No joke: RED wants the new Sony’s F65, F55 and F5 cameras literally “destroyed” !
Short break from regular A and E-mount coverage to tell an intriguing news. You may know that Sony latest Cine Alta F65, F55 and F5 camcorders are incredible high quality and (relatively) low price. Today Deadline.com reports that the well known company RED sued Sony for patent infringement. And here comes the crazy part. They also made an injunction against Sony’s F65, F55 and F5 cameras to stop their further sale and have them destroyed! I’d like to cite Filmkaingetc.com when they say: “Well, you know what they say: if you can’t beat them, sue them.”
P.S.: Now imagine if RED really wins the cause. How are they going to destroy them? Should we all come with our baseball bat and beat them in thousand pieces? Or make a big fire for a barbecue?
Chris
4 months ago |They learned this from Apple. Regardless of outcome, only lawyers profit from these lawsuits.
Spuds
4 months ago |In the tech world these lawsuits pre-date Apple recent abuse of the system. I recall in the 1990s we had 3 main chip makers for PCs, Intel, Cyrix and AMD… When Cyrix was preparing to release a chip they were sued by Intel though not even expecting to win it was simply a marketing move to create fear in manufacturers that might be hesitant to embrace a chip that might be sued out of existence. It pretty much worked at the time and hammered Cyrix financially… Times like this I think we need much better people working in the patent office rejecting a lot of these silly patents up front so we wouldn’t have these problems later.
shutterman
4 months ago |lol. its an appleish strategy.it really says it all,sony is bolstering the 4k scene that RED has started and with it came the huge price decrease of red cameras. sony has been making cameras for decades naturally they will catch up. why dont they sue kineraw from china? is it because red cameras are made in china badged in usa? like iphones ? lol
Steve Jones
4 months ago |I’ve looked at the two patents concerned and, as usual with these sort of filings, they are very broadly draw and unspecific yet include pages and pages of pseudo-technical guff.
However, in effect, RED appear to be claiming a patent on the principles of using low-compression 2K & 4K high-quality “visually uncompressed” moving image capture using electronic sensors and some rather unspecific forms of processing colour channel data.
As is often the case in the US patent system, corporations love to make their patents as wide ranging and general as possible. However, at least Red aren’t “patent trolls” in that they actually produced some hardware. Just how novel their technology is, I couldn’t really say apart from noting that they didn’t invent the capturing of moving images from electronic sensors. Of course the did pioneer such technology in the film world, but it’s highly debatable that there was anything particularly original in their technology.
Anyway, more money for lawyers…
John Maverick
4 months ago |SONY has much deeper pockets that RED. Presumably they can countersue and bleed RED in litigation. I’am actually surprised RED see’s this as a good tactical move.
Randy S.
4 months ago |Jared is kind of a dick so I can totally see it.
tony
4 months ago |very very deep “empty” pockets
TAPdsgn
4 months ago |Thank you for posting the only semi-informed opinion on this matter.
jk
4 months ago |Chris,
Do you sincerely believe that Apple invented the patent lawsuits ? No, thats a basic american way of harassing others.
Anybody knows what the lawsuit is about ? Tech explanation ?
Kevin
4 months ago |It looks like it is about the compression and demosaicing of digital video.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8358357
http://www.google.com/patents/US8174560
jk
4 months ago |Oh, Steve Jones wasquick, thanks
shamb
4 months ago |Ive had a look at the patent as well. As far as I can tell, the patent simply describes a generic video camera, and tries to make it seem a little specific by describing general sensor technology in a little more detail (which btw also would apply to standard DSRLs).
Any current video camera or video DSLR would infringe that patent. I think they’re specically sueing only because Sony are directly competing in the same space.
Maxwell
4 months ago |Looks like the RED patents US8174560 and US8358357 are very general
for a “Video Camera” device. Some “bla-bla-bla” about a device you
can record video with and store to a digital format.
Just Google and you will find both the patents.
Looks silly, but if RED has enough money to take cases like this to
the court and want to wast some time and money… good luck.
NotTroll
4 months ago |If I understand correctly, they have patented RAW(undemosiced) video. I personally think they didn’t invent that, but they surely patented it. An abuse of patent law in my view. Patent law should protect tech purely invented by the inventor, not something that is generic, whether in term of concept or practice.
CTPhotographX.com
4 months ago |Well, can I get an Alpha mount for RED camera?
