[HN Gopher] RED is suing Nikon for infringing on its video compr...
___________________________________________________________________
RED is suing Nikon for infringing on its video compression patents
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 147 points
Date : 2022-05-27 17:29 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nikonrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nikonrumors.com)
| ryandamm wrote:
| I haven't pulled the patents, but they probably have to do with
| compressing the pre-debayered image. Apple sends Red a big check
| every year for the same patents; I believe they're part of ProRes
| but not sure.
|
| Essentially, by compressing the raw RGB data coming off the
| sensor (where each pixel only has R, or G, or B) you avoid the
| data explosion of interpolating color values at each pixel. It's
| a technique for compressing raw files, and Red was early to the
| game.
|
| Perhaps someone on here has more detailed technical info, I
| haven't actually read the patents, just talked to engineers close
| to the project.
| blenderdt wrote:
| I believe there are two things to keep in mind here:
|
| 1. There is the idea of compressing each Bayer color.
|
| 2. There is the compression method.
|
| I believe this issue is about point 2, the compression. But it
| seems that Nikon is using a different compression so I am not
| sure Red will win this.
|
| Edit: from the legal document, I believe it is about this part:
|
| _" The camera can be configured to transform blue and red
| image data in a manner that enhances the compressibility of the
| data. The data can then be compressed and stored in this form.
| This allows a user to reconstruct the red and blue data to
| obtain the original raw data for a modified version of the
| original raw data that is visually lossless when demosaiced.
| Additionally, the data can be processed so the green image
| elements are demosaiced first and then the red and blue
| elements are reconstructed based on values of the demosaiced
| green image elements."_
| akira2501 wrote:
| Sounds a lot like converting "left-right" audio into "mid-
| side" audio for the same benefits.
| AnonCoward4 wrote:
| That quote sounds a lot like 1. (the idea of compressing each
| Bayer color), but I might misunderstand it.
| acchow wrote:
| Mindblowing that this technique is patentable
| int0x2e wrote:
| Until tested in court, many, many things are patentable...
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| It's been tested in court.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-apple-prores-raw-red-
| pat...
|
| Major patent reform is required.
| ryandamm wrote:
| We actually have had major patent reform! Look into IPR
| review, the Alice Supreme Court decision, and the patent
| reform act of ... was it 2012? 2013?
|
| The IP landscape is wildly different than it was when
| these patents were first filed. That they've held up
| under scrutiny implies they're not _total_ junk.
|
| Also, it probably still needs reform. But my
| understanding from talking to lawyers (who I was paying,
| to be fair), it's better than it was.
| ryandamm wrote:
| Keep in mind that video cameras of that era were mostly not
| bayer pattern sensors, at least for professional television
| cameras. They were three, full raster sensors, typically with
| an interference-based prism block shunting blue, green, and
| red light to different sensors. These were so-called "three
| chip" cameras, the optics of which dates back to analog
| cameras that used tubes.
|
| Bayer pattern sensors were more common in DSLRs, because they
| were an extension of 35mm film, and you had to have a single,
| flat imaging device to work with film optics.
|
| In the film industry, the only digital cameras were the Sony
| F900 series (iirc) which I believe had the three-chip design,
| the Thomson Viper (again, memory foggy), and maybe the
| Panasonic Varicam... I don't know if the Viper or Varicam
| were single sensor, but they evidently weren't Bayer pattern
| or didn't compress the Bayer pattern. (I think at least one
| had RGB stripe layout, which is just inherently inferior.)
|
| So yeah, it's obvious now. But it was patentable then,
| because nobody (or very few) had ever made a Bayer pattern
| sensor for a video camera. It's easy to forget how long ago
| 2007 was, at least until I try to get out of bed in the
| mornings.
| mort96 wrote:
| But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer
| pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, _anyone_ with
| decent knowledge about compression and the technology they
| 're working with should be able to come up with compressing
| before de-bayering. Is something really patentable just
| because it applies to non-mainstream technology?
|
| From the sounds of it, the patent literally seems to be
| about... compressing the data you get off of the image
| sensor. And that's it. Or are there important details I'm
| missing?
| [deleted]
| jpe90 wrote:
| > But if you had a raw image from a camera with a bayer
| pattern, and you were tasked to compress it, anyone with
| decent knowledge about compression and the technology
| they're working with should be able to come up with
| compressing before de-bayering. Is something really
| patentable just because it applies to non-mainstream
| technology?
|
| Actually this exact reasoning is textbook grounds for
| rejecting a patent application. If a "person having
| ordinary skill in the art" would trivially come up with
| the claimed invention, a patent application can be
| rejected without a reference of prior art by citing
| obviousness of the invention. If what you're saying is
| true, the examiner that originally granted the parent was
| probably not familiar with the subject matter(which is
| common).
|
| Source: was a patent examiner a good while back
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yes that's the theory, but in practice patent offices
| massively err on the side of "eh it's probably novel,
| we'll let the courts sort it out later, oh and by the way
| here's our fee".
| jeffbee wrote:
| There was a Bayer-filter camcorder on the market in 1997:
| the Canon Optura (or MV1, outside America).
