It seems there will be no paid royalties on this one. Nikon has just answered RED’s lawsuit, and it denies almost all infringements regarding the compressed raw patents of RED Digital Cinema. Highlights are below.
Nikon Z9 and the RED One
Nikon denies RED’s accusations
For those who are not in the loop, we’ll make the story short by saying that RED Digital Cinema sued Nikon regarding the Z9 (Nikon’s flagship) internal compressed raw capabilities. RED claims that Nikon infringes RED’s patents that deal with compressed raw. Basically, there were three possible solutions: Nikon pays royalties to use the ability for shooting compressed raw internally, removing this capability, or fighting back. According to Nikon’s answer, it chooses the last option. In the document titled “Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement”, the word “Denies” shows more than 70 times. As stated: “Nikon denies each and every allegation of the Complaint”. Moreover, it seems that Nikon wants to fight back. Below you can find some quotes from the document, including the whole document (each slide has two pages).
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
Nikon admits that it knew about RED’s prior lawsuits involving one or more of the Asserted Patents, including Red.com, LLC v. Kinefinity, Inc., 8-21-cv- 00041 (C.D. Cal.); Red.com, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America et al., 2-16-cv- 00937 (E.D. Tex.); Red.com, Inc. v. Nokia USA Inc. et al., 8-16-cv-00594 (C.D. Cal.); and Red.com, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America et al., 3-13-cv-00334 (S.D. Cal.). Nikon further admits that it has known of the Asserted Patents at least as of the date of the service of the Complaint.
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
Nikon denies that RED is entitled to any relief in this action and asks the Court to deny any and all of the relief requested by RED in its Complaint…RED’s claims for alleged patent infringement fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted…Nikon does not infringe and has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’967 patent, ’560 patent, ’314 patent, ’976 patent, 384 patent, ’866 patent, or ’168 patent (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”)), whether directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents…The ’967 patent, ’560 patent, ’314 patent, and ’976 patent are unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable conduct.
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
On information and belief, in April 2006, RED offered a RED camera incorporating the claimed invention of the ’560 patent for sale at the National Association of Broadcasters show in Las Vegas, Nevada. On information and belief, many attendees paid a $1,000 deposit to reserve the RED camera, which was scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2006 at the time of the show.
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
Moreover, on information and belief, in November 2006, RED participated in a public demonstration of the RED camera at the Nuart Theatre in Los Angeles, California. On information and belief, RED exhibited the RED camera and videos taken by the RED camera at this demonstration. The public use of the RED camera showed that RED sufficiently reduced the claimed invention to practice at least by November 2006.Both RED’s offer for sale and public use of the RED camera occurred more than a year before December 28, 2007, the earliest possible effective filing date of the ’560 patent. However, RED, James Jannard and Thomas Graeme Nattress (the named inventors of the ’560 patent), and their representatives did not disclose the RED camera’s April 2006 offer for sale or November 2006 public use during the prosecution of the ’560 patent. The offer for sale and public use of the RED camera are material, because the PTO would not have allowed the ’560 patent had it been aware of these undisclosed events. Also, on information and belief, RED, the named inventors of the ’560 patent, and their representatives acted with a specific intent to deceive the PTO by withholding information about these events, because they knew that disclosure of either of these events to the PTO would prevent the issuance of the ’560 patent. Accordingly, the ’560 patent and its related patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable conduct.
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
RED is not entitled to injunctive relief because it has, at a minimum, no irreparable injury and an adequate remedy at law for Nikon’s alleged infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. RED will be unable to establish that (1) it has suffered any injury, let alone an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, would be inadequate to compensate for any injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between RED and Nikon, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) the public interest would be served by an injunction
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
WHEREFORE, Nikon prays that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against RED as follows: That RED takes nothing and is denied any relief whatsoever; That RED’s claims against Nikon be dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice; That Nikon be awarded the costs incurred in connection with this action;
Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc’s Answer to RED.COM, Llc’s Complaint For Patent Infringement
Summary
Nikon denies the claimed infringements and fights back. What does this mean to Z9 shooters? Well, the Z9 will still be able to shoot compressed raw internally. This legal process can take some time. Till then, most likely firmware 2.0 stays with all its features. Second, other camera manufacturers might get some balls and implement compressed raw capabilities as well. Let’s see how it goes. We’ll do our best to keep you posted.
