also apparently the new zip code they filed the “new” business in has legal implications as well. All in an effort to shield them from liability in this upcoming  case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
33 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

That last bit is important as it shows some evidence of guilt. Can they explain why they made such a drastic change to the company? Is Jim’s “retirement” part of this scheme. Also apparently the new zip code they filed the “new” business in has legal implications as well. All in an effort to shield them from liability in this upcoming  case.

There are numerous non-suspicious reasons for a company to alter its composition or even where it is domiciled so I don't think in and of itself its definitive.

For example RED Europe is a UK company but I'm guessing that they, like myself and many others, will be creating a new corporation in one of the EU27 countries in preparation for doing business in Europe post Brexit.

The significance in this case, if indeed there is any, may lie with a lawsuit against the "old" company involving named parties who were on the list of officers of that company but are not on the list of officers of the "new" company.

Like I say, there may be numerous perfectly straightforward reasons for that which are completely unrelated to any legal action.

Or, there may not.

And I'll guess we'll see in December if a specific allegation is made and proven about why that is.

Personally speaking, I found the patent stuff to be potentially more curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

There are numerous non-suspicious reasons for a company to alter its composition or even where it is domiciled so I don't think in and of itself its definitive.

For example RED Europe is a UK company but I'm guessing that they, like myself and many others, will be creating a new corporation in one of the EU27 countries in preparation for doing business in Europe post Brexit.

The significance in this case, if indeed there is any, may lie with a lawsuit against the "old" company involving named parties who were on the list of officers of that company but are not on the list of officers of the "new" company.

Like I say, there may be numerous perfectly straightforward reasons for that which are completely unrelated to any legal action.

Or, there may not.

And I'll guess we'll see in December if a specific allegation is made and proven about why that is.

Personally speaking, I found the patent stuff to be potentially more curious.

It’s possible but I find the timeline extremely suspicious. I find the change of officers somewhat suspect. I find the zip code they registered this new company in suspicious (it’s basically a haven) for what goes on in Las Vegas. I find Jims answer in the discovery video when being questioned under oath by lawyers extremely unsatisfying in regards to this patent they tried to use to sue JinniTech.

Any RED owners should read the terms of service and take note.

I find the claims, made by Jim in 2006, where he claimed that REDCODE Needed proprietary firmware to store REDCODE on special hardware (later to be proven NOT to be proprietary and available for sale from parts manufactures, hence the JinniMags) highly suspect. Not to mention now that are using CFast cards for Komodo.

It reeks of a class action lawsuit. I’m glad JinniTech is not going to be bullied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members
26 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

It’s possible but I find the timeline extremely suspicious.

I don't entirely disagree that there may be some major discrepancy between "possible" and "probable" in this case but I'm conscious of the potential problems stating something like that definitively here can bring to @Andrew Reid personally as the host of the site.

If you asked me in person though .... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

(...)

He then goes on to say that days after the suit was filed against RED.com Inc that RED dissolved that entity, And filed a new business entity in Nevada under RED.com LLC and Jim Jannard is not listed as the corporate officer and in addition they listed the capital of this new company has having $0.

Dissolving you’re multimillion dollar company ahead of a potential class action lawsuit says something about how RED is run.

This only means they have a capable legal team. When you'll go to the Courts, you're not there to lose the battle. I am proud of Jarred.

E :- )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I don't think the Jinni thing is exactly RED's proudest achievement is it @Emanuel? In the new video, their lawyer even admits JinniTech suffered as a wronged party and offered him some vague 'lets do business' line - It was pointless for RED to fight this battle. What comes to light is disturbing.

Now it is JinniTech suing RED rather than the other way round, what happens if he wins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your observation. But RED's too. I see Jarred in the perspective of a manager. He could not be stuck nor silent. He has a crisis he has to deal with. RED's legal team has to protect their client's assets. This is a competent move from their end. Exactly because any lawsuit is a game card.

RED customers can easily realize who is in charge. RED service tops because of Jarred, his skills and his talent to choose his team. As his friend for a decade and a half now, I am really proud of him.

E :- )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

A curious thing that happened in the comments under the YouTube video last night was that someone mentioned in commented to refute what was said about him and threw in a couple of additional remarks.

Wish I'd taken a screenshot because lo and behold the person in question has subsequently deleted the comment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

A curious thing that happened in the comments under the YouTube video last night was that someone mentioned in commented to refute what was said about him and threw in a couple of additional remarks.

Wish I'd taken a screenshot because lo and behold the person in question has subsequently deleted the comment.

 

Who did it? What is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Members

 

3 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Who did it? What is it?

Its referenced by someone else in the comments too so I'd rather keep the name and details off here.

Its the internet after all so someone else could have been making the comments under a user name that was purporting to be the person in question but may not have been.

The name of the person who it may or may not have actually been would be what you would do if I told you to make sure the Netherlands wasn't empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Internet. Well, I am like Andrew, actually... This soap opera requires to be summarised : D

In the meantime, there are still people focused to keep shooting... with great cameras, fortunately, there's where filmmakers express their feelings, not somewhere else : ) Great outcome BTW:

:- )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rawshooter said:

With all due respect, but unless "Jinnitech" manages to clearly put down and explain what is supposedly wrong with RED instead of churning out convoluted, suggestive and unclear mystery tales, this is all just some QAnon-style YouTube-"truther" conspiracy BS... 

While long winded, and sometimes hard to follow he does finally come to some clear points.

The latest video went deep into US Universal Commercial Code Law (yeah, sounds exciting right....) which are laws in the US to protect consumers and business from writing unfair contracts that will expose them to liability.

He clearly lays out by reading the relative parts of REDs terms of service and makes a good case, he thinks, that they are in violation of several clauses as laid out in the UCC law.

I don’t know any other way to explain that like he did without it becoming dry as a stale saltine cracker.

He makes other points about REDs extensive litigious behavior towards other companies and individuals, including himself and JinniTech. Some of it for even having the word RED in your company name in a completely different industry. None of that is conspiracy theory. It’s all documented in the public record.

So it’s not a conspiracy theory when he is actually going to court over it. The courts, thankfully, don’t put up with that shit.

In my opinion, its all egg on the face for RED. Half a dozen really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

He makes other points about REDs extensive litigious behavior towards other companies and individuals, including himself and JinniTech. Some of it for even having the word RED in your company name in a completely different industry.

I did laugh when he revealed they tried to sue an Infra-red imaging company 🤣

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

×
×
  • Create New...