| sitkack wrote:
| That was such a great camera! That and my Nikon 990 were
| my transition to a full digital video and still image
| workflow.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| There's a good wikipedia page for anyone interested in how
| the 3 sensors were implemented:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-CCD_camera
| formerly_proven wrote:
| There's a fascinating detail about 3CCD/3CMOS that's not
| mentioned in that article, namely that the sensors aren't
| actually in the same plane, but slightly offset in depth
| (probably because of the filter films between the
| prisms). Broadcast lenses are specifically corrected for
| being either 3CCD or 1CCD, the former having a back-focal
| distance that varies with wavelength, so that red is
| focused in the red's sensor plane and so on. You cannot
| reasonably use one kind of lens on the other kind of
| system. Almost all broadcast lenses that shore up on eBay
| are for 3CCD - so they're pretty useless for use with
| "normal" small-format cameras, even if their specs are
| otherwise enticing.
| failTide wrote:
| > Bayer pattern sensors were more common in DSLRs, because
| they were an extension of 35mm film, and you had to have a
| single, flat imaging device to work with film optics.
|
| A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs before
| more dedicated devices became available (myself included).
| Is there actually a fundamental difference between a DSLR
| and video camera at that point?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> A lot of people were shooting video with their DSLRs
| before more dedicated devices became available_
|
| I doubt it. DSLRs didn't have video shooting capabilities
| till quite later on (late 00's?) compared to phones and
| point and shoot digital cameras which did much earlier.
| failTide wrote:
| Yeah you're right - I was off by a few years. Seems like
| it wasn't common until 2009
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Apple actually tried (and failed) to break RAW from the RED
| royalties in 2019, so I believe you are correct.
|
| https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-11-apple-prores-raw-red-pat...
| walrus01 wrote:
| for people accustomed to looking at highly compressed video
| data (like mpeg2, H264 or H265/HEVC file, VP9, AV1, etc), what
| we're looking at here is a whole other category of barely-
| compressed high bitrate video used by professional cameras. It
| saves a lot of SSD recording storage space vs truly raw video
| but also leaves the video in a state to be further edited and
| cut together, then compressed into a final output product much
| later in the work flow.
|
| The ordinary consumer will never see these video file formats,
| unless they go buy at least a $2500 blackmagic pocket 6k pro
| and add another $2500 of lenses and accessories to make it
| useful.
| amelius wrote:
| > Essentially, by compressing the raw RGB data coming off the
| sensor (where each pixel only has R, or G, or B) you avoid the
| data explosion of interpolating color values at each pixel.
| It's a technique for compressing raw files, and Red was early
| to the game.
|
| So the novelty is that they separate R,G and B planes before
| compression?
|
| There are other compression algorithms that work with other
| colorspaces, giving even better compression. E.g. splitting
| luminance and chromatic components. I think these algorithms
| might also be older.
| ryandamm wrote:
| Well... yeah, that's the crux of it.
|
| But the patented part is treating each channel separately;
| the actual compression algorithm isn't at issue (which, in
| Red's case, is JPEG2000).
|
| That said, as soon as you get into colorspace conversions or
| color sampling conversions (like YUV, etc), you're baking in
| choices and dealing with quantization and roundoff errors. If
| you want the most pristine image possible for dealing with it
| in post, you want the raw photosite information. And if you
| want that, without deBayering (which introduces those same
| errors!), you get to pay Red a royalty check.
|
| I don't make the rules, I'm just pointing out what the stakes
| are here. Yeah, it's pretty fundamental and obvious now, but
| at the time no one was selling a professional video camera
| with a single chip for that price. It was a different world.
| car_analogy wrote:
| > So the novelty is that they separate R,G and B planes
| before compression?
|
| > Yeah, it's pretty fundamental and obvious now, but at the
| time no one was selling a professional video camera with a
| single chip for that price. It was a different world.
|
| I don't see how no such cameras being on the market makes
| the software any less obvious, unless we are totally
| abdicating the meaning of "obvious" to reduce it to "non-
| novel". But if that were the law's intent, it wouldn't
| require non-obviousness _and_ novelty - just one or the
| other would suffice.
| Zak wrote:
| The obviousness test seems to vary by jurisdiction, but
| typically requires that someone with ordinary skill in
| the field would not likely come upon that solution[0]. It
| must _also_ be novel[1].
|
| [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-
| obvious...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_(patent)
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > someone with ordinary skill in the field would not
| likely come upon that solution
|
| This requirement often appears to be effectively ignored,
| as in this case. Compressing the raw data (i.e., before
| transformations like de-bayering) is a pretty obvious
| thing to try out. This sort of run-of-the-mill
| development does not deserve a 20-year monopoly.
| Zak wrote:
| Amazon's one-click patent is probably the most famous
| example of this. Anyone with any database programming
| experience can figure out "store the customer's payment
| details and shipping address and use them later to
| complete purchases". That was also true in 1999.
|
| The patent office seems to evaluate the requirements in a
| manner very favorable to patent applicants/holders. I
| think that's a bad thing; the criteria for what counts as
| an invention should be stricter.
| rocqua wrote:
| > So the novelty is that they separate R,G and B planes
| before compression?
|
| No. The novelty is that they compress before de-mosaicing
| (aka debayering).