Product List
Here’re the products mentioned in the article, and the links to purchase them from authorized dealers.
Yossy is a filmmaker who specializes mainly in action sports cinematography. Yossy also lectures about the art of independent filmmaking in leading educational institutes, academic programs, and festivals, and his independent films have garnered international awards and recognition.
Yossy is the founder of Y.M.Cinema Magazine.
I just love Nikon for this. RED is trying to hold back advancements in digital cameras for its own gain. The consumers are the losers here.
I still don’t understand the logic in general: There were raw photos before RED. That RED comes along and claims taking 24 photos in one second is something special? BS
“ RED comes along and claims taking 24 photos in one second is something special? BS”
Wait, that is sarcasm right? In 2008, what other camera was shooting 30fps RAW continuously in camera? I’m really asking. Am I missing something? Canon 5D??
Very interesting, thank you. Looks like ARRI was always ahead of the game. Unfortunately this particular camera doesn’t seem to apply since it recorded RAW externally. RED’s patent deals with internal compressed RAW. Anyone can record uncompressed RAW or external RAW.
Thanks for letting me know about that camera though. Very cool.
Again, as I’ve said in all my other comments. I wish both companies the best. Trying to overturn RED’s issued patent hasn’t succeeded to date and has always been shut down to date.
RED was the first to provide internal compressed RAW video. And they patented that.
RED’s raw codec definitely gives them an advantage in the industry. ARRI’s build quality, reliability and dynamic range gives them a leg up. And ARRI also has internal uncompressed RAW.
My point is. Companies need to make a better camera and people will use it with or without compressed RAW.
Dalsa Origin was first 4K (!!!) RAW cinema camera, with max framerate of 30 fps.
First version was shown in NAB 2003 conference and it came available as rental(only) item in 2006.
I can’t keep engaging this conversation because I am too busy. This is my last comment. Dalsa Origin outputed RAW externally to an external recorder. It did not have internal RAW recording.
I would happily listen, and even asked if there was a camera I was unaware of that had internal RAW compressed video before RED. RAW is not the patent RED acquired. It acquired the patent for internal compressed RAW recording. I will say again. Internal RAW compressed recording.
I will let all of you continue to propose other cameras that “invented” internal RAW compressed recording before RED. When you actually do, I may engage again.
I still don’t understand why people are angry that RED put internal compressed RAW into a camera and patented it. They are not slowing innovation, they are protecting their intellectual property like any other manufacturer would do. Are you angry with Apple with ProRes??
Let me give you guys a hint. Buy a Blackmagic URSA v1 or v2 or buy a Blackmagic URSA Mini v1. They both still have firmware that allows, wait for it, internal compressed CDNG true RAW recording. I know this because I have owned both and I still have the URSA Mini. They both shoot in 4K and both are excellent cameras for their price point.
Or buy a Z9 and keep the firmware and don’t update it.
If you want true internal RAW, I don’t know any other choices, other than the above workarounds, except RED and ARRI. And for that, you are gonna have to pay for it. Is that what people are mad about? The price point?
But BRAW and Canon RAW Lite are good enough for any filmmaker worth their salt if you need some sort of RAW.
Photo cameras at the time had the ability to capture frames of compressed raw images. Is RED making a camera to do the same innovative? No. They didn’t make the tech.
Go Nikon. Red has patented hot water and doesn’t want anyone else to use it without paying him a license.
RED actually don’t have a leg to stand on here. They can present all the evidence they like but Nikon have the technical documentation to shut out reds claims so it’s already a win for Nikon. Also let’s say the judge is the most corrupt red fanboy and sides with red this will just boost sales of z9s outside of the USA since red can’t do anything about those. All that doesn’t matter anyway because Nikon will win the judgment.
Precedent
A legal term meaning:
“ an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.”
The comments above are talking about feelings. Sure, everyone feels RED should share their patent. If they did, cheaper/better cameras would possess internal compressed RAW.
Drug companies should share their patents. Life saving drugs would be cheaper and more accessible.
Apple should share their patents. For, let’s say, ProRes RAW, or a lightning cable; right?
Or how about a copyright to your book, script or film? I mean anyone could have written it right?
We all “feel” that way unless it is our intellectual property and we hold legal claim over that property. You write a screenplay and someone steals it and makes twenty million at the box office won’t bother you, right?