Spuds
4 months ago |Maybe someone could sue Red for all the false advertising they made about their infamous handheld pro quality camcorder called Scarlet that never materialized as they claimed it.
mutley dastardly
4 months ago |Red doesn’t know who they’re playing with. If Sony releases its patent-folio it’s over & out for RED.
admin
4 months ago |+1
dan
4 months ago |can’t be better said
Stan
4 months ago |+1
They are tickling a giant sleeping godzilla
NotTroll
4 months ago |Jim stated he has never lost a lawsuit. We’ll see.
Jon7athan
4 months ago |Jim Jannard meet the SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (net contributions amounted to $459,208 during 2012 cycle.)
Jannard may have awoken a sleeping giant.
Steve Jones
4 months ago |I think people should note that Red want a jury trial. It’s unusual for most common law derived legal systems (of which the US is one) to make regular use of jury trials in civil, rather than criminal, law cases. Only the US and Canada seem to do this at all commonly. Personally I’ve no idea what a jury would bring to what is largely a technical argument. Call me a cynic, but I very much doubt the lawyers representing Red would be requesting it unless there was some advantage. As the Apple vs Samsung case shows, the “home town” advantage plays particularly well with a jury. It’s notable that the Apple vs Samsung verdict is generally not repeated in other jurisdictions. The stakes are quite high given the overwhelming importance of Hollywood in the film industry, as even if other jurisdictions did no echo any Red win over Sony, it would have a huge impact.
It’s also worth noting that patent (and other IPR) cases tend to be raised in US states which are generally more sympathetic to such cases. This is all a matter of careful commercial consideration.
Le Star
4 months ago |“How are they going to destroy them? Should we all come with our baseball bat and beat them in thousand pieces? Or make a big fire for a barbecue?”
I trained as a broadcast engineer. At the time, Sony pretty much ruled in the world of broadcast. (Some VCRs were branded AMPEX, but they were identical to Sony VCRs.) One chap I trained with had strong connections with Sony and apparently, for “tax reasons” unsold items were destroyed rather than discounted or returned to Japan. I believe they were crushed.
So you’re not too far with the idea of smashing them into pieces!
—–
If patents are being infringed, I’m sure Sony will come to some arrangement.
Steve
4 months ago |I would not want to go head to head with Sony in court.
Sony likley pays it’s legal team of hundreds lawers more than Red makes a year in sales.
And if the case is heard in Japan……………..$$$$$
Even if Red has merit the costs could be more than this little gem of a company can afford.
Danny
4 months ago |Are you really sure?
Seems that sony did a bad bad thing and that Laws are in favour to Red !
Legal Eagle
4 months ago |I doubt Red want to win the case particularly (though it would be a bonus if they did as they know the uncertain foundation of the cited patents as well as the rest of us) – but a successful injunction while the lawyers argue over technology they do not understand will delay Sony in a key market (US). Having been directly involved in a number of these patent rows the presiding judge (who has less of a technical clue than the lawyers) generally plays it in favour of the US-based company when the suit is against a foreign competitor.
However, I’m sure Sony have more money to spend on their legal team (and will spend it) and I would consider Red’s action as desperate. It would be interesting to check Red’s current financials (I have not done so yet).
Weakling
4 months ago |I’m getting so sick and tired of these patent lawsuits. Think I am gonna get me a patent on patent lawsuits and sue everyone who ever starts one again …
James
4 months ago |The shocking thing to me, after a cursory scan of the patents, is that they received a patent at all- honestly, if anything that generic is capable of getting a US patent, I fail to see how any new inventions exist without people suing the crap out of each other. It just seems to be describing a pretty standard video camera capable of capturing, demosaicing and recording a certain compression of RAW data at 23+ FPS. Big deal. Perhaps Sony will counter-sue for Red using the idea of a video camera at all, or even the idea of using an electronic sensor to capture images. With any luck Red cameras will be destroyed and then none of us will ever be subjected to 60FPS hyper-detailed, unwatchable, Hobbit-style awfulness again…
WTH
4 months ago |I am going to patent a box with 4 equally bevelled corners…
Then I am going to patent a device that converts light to electrical signals…
I am so going to be rich…
Engineer
4 months ago |Funny how all the people who hate patents obviously know nothing about them, even what they are.
dan
4 months ago |it’s funny how engineers who got out innovate has to use bullsheet patents to hinder and stifle better products development of their competitors.
Funny
4 months ago |Normally the patent belongs to the company, not the engineer. So, it’s a company move, not by an individual.
Jydurocher
4 months ago |Does anyone has a patent on the handle?
Claim one of the ‘video camera’ patent:
A video camera comprising:
a portable housing having at least one handle configured to allow a user to manipulate the orientation with respect to at least one degree of movement of the portable housing during a video recording operation of the camera;
Best laugh in years.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8358357
And even more here:
http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=ininventor:%22James+Jannard%22#hl=en&tbo=d&tbm=pts&sclient=psy-ab&q=ininventor:%22James+Jannard%22&oq=ininventor:%22James+Jannard%22&gs_l=serp.12…0.0.0.7350.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0…0.0…1c..3.psy-ab.iMWePs3IVeE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42452523,d.dmQ&fp=5eb720fe4c3915da&biw=1160&bih=582
Yes Red founder is the inventor of the eyeglasses, the DSLR and we guess the handle…
MdB
4 months ago |Even if RED do win, they have to license the tech at a reasonable cost. The chances of them actually winning are slim and Sony can counter sue for many more patents than RED, which they will have to license from Sony. This is a pointless exercise – they should simply try to build better cameras.
Interesting to see REDs reaction now they have some competition.
loonsailor
4 months ago |RED is an extremely litigious company, truly a very, very bad corporate citizen. They’ve sued a number of companies. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company#Lawsuits, and notice how many of the lawsuits are marked at “dismissed”.)
They make a nice product. It’s too bad that they feel a need to compete via the courtroom, rather than in the marketplace. If I have a choice, I’ll never use one of their cameras.
James
4 months ago |Having been on film sets with both Red and Sony in use, I know which one I’d be relying on if I had the choice, and it wouldn’t be named after a certain colour…
Len
4 months ago |If this is about 4k video, How about JVC’s new 4K units will they be next ? LOL
Not everyone can afford RED !
MC
4 months ago |OK, let Sony swallows RED and then give me a higher FPS high speed camera. Cheers!
sonikon
4 months ago |Perhaps RED knows they have no chance and simply want to bring attention to those Sony cameras. The legal battle could hurt RED financially and set themselves up for a possible buyout to merge with Sony to make more beastly cameras and dominate the video world.
MANDO
4 months ago |pretty surprising, sony has to be doing something right in this area for red to get..well red faced at them
gano
4 months ago |I think the best way to destroy all those Sony cameras is to shove them up Jarred ass and they will disappear like in a black hole.
Samony
4 months ago |I see it an attack on budding cinematographers. Sure Red is a nicely built piece of digital machinery but they’re becoming like the other red dot niche market. Note not every body can afford a digital film video camera like Red. Heck they can barely afford more than 2 grips and a boom microphone person on a shoot.
DiBok
4 months ago |Heeeey Guys, I have a patent on the alphabet’s letters “a”, “e” and “d”.
So would you please remove them in all your posts, otherwise Ihave to take you to court.
95% of these hardware or software law suits are bad jokes. Really.
The authorities shall review older patents and delete the unreasonable ones to stop that useless and money burning law suits.
dan
4 months ago |hehe patent the letters.
mict
4 months ago |Epics are awesome but if they are scared of Sony, then sony’s are also AWESOME
SteB
4 months ago |This is so funny. I’ve seen the whole Red project go from being an interesting privately financed project, to an increasingly angry and dictatorial tyranny. They are notorious because of the censorship of their forums. Poor old Philp Bloom, because he dared to say he’d had a few technical problems with his very expensive Red camera, they demanded he give it back to them. This really is very silly, because it was always obvious because of the ecnomy of scale, that once the big camera manufacturers started producing this type of camera, the Red project was doomed. They simply don’t have the infrastructure to produce this type of camera on the scale that will bring the price right down to a level they can compete with. Ranting and raging about it won’t hold off the obvious.
Francisco G.
4 months ago |RIP RED.
nathan
2 months ago |On August 18, 2008, Red filed a lawsuit against the electronics company LG over its use of the name Scarlet.[35] Jannard accused LG “…of taking the “Scarlet” brand name from the camera company, despite RED’s denial of their request.”[36]
On September 23, 2011 Jim Jannard announced that his personal email account was compromised by former Arri executive Michael Bravin.[37] A lawsuit against Arri was filed at the end of 2011.[38] James H. Neale, attorney for defendants filed a declaration in support of Arri’s opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Oct 29, 2012 saying Red has not yet identified the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets. Arri has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents. Red wants all documents relating to ARRI’s development and marketing of the Alexa camera and to its efforts to compete with RED. He also claims that Gregory Weeks (attorney for Red) mischaracterizes the parites’ meet and confer discussions and their respective proposed resolutions. The evidence strongly suggests that RED’s purpoted trade secret claimes are a pretext for obtaining untrammeled access to the sensitive information of its competitor, ARRI. The plaintiff RED has provided nothing in discovery.