|
| In other words, rather rebuilding the image from the signals
| and compressing that image, it compresses the signals
| themselves (not even seperated I think).
| chongli wrote:
| Digital camera image sensors only have one image plane. Each
| pixel is recorded as a grayscale value where the light has
| passed through a red, green, or blue filter. To get a
| complete pixel (with values for all 3 colours) requires
| software to interpolate a pixel with its neighbours.
| innocenat wrote:
| Apple is paying RED for #9,230,299. A quick look at the claim
| doesn't seem to have this patent listed.
| chongli wrote:
| For those who may not be aware: digital cameras capture a
| grayscale image with a single value per pixel. The image sensor
| is covered by an array of colour filters (red, green, blue) in
| a pattern called the Bayer pattern. Typically, one row of
| filters will alternate RGRGRGRGRG and the next row will
| alternate GBGBGBGBGB. "Debayering" involves interpolating the
| colour-filtered grayscale values of neighbouring pixels into
| each pixel, and then often applying some software filtering to
| remove dead pixels, noise, and sharpen the image.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Aren't there still plenty of cameras using 3 separate sensors
| and an optical beam splitter, instead of a Bayer filter
| array?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| If they do, that has to be limited to "broadcast" cameras.
| Digital cinema cameras all pretty prominently use a single
| sensor.
| kuschku wrote:
| There is one model still sold by sony using these!
| https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/shoulder-
| camcorders/pxw-z750
|
| All the others have now switched to bayer sensors.
| [deleted]
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Only $3k from Adorama; are pro cameras really that cheap
| these days?
|
| [edit] That was google shopping popping up the Z150,
| which is presumably less expensive. The Z450 is 20k, body
| only, and the Z750 is "in store purchase only"
| muglug wrote:
| Yes, it's everything _else_ that 's expensive -- a set of
| cinema lenses will set you back many multiples of that.
| Then you need to pay the people to operate them.
|
| Here's a deep dive with an expert from Arri (big movie
| glass company) here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1n2DR6H7mk
| panda88888 wrote:
| There's also a stacked sensor version.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
| baybal2 wrote:
| rplst8 wrote:
| Sigma had their Foveon sensor in APS sized version
| several years ago but they're currently working on the
| 35mm version.
| https://www.dpreview.com/news/1885231343/sigma-releases-
| upda...
| jakebasile wrote:
| I don't know of any consumer cameras that do this. Some
| manufacturers use a different filter on some models, Fuji
| uses an X-Trans filter on some models which in the past can
| cause issues with some software demosaicing.
| rplst8 wrote:
| X-trans is still a mosaic and the underlying tech is
| mostly the same (color filter array with monochrome
| "buckets"). Instead of a 2x2 pattern, it uses a 6x6
| pattern.
|
| Goes something like: GRBGBR BGGRGG RGGBGG
|
| Instead of: RG GB
| numpad0 wrote:
| Not plenty, "3CCD" cameras exist but are rare and mainly
| used for industrial inspections and TV broadcasts. Some old
| home video cameras did use it but not anymore.
| kelsolaar wrote:
| Consumers camera use a Bayer colour filter array because it
| is cheaper and more compact. Demosaicing is performant
| enough for most consumer applications that it is hard to
| justify for anything than scientific applications. As a
| matter of fact, even Motion Picture cameras, e.g. ARRI LF,
| are using a Bayer CFA.
| bri3d wrote:
| They got Kinefinity and DJI with this patent collection already,
| too, forcing them to drop ProRes RAW support.
|
| It's quite ridiculous, really, basically any camera which
| internally records compressed lossless sensor data prior to
| debayering (any "internal RAW" format) is vulnerable to RED
| patent trolling.
| konschubert wrote:
| When will this patent expire?
| bri3d wrote:
| The main patent in play,
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US9245314B2/en , expires in
| 2028.
| rpmisms wrote:
| My Terra 4k is not receiving a software update for this exact
| reason. Fantastic RAW image, not losing that.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Why not use BlackMagics cameras?
| imagetic wrote:
| cause they aren't reliable, or ever available.
| silencedogood3 wrote:
| echelon wrote:
| Last gasps of a dying industry, even if they don't know it yet.
|
| Future movies will be filmed in mocap + multisensor
| photogrammetry and scaled up with AI techniques. (My startup does
| this.) Cost and time savings of not doing location scouting, set
| dec, lighting, and blocking are huge. Plus you can edit way more
| than a static grid of photons in post.
|
| Consumer smart phones use computational photography and sensor
| arrays to work magic.
|
| $100,000 glass optics are dying. They'll maybe find future use in
| industry and research, but the entertainment field will move on.
| chrstphrknwtn wrote:
| Sounds more like a cartoon than a film.
| echelon wrote:
| Miyazaki is one of my favorite directors.
| dmead wrote:
| That sounds like a terrible film experience.
| bag_boy wrote:
| Where can I read more? Also, can you point to a movie/scene
| that used mocap? Would love to watch that.
