Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple vs Red - Red pushes to make proceedings secret

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Apple vs Red - Red pushes to make proceedings secret

    While I'm no lawyer (thankfully - looks like nasty business), it looks like RED is asking for all proceedings to be made secret, and deny access to the case to the general public.

    Here's a link to RED's request - which looks like it has been granted.... and also to their request for a preliminary judgement

    https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PT...425_and_4254a/

    Might want to download all related documents from docketalarm.com - as they'll disappear.

    Again, I'm no lawyer but it looks like RED is not standing still - and despite being in the wrong - looks like their lawyers are scoring all the points here. Fingers crossed they'll lose and we get REAL raw back!

    Anyone who has an understanding of legaleze care to chime in?

  • #2
    A plaintiff or defendant can request that court documents regarding the proceedings be sealed. This is to protect any disclosure of other parties that may be named in future lawsuits or ongoing litigation in the documents that can affect their position or case, or possibly potential disclosure of intellectual properties that are disclosed during the proceedings that can put it at risk from other competitors after a judgement or settlement. It's typical in high profile cases and usually granted.

    Comment


    • #3
      So is that means that even if Apple wins, RED may keep sue other companies that use in-camera RAW? And if other companies want to dispute it, they should start all same sue process from scratch and find their own proofs?
      All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shijan View Post
        So is that means that even if Apple wins, RED may keep sue other companies that use in-camera RAW? And if other companies want to dispute it, they should start all same sue process from scratch and find their own proofs?
        With the proceedings document sealed everything hereon forward will be speculation. Any speculation is just that so not worth having this post extend with just speculations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by EYu View Post
          With the proceedings document sealed everything hereon forward will be speculation. Any speculation is just that so not worth having this post extend with just speculations.
          Irrespective, many have the full documentation including the laughable proof presented by RED. All can be considered speculation, in all threads on all Forums, as none of us are steakholders in this case. Dosen't stop us from discussing the case at hand and RED's attempt at patenting obvious and elementary concepts in image digitization, manipulation and compression.

          Laughed hard when the 'proof' presented was the RED CEO staring at a camera - could have been a Lego set for all the Judges know.... what kind of proof is that? Dosen't mean there's anything patentable in there if RED's minions reinvented the wheel without anknowledging half the world had been there before............
          Last edited by SottoTerra; 09-01-2019, 10:30 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shijan View Post
            So is that means that even if Apple wins, RED may keep sue other companies that use in-camera RAW? And if other companies want to dispute it, they should start all same sue process from scratch and find their own proofs?
            No... the way I understand it, Apple is asking the patent office to nullify RED's patent on RAW video recording, if Apple wins then RED have no claim to theconcept RAW video recording directly in camera, nor will anyone else - the patent will be recognized as being a mistake - as all concepts had been patented before - or are 'obvious'.

            Something which shouldn't have been granted in the first place - but apparently the Jannard guy has deep pockets and even deeper connections...... In my opinion, Apple want to make ProRes RAW an industry standard, to claw back some credibility in the professional sector. RED is claiming they're the defacto owners of RAW video stored as RGB values direct from a bayer sensor without debayering, Apple will have none of this BS.

            Considering Canon, Nikon, Minolta, (pre-Sony buyout), Pentax and Phase One (to name a few) have been storing RAW frames for ages before the Jannard guy started playing with camcorders, let alone dreamt of making one, and considering CDNG is simply RAW photos stored in a continous burst at a precise frame rate - I fail to understand what was there to patent in the first place and how anyone could be duped into believing RED created something new.
            Last edited by SottoTerra; 09-01-2019, 10:33 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SottoTerra View Post
              Irrespective, many have the full documentation including the laughable proof presented by RED. All can be considered speculation, in all threads on all Forums, as none of us are steakholders in this case. Dosen't stop us from discussing the case at hand and RED's attempt at patenting obvious and elementary concepts in image digitization, manipulation and compression.

              Laughed hard when the 'proof' presented was the RED CEO staring at a camera - could have been a Lego set for all the Judges know.... what kind of proof is that? Dosen't mean there's anything patentable in there if RED's minions reinvented the wheel without anknowledging half the world had been there before............
              Indeed, the 'proof' presented was laughable, including the film director who's last film was shot on an iPhone, extrolling RED ONE's technical virtues... yet as many will know, RED has won and Apple's challenge was rejected as too generic. I guess the judges were technical noobs or corrupt... either way, we'll have to wait a bit longer for 'true' raw to return to current Blackmagic cameras.......

              Comment


              • #8
                Red's patents have withstood multiple challenges so far and remain intact. They specifically cover lossy compression and recording of raw Bayer data and lossless Huffman compression recording of raw Bayer data in motion picture cameras at 23fps and above. Something that no one had done before Red.
                They developed the technology and produce products using it. They do license the IP to third parties.
                CDNG raw is not covered by the patents, compressed or not, so there are alternatives.
                Personally I think they deserve to benefit from what they spent millions inventing and refining.
                Apple's case was so weak it didn't make it past the patent examiner's review to go to trial.

                Comment

                Working...
                X