And the person in the comments that suggested other camera manufacturers should follow Nikon’s lead?
They have. And they have all lost. Even Apple, one of the largest companies on the planet, LOST.
Precedent.
I wish Nikon the best. I “feel” that Nikon is about to lose a lot of money. I “feel” Nikon’s best argument would be, “The Z9 is not a cinema camera. No one is gonna be shooting movies on this!” That lie would make sense. But to say, “Yeah, we new about RED’s patents, but we didn’t infringe them,” just ain’t gonna work.
If anyone could have created compressed RAW in a cinema camera, then they should have done it AND patented it. They didn’t. RED did. That is all RED needs to prove.
And any other camera manufacturer would be holding on to that patent for dear life. And we would be badmouthing Canon or Sony or yes, even Nikon.
Nikon is throwing a Hail Mary hoping they will find a judge that will move this up the appeals. Good luck Nikon.
If you want to bad mouth anyone, bad mouth the patent office.
The problem in your examples is: not all of the ones who went up against Red lost, and the ones who lost used a completely different defense.
But look up Jinni Tech, which was also sued by Red, only to have Red withdraw their lawsuit 2.5 years later when Jinni presented the same argument as Nikon.
Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publically presented or sold within a year of the application. According to Nikon (and Jinni) Red’s problem is that they presented this technology in early 2006 and even started taking money for preorders then–and this is well documented–but Red didn’t apply for the patent until 2008. They also didn’t notify the patent office of these sales and presentations in their application as they were supposed to do.
This is a completely different defense than Apple and others tried. It’s black and white and not interpretive: if Red discussed or demonstrated this and took sales in early 2006–for which there is public video, forum, and announcement evidence of we can all see today–and they applied for the patents after early 2007–again for which there are clear dates in the publically accessible patent–Red might just have a pretty big problem.
And again: look up Red vs Jinni Tech.
So I “feel” Red is about to lose an important source of income for themselves.
Typo: I said “within a year.” It should be: a patent cannot be granted if the technology was publically demonstrated or sold more than a year before the patent application.
The problem in your examples is: not all of the ones who went up against Red lost, and the ones who lost used a completely different defense.
But look up Jinni Tech, which was also sued by Red, only to have Red withdraw their lawsuit 2.5 years later when Jinni presented the same argument as Nikon.
Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publically presented or sold within a year of the application. According to Nikon (and Jinni) Red’s problem is that they presented this technology in early 2006 and even started taking money for preorders then–and this is well documented–but Red didn’t apply for the patent until 2008. They also didn’t notify the patent office of these sales and presentations in their application as they were supposed to do.
This is a completely different defense than Apple and others tried. It’s black and white and not interpretive: if Red discussed or demonstrated this and took sales in early 2006–for which there is public video, forum, and announcement evidence of we can all see today–and they applied for the patents after early 2007–again for which there are clear dates in the publically accessible patent–Red might just have a pretty big problem.
And again: look up Red vs Jinni Tech.
So I “feel” Red is about to lose an important source of income for themselves.
I get you and I wish Nikon the best. And there is nothing wrong with my argument.
“Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publicly presented or sold within a year of the application.”
Apple just made the exact same claim and LOST. Apple said the patent itself is invalid. And lost. Again, take it up with the patent office. Not RED.
Therefore, my argument is “precedent”. If they can find a judge with a different opinion than the one Apple had, good luck. They still have to deal with the precedent already set and then deal with years of appeals. But maybe that’s what Nikon wants. They can drag this out long enough so they can keep RAW in their camera.
But in the end, it may cost them more than what they gain by selling RAW in a camera that, in my opinion, isn’t worth having RAW video in the first place. If ARRI was doing this, I would get it. Canon, sure. Nikon? Heck, maybe they have a cinema camera in the pipeline and they are trying to get it out.
Look guys, I’m not defending RED. I’m also not defending Nikon, or Apple, or Kinefinity. Kinefinity has an excellent 8k camera offering that I would have bought in a second if they could have had internal RAW. A second. Z Cam tried with their excellent little camera.
It is a patent that was granted. And people need to wait until the patent expires or pay. I absolutely hate that Apple has a stranglehold on ProRes RAW, but they do. It is their codec and you have to pay royalties or use an editor that supports it. Period. You can use an external recorder. And yes, none of those options are ideal for filmmakers like us. That is how businesses sell products. That is why an Apple lightning cable still exists. Dongles everywhere.