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| I guess we're pushing the point with modern blockbusters
| (Marvel/Star Wars) where more of the movie is animated then
| not. And Avatar is inverse Who Framed Roger Rabbit at this
| point.
| rvnx wrote:
| Arn't AI poses estimates more likely to become the future
| rather than the white balls motion cap suits from the 90s ?
| staindk wrote:
| I don't know. I think there's a big space for AI assisted XYZ
| everywhere in life, but to me that doesn't mean it would
| replace the more 'genuine'/'analog' stuff like good lenses.
| Even for entertainment and personal use.
| woodruffw wrote:
| You do understand that this is why people don't like
| contemporary movies, right?
| echelon wrote:
| > You do understand that this is why people don't like
| contemporary movies, right?
|
| Though I strongly prefer independent films, people "vote with
| dollars". Take a look at Disney.
|
| The problems with filmmaking are the institutional capital,
| planning, and complicated logistics required to create a
| film. There's only so much money to make movies, not everyone
| gets a shot. This is why generic "for the masses" films get
| made and get theatrical release placement. This is why we
| have more Twitch streamers than filmmakers.
|
| It will change.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I thought it was because the obnoxious rise of sequels,
| reboots and overdone cliche series.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| People do like contemporary movies though. You might not, but
| if people didn't like them they'd lose money and studios
| would go back to what made money.
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| Interesting take that I haven't heard before, outside of like
| Diamond Age.
|
| If you were a betting man, what would your timeline be? When
| does computer generated imagery surpass camera footage when
| representing reality? When does a drama shooting in Toronto
| pretending to be New York just render the whole thing? Finally,
| do you think performances will be noticeably worse and we'll
| all just live with it, or is the whole idea of actors having a
| harder time acting with greenscreens/mocap sets overblown?
| ryandamm wrote:
| Do you have any background in movie production? There is more
| to that industry than VFX tech. Yes, virtual production etc are
| ascendent, and growing fast -- but most of the production
| spending is still using fancy optics and traditional
| production. (And even for virtual production, the _actors_ are
| still people.) I think this is a typical straight-line
| projection of the change in the industry that fails to account
| for the actual underlying dynamics.
|
| But I wish your startup well. I hope you've hired filmmakers,
| directors, producers so someone on your team understands how
| movies are made today.
|
| (Plus: there's lots of money to be made in downmarket
| production. More money is being spent on video production today
| than ten years ago. The industry is not dying.)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there 's lots of money to be made in downmarket
| production_
|
| This is almost certainly what the commenter is targeting. I'd
| guess that and/or the adult film industry.
| ryandamm wrote:
| I don't think so -- I think it's a reference to Gollum, the
| apes in "Planet of the Apes," the de-aged Moss Tarkin
| (sp?)... basically CG people. That work is almost entirely
| at the high end, because it takes a lot of digital art work
| to make them look realistic.
|
| This is moving down market, fwiw, but it's not disrupting
| traditional moviemaking. It's a fast-growing but tiny niche
| that I believe will saturate before it comes close to
| replacing the entire industry. (Full disclosure: I work
| with cameras professionally, so maybe I'm not an unbiased
| observer of the industry.)
|
| [ edit for clarity ]
| echelon wrote:
| > Do you have any background in movie production?
|
| Yes, but that shouldn't matter.
|
| > most of the production spending is still using fancy optics
| and traditional production.
|
| It used to be shot and physically spliced together celluloid,
| too.
|
| Optics are punch card technology. The art, and indeed the end
| goal itself, is storytelling. The technology is just a means
| to an end. A grid of photons can be crafted and manipulated
| much easier with new techniques than by trying to put those
| photons in the correct places by hand. We're going to look
| back at optics and glass as the dinosaur age.
|
| > And even for virtual production, the actors are still
| people
|
| For now. Models can generate animated poses. This is moving
| faster than you're giving it credit.
|
| (Even when robots replace us, people will still want to act -
| no question. The technology will still afford that. But just
| like ADR can now be model-based, so can posture correction.)
|
| Your average ten year olds will be making their own Star Wars
| films by the end of the decade.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| >Cost and time savings of not doing location scouting, set dec,
| lighting, and blocking are huge
|
| Yes this worked awesome on the Star Wars prequels. Some of the
| most natural and real acting I've ever seen. /s
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Excuse me sir, you may have missed the memo. We like those
| movies now.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| We hate the _sequels_ (by Disney) now! /s (maybe?)
| TD-Linux wrote:
| The patents in question are a new level of terribad. So bad that
| they can be trivially invalidated by prior art. Nikon's going to
| spend a lot of money on lawyers but is likely to win (if they
| don't settle out of court...)
|
| (When reading patents, skip to the claims, they are the only part
| that actually matters).
|
| 7,830,967's independent claim is a 2k+ resolution video camera
| that records sRGB or rec709 gamma. That's it.
|
| 8,174,560 is even more ridiculous. It's a 2k+ resolution camera
| that records at a 6:1 or more compression ratio. No actual method
| or anything, just the concept of compressing at least 6:1
| compression ratio. Check out indepedent claim #1.
|
| Both of these are very likely to have very easy prior art
| available. Finding any camera that records high resolution video,
| made before the priority date would do it.
