Panasonic Did It! And now?

[Davide DB]

At least so it seems

 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/panasonic-did-what-apple-sony-and-nikon-couldnt-overturn-a-red-raw-video-patent/

 

[Emanuel]

There is one important point here : )

A Japanese decision invalidating the Japanese patent does not, by itself, kill equivalent patents in the US, Europe or anywhere else (even if they belong to the same patent family). Patent rights are territorial and each national right has, legally speaking, its own existence within its own jurisdiction.

So no, compressed RAW has not suddenly become free for everyone everywhere : )

What is interesting is something else: if the claims are substantially equivalent (and that is obviously the important bit), the reasoning used in Japan may well become useful ammunition in other validity challenges.

That is why, for me, the really interesting question is what Panasonic (or anyone else) does next.

If equivalent RED claims start falling elsewhere too (particularly in the US), then yes, we may be looking at a very different landscape.

- E. :- )

  

10 hours ago, Davide DB said:

At least so it seems

 

[Ilkka Nissila]

The main reason these patents have been considered legit in the US patent system despite the so-called inventions being obvious to any technical person familiar with photography, is probably that the US patent office's main purpose is to protect the interests of US-based companies, such as RED, against foreign businesses. Rational arguments don't necessarily apply, if the case involves a US vs. foreign manufacturer and the litigation happens in the US. Now, since a Japanese company (Nikon) currently owns RED, it's quite possible the US position also changes (not because of Panasonic's arguments but because there is no longer a US-owned business interest for the US patent office to protect).  It is difficult see how a Nikon lawyer would defend these patents with a straight face, so their arguments may be ineffective. Anyway, most camera manufacturers nowadays seem to have some raw video capabilities in their cameras so the issue is not that pressing any more. 

 

It made sense for Nikon to buy RED to gain expertise and a presence in the mid and higher end video markets, irrespective of any patent issues. What do users complain the most about the first Nikon video camera? That the raw video files are too big. So, why was there so much fuss about the patents anyway, if people don't actually want to use raw video recording in practice?