OR
Do like ARRI and make a better camera! Imagine that. Make a better camera and if you want RAW, record uncompressed RAW.
Like I said before, if it was your property, I think you would be singing a different story if people were stealing that property.
And I don’t know why you asked me to look up Jinni Tech. That case has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Jinni Tech makes/made cheaper storage “Jinnimags” as an alternative to RED’s overpriced proprietary storage on DSMC2. Nothing to do with internal compressed RAW.
Please don’t deceive people with Jinni Tech, a company that was sued over storage media, not RAW. And yes, RED withdrew their suit and dropped the RED minimag prices as a result. Good for Jinni Tech and again, nothing to do with internal compressed RAW.
You are incorrect and are conflating an argument with a conclusion.
And you are speaking from both sides of your mouth, since I don’t know of any drug companies who were sued by Red for violating raw patents, despite you bringing up drug company patents? Why did you bring them up if you are shifting your argument to only talking about one specific patent only?
Apple’s argument was not that Red’s patent was invalid due to Red publicly demonstrating the technology more than a year before filing for the patent. Apple’s argument was that the patent was invalid due to overlap with similar prior patents.
While both Apple’s and Nikon’s arguments attempt to support the same conclusion (that the patent is invalid), they are completely different arguments. Conclusions are one thing, and arguments are another.
Jinni Tech used the same argument against Red as Nikon is using against Red. It was for a different patent; but it was for the exact same demonstrations and products. The storage was another part of the same camera that used compressed raw, and Nikon and Jinni point to the same demonstrations.
Look at Defenses (aka arguments) #7 & #8. Those are the same arguments Nikon is using. And Red dropped their lawsuit against Jinni after that defense.
Regarding the fact that a patent was granted: once again, Nikon is claiming that Red illegally and deceitfully withheld information from the patent office when they applied for the patent. If this is the case, the patent will be invalidated, according to USPTO rules. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html
Did you read this following part of Nikon’s argument in the article above?
“However, RED, James Jannard and Thomas Graeme Nattress (the named inventors of the ’560 patent), and their representatives did not disclose the RED camera’s April 2006 offer for sale or November 2006 public use during the prosecution of the ’560 patent. The offer for sale and public use of the RED camera are material, because the PTO would not have allowed the ’560 patent had it been aware of these undisclosed events. Also, on information and belief, RED, the named inventors of the ’560 patent, and their representatives acted with a specific intent to deceive the PTO by withholding information about these events, because they knew that disclosure of either of these events to the PTO would prevent the issuance of the ’560 patent.”
Apple didn’t make this argument or anything close to it. Jinni did. And now Nikon did.
It’s illogical to jump to the conclusion that just because Apple lost with a completely different argument, Nikon will too. Especially when this exact same argument has already worked against Red in the case of Jinni.
None of that is precedent. Not unless you think NRaw is Prores with a different name.
Red can’t say Apple lost therefore you lose. Red needs to prove Nikon has infringed.
Nikon is also making the point that EVEN if they lose the MOST Red should get is money. That’s an effective loss for RED. In other words even if Red wins and are award damages they lose.
People have mentioned that red wants licensing fees. Well outside of maybe Canon who have they licensed it to? It’s pretty clear Red has no interest in license fees. Their one trick is keeping the product off the market
If Nikon wins, which I sincerely wish for them, those companies that have been defeated by Red in past litigations should file new damage claims, since and if, the patent is canceled! It will be a breakthrough in cinematography!
OFG (Old Fast Glass) has picked up the gauntlet and made a custom rig for the Fujifilm GFX100 II, titled OFG Customs 65 (named on the 65-sized sensor). The goal was to…
Following the success of the mighty 70mm celluloid in Oppenheimer and Dune Part Two, IMAX CEO confirms that Joker 2 (“Joker: Folie à Deux”) will also be screened in 70mm theaters. However,…
Canon has announced a new 27x portable broadcast zoom lens and next-generation digital drive unit. The lens titled CJ27ex7.3B, is Canon’s first 2/3” portable lens with a class-leading 27x optical zoom, which…
DZOFILM introduces three new focal lengths to its PAVO Anamorphic series. Joining the lineup are the Macro 65mm T2.8, 135mm T2.5, and 180mm T2.8 lenses. One standout addition to the latest PAVO…
Grant Petty knocked it out of the park. Blackmagic dropped a bombshell at NAB 2024, announcing not one, but two(!) high-end super-specs full-frame cinema cameras. Meet the URSA Cine 12K Camera and…
I just love Nikon for this. RED is trying to hold back advancements in digital cameras for its own gain. The consumers are the losers here.
