Thread: Apple seeks to invalidate Red's Raw patent claims

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59
  1. #1 Apple seeks to invalidate Red's Raw patent claims 
    Interesting: https://www.eoshd.com/2019/08/apple-...patent-claims/
    Apple's expert: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PT...on_Redcom_314/

    Probably a consequence of ProRes Raw and previous related lawsuits initiated by Red (eg. against Sony):
    https://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/mor...rd-red-lawsuit


    I studied Patent law and the one thing that I can tell you is that patent law is is dire need of reform in the US for a lot of different reasons: https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?s...doc_id=1333431
    Last edited by Carlos Garcia-Diaz; 08-15-2019 at 08:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    California
    Posts
    74
    Jarred's reply on FB-

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Fabricio Morato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florianópolis, SC - Brazil
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Grubbs View Post
    Jarred's reply on FB-

    where on FB? couldn't find it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Brandon Veen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabricio Morato View Post
    where on FB? couldn't find it...
    Here's the quote:

    Lol... Apple did not file a lawsuit against Red but rather filed two inter parties re-exam requests with the Patent Office. This is standard operating procedure for patent holders.
    We have a fantastic relationship with Apple and as they publicly announced in June RED and APPLE continue to work on incredible things.... this is all just part of the process 
    And for the people that want to challenge... it is not the first time someone has challenged the Redcode patents and it won’t be the last... and each time our patents have held fast.
    It's in the Red DSMC2 group on a share of the EOSHD article.
    Brandon Veen | Digital Curator at Hedderich's
    Epic-X Dragon #08127 + Fujifilm GFX50R + Leica BLK360
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Fabricio Morato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florianópolis, SC - Brazil
    Posts
    312
    Thanks! Had no idea about this group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,657
    Ning Zhang et al., “Lossless Compression of Color Mosaic
    Images,” IEEE Transactions in Image Processing, vol. 16, no. 6
    (June 2006) (“Zhang”), Ex. 1007;
    • Ben Long, REAL WORLD APERTURE, 1st ed. (July 21, 2006)
    (“Long”), Ex. 1008;

    etc..

    Ed David also found a lot of interesting stuff, when the patents hold, they hold, when not it's good news for the majority of camera users (from smartphones all the way to the highest end).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Well said Phil. This Andrew guy broke a professional and private agreement with Red and Jarred. Not only that he made a private agreement public. Red needs to take legal action against this internet bullying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Brandon Veen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts
    173
    I think Erik does a decent job of telling, currently, what little of a story there is there. I highly doubt it'll appease those on the EOSHD and personal-view forums as it's a bit of a mess reading through those, and they already have a clear bias against 'clueless' Newshooter for "not knowing the story" the way they do. It's very much a bit too extremely anti-RED for anti-RED's sake to take what they're saying very seriously.

    Apparently one guy threw something on Wikipedia so "reputable journalists will have somewhere to copy paste from" and another has been trying to get a major publication (NYTimes, Gizmodo, etc) to cover the story. While it seems like most of them are doing this out of spite for one reason or another, it does look like at least one of them just wants to see REDCODE-like codecs in other cameras.

    I think you bring up a good point I hadn't thought of Phil, of that the story getting to Andrew Reid in the first place likely was just bait to keep the anti-RED fire going. It's not too far off to think that enough people who see this are going to be asking to get a follow-up video from Linus, or another Cinema5D article, or even another Louis Rossmann video on the JinniTech situation as a whole. As these things tend to go.

    Back on the topic as a whole, this seems less to do with the year-and-a-half old ProRes RAW codec and more with something else, as you'd think if Apple's original intention was to make ProRes RAW compressed similarly to REDCODE, they would have filed their Patent Appeal long before May. If we go strictly that this was a company formality route, maybe it's as simple as something to do with Apple's upcoming Afterburner FPGA.
    Brandon Veen | Digital Curator at Hedderich's
    Epic-X Dragon #08127 + Fujifilm GFX50R + Leica BLK360
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,299
    That's correct: a complaint about a patent is not a lawsuit "against Red" per se. But if Apple invalidates the patent, then the end result will be just as devastating.

    I've said for years, "Apple has more lawyers on staff than most small corporations have employees," and they are world-class experts when it comes to patent law. You piss off Apple, they can keep you tied up in court for years and years and years, on every continent and in every country.

    The nutty Jinnimag guy has some interesting information about the early days of Red's demos and patent applications, and on paper, he presents a compelling case. I have no doubt there's more to the story here than is presented.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon Veen View Post
    ...it does look like at least one of them just wants to see REDCODE-like codecs in other cameras..
    That could be one of the reasons, but please read the analysis written by Apple's expert if you want to at least understand where they are coming from: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PT...on_Redcom_314/

    Several points.
    1. All of the claims in the original patent were initially denied (some for reasons specified in the link above), and the patent was eventually approved through extensions and supplemental materials that Red submitted in support of the patent over the last 10 years or so (read above for more detailed discussion of chronology).
    2. Specifically, there are two concepts in patent law that could invalidate Red's patent, prior art and obviousness. Basically, you can't patent something that already existed in some form (prior art) and you can't patent something that is an obvious extension of already existing technology (no novelty). This is what Apple is arguing. Now, I studied patent law about a decade ago (I am not patent lawyer) and so I am somewhat familiar with its concepts, but patent law is also highly technical, and this is where I have no clue (I know nothing about the tech, and this is there experts will come in).

    If I had to take an educated guess, the patent will eventually be invalidated (just my opinion, others will obviously disagree). Only time will tell what the USPTO eventually decides.
    Last edited by Carlos Garcia-Diaz; 08-15-2019 at 07:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts