Yesterday, California Central District Court released an update regarding the Red.com, LLC v. Nikon Corporation et al lawsuit. In short, the case is dismissed. That means the flagship Nikon Z9 keeps its compressed raw codecs.
RED vs. Nikon
A reminder — RED Digital Cinema (RED.com) has sued Nikon for the implementation of compressed raw recording capabilities in the Z9 flagship camera. In return, Nikon has denied all of RED’s claims and fought back. As a result, the jury trial was set for January 2024. Yesterday, the California Central District Court published the JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL. The case was dismissed. As stated: Plaintiff Red.com, LLC and Defendants Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc. hereby stipulate and move pursuant to this joint motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that this action be dismissed without prejudice as to all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, defenses, and parties, with each party bearing their own attorney’s fees and costs. Below you can explore the docket:
Plaintiff Red.com, LLC and Defendants Nikon Corporation and Nikon Inc. hereby stipulate and move pursuant to this joint motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), that this action be dismissed without prejudice as to all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, defenses, and parties, with each party bearing their own attorney’s fees and costs.
Initial thoughts
I’m not a lawyer, nor a legal expert. However, this decision means that the Nikon Z9 keeps (for now) its compressed raw capabilities (ProRes RAW and N-RAW). Although the case was dismissed without prejudice, it doesn’t indicate that Nikon purely won. We don’t know the course of events that happened behind the curtain, but it’s most likely that Nikon will pay royalties for RED. It’s not likely though, that Nikon will raise the price of the Z9, but absorbs the licensing fee itself. Anyway, enjoy your N-RAW.
Product List
Here’re the products mentioned in the article, and the links to purchase them from authorized dealers.
- Nikon Z9 Mirrorless Camera
..or that Red had no valid infringement case and both sides agreed to pull back which seems more likely since a loss could have invalidated its patents.
Saying that they’re just paying Red seems totally inconceivable considering they proved that Red’s Patent was fraudulent. They stated that Red sold cameras before applying for the patent, making their patent false and unenforceable. I’m thinking Red decided to stop this because when this gets out anyone can have their own compressed raw camera.
If they sued Apple and won, and stopped DJI from keeping raw in their camera, Nikon must have done something different for this.
Excuse me?? “… stopped DJI from keeping raw in their camera”?? On which planet exactly?
They just released ANOTHER Inspire with ProRes RAW recording capabilities and the previous PRRAW cams still do it, too.
Inspire 3 is a drone, not a camera. So either Red licensed the patent or DJI thinks it is on pretty good standing having had ProRes raw in the Inspire 2 before. At any rate, the Ronin 4D is what Filmmakerbuddy is referring to.
Pretty positive for this to be so easily dismissed, Nikon just gave RED any royalty fees owed. Canon did it. RED had to pay Canon for their RF mount tech royalties. Everyone wins.
I will say, even with Raw in the Nikon Z9 for vid, the latitude is terrible. Seriously, the Sony A1 in 422 10bit has more information in highlights
Doubt that Nikon gave Red royalties. The case was dismissed without prejudice.
Nikon is a public company it couldn’t hide information that could be commercially important like agreeing to pay royalties. This is not a settlement it’s an agreement to dismiss.
I hope Nikon did not pay Red for N-Raw.
N-Raw is not even a real Raw format, and has problems all over and yes dynamic range is same as log. No one can use it professionally .