| zamalek wrote:
| > the concept of compressing at least 6:1 compression
|
| The level of bullshit that this industry gets away with is
| absolutely fascinating. I'm a gamer and I was part of the crowd
| who were galvanized by TotalBuiscuit, rest his soul. I am not
| alone, and part of an ever increasing amount of people, that
| seriously question the anti-consumerism (hence, anti-
| capitalist, if you're very patriotic) practices employed by the
| status quo. It's patently obvious to do so in hindsight, but I
| look at a lot more through that lens nowadays.
|
| Red is that 6-times distilled, 10-times cold filtered, 50 times
| purified, embodiment of anti-consumer practices and it's
| _maddening._
| tonguez wrote:
| "I am not alone, and part of an ever increasing amount of
| people, that seriously question the anti-consumerism (hence,
| anti-capitalist, if you're very patriotic) practices employed
| by the status quo."
|
| this is one of the most bizarre sentences ever written
| zamalek wrote:
| Why?
|
| How many people on this forum, specifically, suggest that
| they use Apple devices because of, ultimately, good-will
| garnered by Apple? There should be no doubt that Apple
| manufactured the best laptop hardware on the planet, for
| the general use-case, between 2014 and 2020. Yet, many
| people continue to perceive Apple based on historic merits
| as opposed to current merits. You could always get much
| more than Apple for much less, but they had the quality
| nailed down: it is certainly not rare (especially on HN) to
| come across someone still using their MBP from 2014 and
| reluctantly considering an upgrade. Following the golden
| days of Apple hardware, we still have people defaulting to
| that prior perspective, even in the face of the the
| keyboard "don't use it in an environment with dust"
| problems of recent history.
|
| Consumer psychology is extremely fascinating, and until you
| look at the overall behavior of consumers (which includes
| your own stupid self), you just don't realize how you've
| monkey brain has been exploited.
|
| That sentence is only bizarre to people who haven't
| realized their own bizarre behavior.
|
| _Edit: I include myself in monkey-brain analogies, I am a
| human /stupid/exploitable just like you._
| ryandamm wrote:
| Red isn't a consumer company. How are they anti-consumer?
|
| I'm not defending their IP practices, but this is not as
| stupid as it seems. Nikon knew about the patents when they
| designed their cameras. The patents were not dumb in
| 2007-2008.
|
| Claims like the one excerpted are part of larger claim sets;
| if any claim gets invalidated, the rest that rely on it are
| useless. For the sake of being explicit, but also robust,
| lawyers will take a technical description and devolve it into
| a series of nested claims. Those individual claims, in
| isolation, sound dumb. But they're usually contingent on
| earlier claims that might reveal the novelty.
|
| (I have not read the patent.)
| Teever wrote:
| > Red isn't a consumer company. How are they anti-consumer?
|
| Really?
|
| I think you know like everyone else here what consumer
| means in this context, it's not literally about consuming
| food, or the disease known as consumption, and that
| entities that aren't individual consumers in the nightly
| news sense of the word are called 'consumers' as well.
|
| In this instance semantics isn't insightful.
| zeusk wrote:
| Because anti-competition is anti-consumer.
|
| isn't the whole basis of capitalism that capital drives
| competition which drives innovation and consumerism?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| RED have some very nice people.
|
| However, the product was/is okay-ishm but the fan boys are
| utterly toxic pricks.
|
| the charged for everything, made special names for all
| sorts, and had tesla levels of bullshit when it came to
| deadlines and capabilities.
|
| For example, the "RED ray" laser projector, which
| supposedly was a 4k native laser based projector, except
| that it wasn't, never ran at 4k during NAB and if I recall
| correctly at some point was replaced by a barco.
| (https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/126579-red-
| ray-4k-ci...)
|
| They made "redrockets" that were supposedly super high tech
| decoding cards, but were in reality rebadged from another
| company. They were extra ordinarily fragile (I personally
| accidentally killed 3 in just one event) and fucking
| expensive (PS4k each)
|
| It was me, apparently that was the problem, not the design.
| In the same event I replaced graphics cards, a boat load of
| Fusion IoDrives, none of them died.
|
| So yes, they were anti-consumer to a certain extent.
| However if they liked you, they'd invite you to the ranch,
| you'd hang out with other RED people and generally have a
| good time.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Don't forget about "REDmags", which are bog-standard off-
| the-shelf mSATA-SSDs sold at a markup so high it would
| make Apple execs blush.
| bdowling wrote:
| > if any claim gets invalidated, the rest that rely on it
| are useless.
|
| This misunderstanding came up in another thread. If a
| dependent claim is invalidated, then it invalidates the
| claims it depends from, but not the other way around. For
| example, consider the following claims:
|
| 1. A method comprising steps A, B, and C.
|
| 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising step D.
|
| If the prior art only teaches claim 1, then claim 2 could
| still be valid if the addition of step D is non-obvious
| over the prior art. If the prior art teaches claim 2,
| however, then claim 1 is also invalid.
| zamalek wrote:
| > Red isn't a consumer company. How are they anti-consumer?
|
| Everything is consumer these days. CNC machines, milling
| machines, soldering stations, tablesaws, planers, and, yes,
| high-end cinematic cameras.
|
| You're no longer talking about Hollywood and maybe 4 or 5
| other big studios leveraging this stuff. Marques Brownlee,
| Linus Tech Tips, Corridor, and tons of other Youtubers (and
| I'm sure many more from other platforms) eat these things
| like candy. If you or I wanted to get into this stuff, we
| reasonably could with a little financial discipline (and
| maybe bargaining with our significant other :D).
