Jump to content

RED Files Lawsuit Against Nikon


BTM_Pix
 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

As far as Cineform serving as prior art for RED's patent, there is the possibility that both were developed from JPEG 2000 separately and both qualify for patents relating to camera systems.  The SI-2K camera patent might integrate Cineform, but it's hard to tell. 

I remember reading that Cineform was created to get around IP from other companies so RED could have also used JPEG 2000 and just slightly 'got around' Cineform to steer clear of them. 

Or maybe there was a deal that RED would modify Cineform and would pursue a patent with Cineform's approval.  I'm just speculating. . .

It's still more likely to me, since Nikon literally has 20,000 patents https://insights.greyb.com/nikon-patents/ that there would be some cross patent infringement that would allow Nikon to continue with ProRes RAW.

It happens across all industries, I'm not sure RED is a villain.  How many patents do they actually have?  Just one very key patent it seems.  If anything Nikon is knowingly infringing on RED's patent which would put them as the unethical party since RED's patent was granted.

PXG is a golf equipment maker and started filling their metal irons with a plastic polymer and received a patent for it.  Taylormade later made irons filled with 'speed foam' and PXG sued Taylormade.  Then they reached a settlement because PXG violated some Taylormade patents.  Another company, Ping, had already been using plastic inserts in irons years before... 

https://golf.com/gear/taylormade-pxg-irons-settlement-lawsuit/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching jinnitech’s video i checked red’s patent and i noticed something 

1. Red’s Video camera patent expired and they applied for another patent for all electronics including cameras, this may extends patent expiry to 2038🤷‍♂️

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11503294B2/en?oq=US-11503294-B2

2. There are citations of Cineform publications in Red’s patents. Doesn’t it mean the patent examiner already knew about cineform raw existence? 
Does the examiner willingly granted patent? Or Cineform raw doesn’t come under prior art? 
Is that patent officer corrupt or anyway related to Red?😜

A8AA20AA-7D88-4001-AD07-E1241D8C71AD.png

0E00C98A-E1CC-45A3-AAD0-1C94EF5EEADD.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 11:39 PM, HurtinMinorKey said:

A few things. RED isn't a troll, they are an innovator who actually commercializes the patents they claim,  and they should be able to benefit from spending the time/resources to make those inventions (assuming the patents are valid).  That's not to say trolls aren't a problem in other areas, but more so this isn't one of those cases. It's not always the case, but trolls are typically non-practicing entities (they don't practice the technology they are claiming is patented).  

If Red isn’t a troll, how come they are extending their patent by identifying some loopholes in the system 🤷‍♂️.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we oversample a 6k image to 4k then send for raw video compression?
I know it’s not technically raw, but can we go around red patents as Blackmagic does with their BRAW(partial debayer) by pre-processing like oversampling and have an internal codec with the ability to change ISO/WB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sharathc47 said:

Can we oversample a 6k image to 4k then send for raw video compression?
I know it’s not technically raw, but can we go around red patents as Blackmagic does with their BRAW(partial debayer) by pre-processing like oversampling and have an internal codec with the ability to change ISO/WB?

Thats what sigma does with the fps and people call that “real uncompressed raw” lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sharathc47 said:

After watching jinnitech’s video i checked red’s patent and i noticed something 

1. Red’s Video camera patent expired and they applied for another patent for all electronics including cameras, this may extends patent expiry to 2038🤷‍♂️

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11503294B2/en?oq=US-11503294-B2

2. There are citations of Cineform publications in Red’s patents. Doesn’t it mean the patent examiner already knew about cineform raw existence? 
Does the examiner willingly granted patent? Or Cineform raw doesn’t come under prior art? 
Is that patent officer corrupt or anyway related to Red?😜

A8AA20AA-7D88-4001-AD07-E1241D8C71AD.png

0E00C98A-E1CC-45A3-AAD0-1C94EF5EEADD.jpeg

Thats not the same patent.They changed it to DCT with newer cameras its not wavelet anymore.

https://docs.red.com/955-0179/REV-B/Benefits %26 Evolution of REDCODE RAW.pdf

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...