I still don’t understand the logic in general: There were raw photos before RED. That RED comes along and claims taking 24 photos in one second is something special? BS
“ RED comes along and claims taking 24 photos in one second is something special? BS”
Wait, that is sarcasm right? In 2008, what other camera was shooting 30fps RAW continuously in camera? I’m really asking. Am I missing something? Canon 5D??
Or was that sarcasm?
Arri D-20 was released in 2005 with those specs:
2880 x 2160 RAW 12 bit Bayer data @ 23.976p, 24p, 25p
2880 x 1620 RAW 12 bit Bayer data @ 29.97p, 30p
Very interesting, thank you. Looks like ARRI was always ahead of the game. Unfortunately this particular camera doesn’t seem to apply since it recorded RAW externally. RED’s patent deals with internal compressed RAW. Anyone can record uncompressed RAW or external RAW.
Thanks for letting me know about that camera though. Very cool.
Again, as I’ve said in all my other comments. I wish both companies the best. Trying to overturn RED’s issued patent hasn’t succeeded to date and has always been shut down to date.
RED was the first to provide internal compressed RAW video. And they patented that.
RED’s raw codec definitely gives them an advantage in the industry. ARRI’s build quality, reliability and dynamic range gives them a leg up. And ARRI also has internal uncompressed RAW.
My point is. Companies need to make a better camera and people will use it with or without compressed RAW.
We shall see.
Dalsa Origin was first 4K (!!!) RAW cinema camera, with max framerate of 30 fps.
First version was shown in NAB 2003 conference and it came available as rental(only) item in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalsa_Origin
… so Red DID NOT “invent” digital raw capturing -based cinema camera.
I can’t keep engaging this conversation because I am too busy. This is my last comment. Dalsa Origin outputed RAW externally to an external recorder. It did not have internal RAW recording.
I would happily listen, and even asked if there was a camera I was unaware of that had internal RAW compressed video before RED. RAW is not the patent RED acquired. It acquired the patent for internal compressed RAW recording. I will say again. Internal RAW compressed recording.
I will let all of you continue to propose other cameras that “invented” internal RAW compressed recording before RED. When you actually do, I may engage again.
I still don’t understand why people are angry that RED put internal compressed RAW into a camera and patented it. They are not slowing innovation, they are protecting their intellectual property like any other manufacturer would do. Are you angry with Apple with ProRes??
Let me give you guys a hint. Buy a Blackmagic URSA v1 or v2 or buy a Blackmagic URSA Mini v1. They both still have firmware that allows, wait for it, internal compressed CDNG true RAW recording. I know this because I have owned both and I still have the URSA Mini. They both shoot in 4K and both are excellent cameras for their price point.
Or buy a Z9 and keep the firmware and don’t update it.
If you want true internal RAW, I don’t know any other choices, other than the above workarounds, except RED and ARRI. And for that, you are gonna have to pay for it. Is that what people are mad about? The price point?
But BRAW and Canon RAW Lite are good enough for any filmmaker worth their salt if you need some sort of RAW.
I’m out.
And for the last time.
I wish Nikon the best. Good luck.
Photo cameras at the time had the ability to capture frames of compressed raw images. Is RED making a camera to do the same innovative? No. They didn’t make the tech.
Go Nikon. Red has patented hot water and doesn’t want anyone else to use it without paying him a license.
RED actually don’t have a leg to stand on here. They can present all the evidence they like but Nikon have the technical documentation to shut out reds claims so it’s already a win for Nikon. Also let’s say the judge is the most corrupt red fanboy and sides with red this will just boost sales of z9s outside of the USA since red can’t do anything about those. All that doesn’t matter anyway because Nikon will win the judgment.
Precedent
A legal term meaning:
“ an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.”
The comments above are talking about feelings. Sure, everyone feels RED should share their patent. If they did, cheaper/better cameras would possess internal compressed RAW.
Drug companies should share their patents. Life saving drugs would be cheaper and more accessible.