|
| They are unimaginably vulnerable to someone coming along
| with a platform that accepts any, say, NVME, with some form
| of "works best with" certification system. That way, if
| your risk is low ( enthused hobbyist) go with your MLC
| dumpster diving special, if your risk is high then go with
| OEM, certified, _or better_ (because there is better
| storage than what Red offers). Keep in mind that Red have
| supplanted a stupidly broken industry with a vastly _less_
| broken industry, but on the absolute scale they are still
| pretty fucking stupid. They are living on the time it takes
| for someone to realize that, given a huge amount of R &D
| into a sensor (because Red is likely _the_ leading sensor),
| a more capitalist /competitive approach exists.
| detaro wrote:
| > _Marques Brownlee, Linus Tech Tips, Corridor,_
|
| are not consumers but media businesses.
| voidwtf wrote:
| When did the consumer stop being the ones who consume the
| product?
|
| I'm sure many farmers would consider John Deere's
| practices regarding DIY repairs, anti-consumer, as they
| are the consumers. Any person who might reasonable be
| considered an end-user of a product, or might buy a type
| of product might be considered a consumer of that type of
| product.
|
| Anti-consumerism and protectionism do not even require
| that you be a customer of the company in question, some
| practices extend beyond the product itself when the
| company seeks to stifle competition.
| Teever wrote:
| Can I ask you a question?
|
| Did you actually believe, or even think about the
| position you're now taking prior to reading the comment
| thread about it?
|
| I'm highly skeptical that someone genuinely holds the
| position "businesses aren't consumers."
|
| I think it's more likely that you're just arbitrarily
| taking a contrarian position to argue online to pass the
| time.
| zamalek wrote:
| That line between "business" and "consumer" is becoming
| increasingly indistinct. This is the very nature of
| "influencers." We have every-day-joes/janes setting up
| multi-thousand dollar machines in their own (or rented)
| garage for their own, or followers', enjoyment.
|
| > are not consumers but media businesses.
|
| This idea of yours is extremely out of touch with
| reality, just like Red are. Those "media businesses"
| would be nowhere without an engaged audience. The modern
| audience are participators, not watchers. Commodity 3D
| printers have succeeded for a reason.
|
| People aren't as one-dimensional as they used to be. They
| take their interests to an extreme degree. It might take
| a videography/cinematography enthusiast 2 years to save
| up for a Red, but they will.
| jrockway wrote:
| Influencers are businesses, plain and simple. They buy
| the camera to make a profit.
|
| Compare this to someone like me, who also owns expensive
| cameras, but I have them to take pictures and show my
| friends. I plan to make $0 from this endeavor. I'm a
| consumer, not a business.
| zamalek wrote:
| And you don't care about the immensely expensive Red
| SSDs?
| jrockway wrote:
| Oh, I shoot stills on Sony equipment, so I just use good
| old SD cards. And film when I need high resolution ;)
|
| I agree that RED is cost-prohibitive for individuals that
| aren't running a business because of things like the 500%
| markup on SSDs. That is always the risk of a proprietary
| ecosystem; kind of like how you can buy 128GB of RAM for
| your PC for a few hundred dollars, but the same RAM in an
| Apple computer is $1600. That's just the price of "we
| guarantee that it will work", and for business use, it
| makes a lot of sense. For consumers, it kind of sucks,
| because you feel so close to being able to afford
| something really cool, but you just can't make the math
| work.
|
| I do understand the pushback; people want to pay for the
| impressive sensor and not the mind-numbingly-boring SSDs,
| but they want to make money on both. I am not sure that's
| strictly consumer unfriendly, but just how they do the
| financial engineering.
| wmf wrote:
| There's a conversation to be had about how much money Red
| is making from selling luxury goods to amateurs but this
| thread probably isn't the best place.
| antisthenes wrote:
| I read your post at least 3 times and still don't understand
| how those sentences fit together into a coherent thought.
|
| What does TotalBiscuit have to do with video compression?
| What does anti-capitalism have to do with being patriotic?
| How is TotalBiscuit related to anti-consumerism?
|
| The only thing that somehow makes sense is that Red employs
| some anti-consumer practices through overly broad patents,
| thus restricting innovation.
|
| Is that what you were trying to say?
| [deleted]
| bdowling wrote:
| I haven't looked at the claims here, but the independent claims
| are the most broad claims of a patent. The dependent claims are
| always necessarily narrower. So, even if an independent claim
| is invalidated, it's dependent claim may survive if it is novel
| and non-obvious over the prior art.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| > even if an independent claim is invalidated, its dependent
| claim may survive if it is novel and non-obvious over the
| prior art.
|
| False. Let's say Claim 1 has elements A, B, and C. Claim 2
| adds element D. Thus Claim 2 really has A, B, C, and D.
|
| If 'A' is invalidated, then any claim that includes it, i.e.
| that depends from Claim 2, is also invalidated.
| btrettel wrote:
| This is not true. Dependent claims are often viewed as
| "backup" claims in case the independent claims are rejected
| in prosecution by the patent examiner or found invalid by a
| court.