On June 27, 2012 Red sued Wooden Camera, a manufacturer of third party accessories, for copyright infringement.[39]
Red.com sued Netcast et all Sept 16, 2008 8:2008-cv-01030 Breach of Contract (alter ego)[40]
Red.com sued Silicon for Breach of Contract June 9, 2010, case number 30-2010-00379482 Santa Ana Superior Court. Case dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to Share Holders, On June 9, 2010 the company was named in a lawsuit…Red.com alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Last update to share holders; On or about February 2, 2011, the company received a proposed draft settlement agreement from Red.com. Subsequently, on March 3,2011, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was substantially different from the terms of Red.com’s proposed settlement agreement. The settlement did not result in any payment by the Company and accourdingly, did not have any adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flow.
Red.com sued Wind River System for Breach of Contract,Fraud, and Negligent representation (service agreement) Nov 14,2008 Superior Court Snata Clara County, State of California. dismissed.[citation needed] Notice to share holders. On Nov 14, 2008 Red.Com filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The complaint assers causes of action against the company for fraud in the inducement, brach of contract and negligent representation in connection with services agreeement entered into between the company and Red in Jan 2006…..The company beleives that Red’s complaint is without merit and intends to defent this matter vigorously. On Jan 2, 2009 the company filed a cross-complaint against Red for breach of contract in connection with Red’s failure to pay outsatnding invoices and for breach of contract and conversion/trespass to chattels in connection with Red’s unauthorized distribution of Wind River VxWorks operating system to end users.
Red.com sued Pixellexis August 2, 2011 over RedBrix Case Number 8:2011cv01155 On August 14, 2011 Pixellexis announced that it had ceased its operation and would no longer sell any products. Pixellexis went out of business. [41]
Red.com sued Usability.pro et all.(alter ego) April 7, 2010 30-2010-00360802They countered sued 2010 Orange County Superior Court System.[citation needed] However, unbeknownst to Usability.Pro at the time of entering into these arrangements with Red.com, Red.com’s modus operandi is to hire outside vendors to perform valuable services, import the work product in-house, and then refuse to make all payments owned under the contracts and sue to recover whatever Red.com paid, asserting trumped up allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Red.com has failed to make good on promises it made to its customers to bring the Epic and Scarlet camera systems to the market in 2010. To cover up for its own inability to develop marketable products, Red.com launched a campaign to blame its own failfure on outside partners, designers and manufacturers with whom it contracted to assist in developing Red.com’s camera products. Rather than acknowledge and address its own shortcomings, Red.com’s approach to blame others rather than taking responsibility runs directly counter to the image it seeks to promote in the market as a self-reliant, visionary company that engages in “straight talk” with its customors.
Red.com sued Uniqoptics,et all in 2010, 2:11-cv-03611-VFB-JEM Trademark (Lanham Act)case dismissed. [42]
Red.com sued Uniqoptics et all in Orange County Superior Court 30-2010-00373507 May 2010, Breach of Contract, Fraud. Ongoing litigation
Red.com and Landmine Media sued Andrew Reid and EOSHD (a blogger), on Oct 6, 2010 for Slander, Publication of facts placing in false light, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Mr Andrew Reid changed in Terms and Conditions and case was dismissed. [43]
Red.com sued Nightsky Hosting, Inc dba R3DDATA, Case No8:12-cv-00034-DOC-MLG Jan. 9, 2012.[citation needed]
Red.com sued Epic Games May 5, 2008 8:08-cv-00494-DOC-An
Red.com sued 24P LLC Sept 13, 2007 sacv 07-1013-jvs mlgx (counter claimant)
WIPO CASES Brian Schoemholz et all Trio Films/Cine Red Compalint Denied Zimrat Goldstein from Ontario Canada Redcamfilms slu (complaint denied
D Reid
2 months ago |Red.com vs Epic Games 8:2008-cv-00494
Red.con vs LG Electric 8:2008-cv-00504
Red.com vs Netcast 8:2008-cv-01030
Red.com vs Sony 8:2013-cv-00546 Red.com vs Andrew Reid 8:2010-cv-01505
Red.com vs p Pixellexis 8:2011-cv-01155
Red.com vs Arri 8:2011-cv-01972
Red.com vs Tom Jordan 8:2012-cv-00380
Red.com vs Uniqoptics 2:2011-cv-03611
Red.com vs Nightsky Hostings 8:2012-cv-00034
Red.com vs Wooden Camera 3:2012-cv-01336
Red.com vs 24P,LLC 8:2007-cv-01013