Apple should share their patents. For, let’s say, ProRes RAW, or a lightning cable; right?
Or how about a copyright to your book, script or film? I mean anyone could have written it right?
We all “feel” that way unless it is our intellectual property and we hold legal claim over that property. You write a screenplay and someone steals it and makes twenty million at the box office won’t bother you, right?
And the person in the comments that suggested other camera manufacturers should follow Nikon’s lead?
They have. And they have all lost. Even Apple, one of the largest companies on the planet, LOST.
Precedent.
I wish Nikon the best. I “feel” that Nikon is about to lose a lot of money. I “feel” Nikon’s best argument would be, “The Z9 is not a cinema camera. No one is gonna be shooting movies on this!” That lie would make sense. But to say, “Yeah, we new about RED’s patents, but we didn’t infringe them,” just ain’t gonna work.
If anyone could have created compressed RAW in a cinema camera, then they should have done it AND patented it. They didn’t. RED did. That is all RED needs to prove.
And any other camera manufacturer would be holding on to that patent for dear life. And we would be badmouthing Canon or Sony or yes, even Nikon.
Nikon is throwing a Hail Mary hoping they will find a judge that will move this up the appeals. Good luck Nikon.
If you want to bad mouth anyone, bad mouth the patent office.
We shall see.
The problem in your examples is: not all of the ones who went up against Red lost, and the ones who lost used a completely different defense.
But look up Jinni Tech, which was also sued by Red, only to have Red withdraw their lawsuit 2.5 years later when Jinni presented the same argument as Nikon.
Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publically presented or sold within a year of the application. According to Nikon (and Jinni) Red’s problem is that they presented this technology in early 2006 and even started taking money for preorders then–and this is well documented–but Red didn’t apply for the patent until 2008. They also didn’t notify the patent office of these sales and presentations in their application as they were supposed to do.
This is a completely different defense than Apple and others tried. It’s black and white and not interpretive: if Red discussed or demonstrated this and took sales in early 2006–for which there is public video, forum, and announcement evidence of we can all see today–and they applied for the patents after early 2007–again for which there are clear dates in the publically accessible patent–Red might just have a pretty big problem.
And again: look up Red vs Jinni Tech.
So I “feel” Red is about to lose an important source of income for themselves.
Typo: I said “within a year.” It should be: a patent cannot be granted if the technology was publically demonstrated or sold more than a year before the patent application.
The problem in your examples is: not all of the ones who went up against Red lost, and the ones who lost used a completely different defense.
But look up Jinni Tech, which was also sued by Red, only to have Red withdraw their lawsuit 2.5 years later when Jinni presented the same argument as Nikon.
Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publically presented or sold within a year of the application. According to Nikon (and Jinni) Red’s problem is that they presented this technology in early 2006 and even started taking money for preorders then–and this is well documented–but Red didn’t apply for the patent until 2008. They also didn’t notify the patent office of these sales and presentations in their application as they were supposed to do.
This is a completely different defense than Apple and others tried. It’s black and white and not interpretive: if Red discussed or demonstrated this and took sales in early 2006–for which there is public video, forum, and announcement evidence of we can all see today–and they applied for the patents after early 2007–again for which there are clear dates in the publically accessible patent–Red might just have a pretty big problem.
And again: look up Red vs Jinni Tech.
So I “feel” Red is about to lose an important source of income for themselves.
I get you and I wish Nikon the best. And there is nothing wrong with my argument.
“Nikon’s claim is that Red illegally applied for the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. In the US, one can only be granted a patent if the technology was not publicly presented or sold within a year of the application.”
Apple just made the exact same claim and LOST. Apple said the patent itself is invalid. And lost. Again, take it up with the patent office. Not RED.
Therefore, my argument is “precedent”. If they can find a judge with a different opinion than the one Apple had, good luck. They still have to deal with the precedent already set and then deal with years of appeals. But maybe that’s what Nikon wants. They can drag this out long enough so they can keep RAW in their camera.
But in the end, it may cost them more than what they gain by selling RAW in a camera that, in my opinion, isn’t worth having RAW video in the first place. If ARRI was doing this, I would get it. Canon, sure. Nikon? Heck, maybe they have a cinema camera in the pipeline and they are trying to get it out.