|
| It's not hard to find online sources to back this up, for
| example:
|
| https://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/05/theory-of-depen.html
|
| https://www.natlawreview.com/article/patent-owner-
| tip-12-sur...
| brigade wrote:
| You might be confusing infringement with patentability.
|
| If an independent claim isn't infringed, then by extension
| none of the dependent claims are infringed and they don't
| have to be considered. So the easiest route to defending a
| patent lawsuit can be proving the independent claims don't
| apply.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| There are two main defenses: invalidity and non-
| infringement. You're correct, and you're talking about
| non-infringement.
|
| Invalidity can be proven outside of a full-blown lawsuit
| (via re-exam) and so it's cheaper. Asking a jury to judge
| invalidity is asking for trouble, because they usually
| figure they're not competent to do it.
|
| I actually watched a video of a mock jury, where they
| debated this. It's pretty shocking how little they
| understand the law. One juror actually said, "well, that
| prior art reference -- it's not fair to expect the PTO to
| have heard of that."
| bdowling wrote:
| > False.
|
| You have it backwards. If a dependent claim is invalid,
| then the independent claim from which it depends is also
| invalid. It doesn't make sense the other way around.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I'm not sure who "you" refers to here.
|
| Your Patently Obvious article refers to patent
| prosecution, which is different from re-examination.
| Let's keep referring back to my original 1(A, B, C) and
| 2(D) example.
|
| A dependent claim is "backup" because the examiner may
| find that (A, B, C) is not patentable, but coupled with
| D, you get (A, B, C, D) which is.
|
| This happens all the time in prosecution. So let's say
| (A, B, C, D) is allowed and issued.
|
| _Note_ that you did not win the right to sell a product
| with (A, B, C, D), because someone else (Call them
| CompanyX) has patented (A, B, C) and you are infringing
| it.
|
| All you've got is the right to _exclude_ anyone,
| including CompanyX, from selling (A, B, C, D).
|
| If someone else infringes your patent and you sue them,
| and they're able to prove that 'A' was known in the art,
| then CompanyX's patent _and_ yours are both invalidated.
| dheera wrote:
| How do prior art pieces invalidate it if they weren't
| compressed with it?
| ryandamm wrote:
| The F900s that Lucas shot Episode 1 on recorded at sub-1080p
| resolution, _before_ being letterboxed. That was a long time
| ago.
| failTide wrote:
| > 2k+ resolution camera that records at a 6:1 or more
| compression ratio.
|
| How does that even get granted? Does the patent office not have
| domain experts?
| [deleted]
| jjoonathan wrote:
| USPTO is entirely funded through patent fees. They get more
| fees if they approve a patent.
|
| No, I am not joking: https://www.uspto.gov/about-
| us/performance-and-planning/budg...
|
| There's your problem.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| That is not the problem. Just because an agency is funded
| by fees does not mean that it has perverse incentives nor
| corruption (though it can be the case). After all, the FDA
| has to assess all of Pfizer's drug applications -- do you
| want to pay for all that out of your income tax, or should
| Pfizer be paying it? Furthermore, the USPTO has had the
| same issues described here _long_ before they were self-
| funded by congress.
|
| The problem is that that the USPTO doesn't have enough
| money to hire inspectors and officials. They are woefully,
| desperately underfunded. The same problems that plague the
| USPTO also plague the IRS, and for the same reason. The
| USPTO would do much better if they were permitted to double
| the fees, or more, for patent application.
| codys wrote:
| The FDA used to not be funded by the pharmaceutical
| industry, and instead be directly funded. There are
| routine questions about how the current arrangement
| influences FDA decision making in a way that negatively
| affects their ability to independently review drugs. IOW:
| the current setup causes the FDA to approve things they
| probably should not have approved, because they are
| incentivized to "get along" with the companies paying
| them.
| toma_caliente wrote:
| > That is not the problem. Just because an agency is
| funded by fees does not mean that it has perverse
| incentives nor corruption (though it can be the case).
| After all, the FDA has to assess all of Pfizer's drug
| applications -- do you want to pay for all that out of
| your income tax, or should Pfizer be paying it?
|
| The FDA gets billions in funding from the government and
| the USPTO does not. I'm not saying you are right or wrong
| about the problems regarding the USPTO but to compare its
| funding to the FDA is disingenious and wrong.
| btrettel wrote:
| Former patent examiner here. The main problem with
| quality is as you describe: patent examiners don't get
| enough time. I've written about this before on HN:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31197809
|
| Note that increasing fees alone won't necessarily change
| anything if USPTO management doesn't give examiners more
| time in response. For example, the USPTO charges
| applicants extra if they have more than a certain number
| of claims (20, I believe), but examiners only get 1 hour
| extra if there are more than that number. I once had an
| application with 45 claims... I estimate that I only got
| around 23 hours total for the first "office action" on
| that one (most of the work), and that includes the extra
| hour I got. So I got 5% more time for 125% more work!
|
| Edit: Here's the application with 45 claims that I worked
| on: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190160529A1/en
| rlpb wrote:
| Patent lawyers consider the "not obvious to someone skilled
| in the art" test done by merely looking at prior art. If it's
| not previously explicitly patented, it's valid.