Look guys, I’m not defending RED. I’m also not defending Nikon, or Apple, or Kinefinity. Kinefinity has an excellent 8k camera offering that I would have bought in a second if they could have had internal RAW. A second. Z Cam tried with their excellent little camera.
It is a patent that was granted. And people need to wait until the patent expires or pay. I absolutely hate that Apple has a stranglehold on ProRes RAW, but they do. It is their codec and you have to pay royalties or use an editor that supports it. Period. You can use an external recorder. And yes, none of those options are ideal for filmmakers like us. That is how businesses sell products. That is why an Apple lightning cable still exists. Dongles everywhere.
OR
Do like ARRI and make a better camera! Imagine that. Make a better camera and if you want RAW, record uncompressed RAW.
Like I said before, if it was your property, I think you would be singing a different story if people were stealing that property.
And I don’t know why you asked me to look up Jinni Tech. That case has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Jinni Tech makes/made cheaper storage “Jinnimags” as an alternative to RED’s overpriced proprietary storage on DSMC2. Nothing to do with internal compressed RAW.
Please don’t deceive people with Jinni Tech, a company that was sued over storage media, not RAW. And yes, RED withdrew their suit and dropped the RED minimag prices as a result. Good for Jinni Tech and again, nothing to do with internal compressed RAW.
We shall see.
You are incorrect and are conflating an argument with a conclusion.
And you are speaking from both sides of your mouth, since I don’t know of any drug companies who were sued by Red for violating raw patents, despite you bringing up drug company patents? Why did you bring them up if you are shifting your argument to only talking about one specific patent only?
Apple’s argument was not that Red’s patent was invalid due to Red publicly demonstrating the technology more than a year before filing for the patent. Apple’s argument was that the patent was invalid due to overlap with similar prior patents.
While both Apple’s and Nikon’s arguments attempt to support the same conclusion (that the patent is invalid), they are completely different arguments. Conclusions are one thing, and arguments are another.
Jinni Tech used the same argument against Red as Nikon is using against Red. It was for a different patent; but it was for the exact same demonstrations and products. The storage was another part of the same camera that used compressed raw, and Nikon and Jinni point to the same demonstrations.
In fact, here is a part of Jinni’s response:https://www.dropbox.com/s/xekq5vwjzsirvpm/Why%20Red%20patents%20are%20invalid.pdf
Look at Defenses (aka arguments) #7 & #8. Those are the same arguments Nikon is using. And Red dropped their lawsuit against Jinni after that defense.
Regarding the fact that a patent was granted: once again, Nikon is claiming that Red illegally and deceitfully withheld information from the patent office when they applied for the patent. If this is the case, the patent will be invalidated, according to USPTO rules. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2016.html
Did you read this following part of Nikon’s argument in the article above?
“However, RED, James Jannard and Thomas Graeme Nattress (the named inventors of the ’560 patent), and their representatives did not disclose the RED camera’s April 2006 offer for sale or November 2006 public use during the prosecution of the ’560 patent. The offer for sale and public use of the RED camera are material, because the PTO would not have allowed the ’560 patent had it been aware of these undisclosed events. Also, on information and belief, RED, the named inventors of the ’560 patent, and their representatives acted with a specific intent to deceive the PTO by withholding information about these events, because they knew that disclosure of either of these events to the PTO would prevent the issuance of the ’560 patent.”
Apple didn’t make this argument or anything close to it. Jinni did. And now Nikon did.
It’s illogical to jump to the conclusion that just because Apple lost with a completely different argument, Nikon will too. Especially when this exact same argument has already worked against Red in the case of Jinni.
Told ya’:
https://ymcinema.com/2023/04/27/red-vs-nikon-case-dismissed/
🙂
None of that is precedent. Not unless you think NRaw is Prores with a different name.
Red can’t say Apple lost therefore you lose. Red needs to prove Nikon has infringed.
Nikon is also making the point that EVEN if they lose the MOST Red should get is money. That’s an effective loss for RED. In other words even if Red wins and are award damages they lose.
People have mentioned that red wants licensing fees. Well outside of maybe Canon who have they licensed it to? It’s pretty clear Red has no interest in license fees. Their one trick is keeping the product off the market
If Nikon wins, which I sincerely wish for them, those companies that have been defeated by Red in past litigations should file new damage claims, since and if, the patent is canceled! It will be a breakthrough in cinematography!