|
| According to them. This is exactly what a patent lawyer told
| me when I asked about how they test for that requirement.
| btrettel wrote:
| Anything available to the public can be used in a prior art
| rejection, not just patents. (I'm a former patent examiner
| and I frequently used "non-patent literature" as it's
| called.)
| lizardactivist wrote:
| The U.S. encourages carpet-bombing with trivial patents
| claiming to be bonafide inventions, because it gives
| opportunities for market protectionism.
| ryandamm wrote:
| Again, the patent to compress Bayer pattern data before de-
| Bayering is the pivotal one. There's a reason Apple is still
| paying royalties, and it ain't because they don't have good
| lawyers.
| izzydata wrote:
| It seems like there should be some kind of penalty for filing
| troll patents if they can be invalidated like that.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| There _are_ legal remedies, like being forced to pay the
| other side 's legal fees, and even worse consequences than
| that.
|
| Difficult to win, though.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> if they don 't settle out of court_
|
| Nikon _never_ settles out of court. They have _excellent_ IP
| lawyers.
|
| That said, the video/imaging arena is a minefield of highly-
| enforceable patents. Very old ones. I don't miss writing that
| kind of software.
| booi wrote:
| They're also known to quietly imply that you may also be
| infringing on some of THEIR patents for which they have an
| enormous pile of.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Yup.
|
| Like I said, I don't miss that field too much.
|
| Like dancing in an iron maiden.
| bri3d wrote:
| Apple and Sony have both tried to invalidate this patent
| collection and failed.
| esquivalience wrote:
| I checked what you said about the 967 patent. I'm afraid it's
| just wrong. You quoted some of the initial part and missed out
| the bit which actually describes what's happening:
|
| "an image processing system configured to perform a pre-
| emphasis function on the digital raw image data, to compress
| the digital raw image data after performing the pre-emphasis
| function such that the digital raw image data remains
| substantially visually lossless upon decompression, and to
| store the compressed digital raw image data in the memory
| device at a rate of at least about 23 frames per second,
| wherein the pre-emphasis function comprises a curve defined by
| the function y=(x+c)^g, where 0.01 <g<1 and c is an offset."
| nullc wrote:
| That "pre-empahsis" is a description of Rec 709 gamma. (the
| dependent claims go on to give the 709 constants for it).
| esquivalience wrote:
| Sure, I can't say - but when was that made part of Rec 709?
| I suppose that may well be what it invented...
|
| Edit - to clarify better that what I'm trying to convey is
| that the time and context matters too, and the claims have
| to be read in light of the description, so suggesting that
| claims are trivially invalid is something to be cautious
| about.
| nullc wrote:
| Rec 709 was published in _1990_ (and had that gamma
| structure then, of course!).
|
| All you can say red is doing is reciting the rather
| obvious combination of a 2k+ camera with rec 709, 23+
| fps, etc.
|
| Maybe it's the case that someone can't find a 2k camera
| being offered to the public early enough to invalidate on
| a prior art basis-- but I can't see how anyone could
| conclude from this that a red success would be indicative
| of anything but a deeply flawed patent system in dire
| need of reform.
| ryandamm wrote:
| I do find myself wondering what fraction of Red's revenue is IP
| vs camera sales. No particular reason, just curious -- these
| patents sound rather profitable.
| wmf wrote:
| AFAIK almost no cameras are paying royalties to Red. They
| prefer to just not implement raw.
| ryandamm wrote:
| But they are collecting royalties from Apple and others...
| Layke1123 wrote:
| I cannot think of a better way to actually impede humanity's
| progress than to put up artificial barriers to techniques
| developed to help spur innovation and growth. The patent system
| is mind numbingly stupid as it absolutely STIFLES innovation.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| On the other hand, who would research anything or spend
| anything on R&D if it was not protected? It's a two-way street.
| There are good patents, bad patents, and everything in between.
| ploxiln wrote:
| > who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it
| was not protected?
|
| Most people that do real R&D do it because they want to, not
| because they're rewarded with patents. They want to make a
| better camera, a better camera format, and sell it. And
| nobody learns how to make something by reading the patents,
| in the past 50+ years they're practically unreadable
| legalese. Once upon a time they had diagrams for mechanical
| devices or chemical processes, but now they're just ideas
| that many people faced with similar challenges and available
| technologies would have considered, except the first to
| bother to patent a general idea like "compress raw sensor
| data before debayering" now gets to be a massive pain in the
| ass to people actually doing R&D to make things.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I think this is true on an individual level, but a lot of
| high tech innovation is only possible with hundreds of
| engineers working together full time for years. Nobody is
| inventing EUV lithography in their garage, someone had to
| spend hundreds of millions of dollars assembling the
| necessary talent and providing the resources needed to get
| it done. That someone expects a return on their investment,
| otherwise they will find something else to do with their
| capital.
|
| What we really need is much more strict requirements for
| what qualifies as a truly unique innovation worthy of
| patent protection. None of this BS about virtual shopping
| carts on eCommerce sites, or playable minigames on video
| game loading screens.
| Layke1123 wrote:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-22-year-old-makes-
| micr....
| babypuncher wrote:
| > Sam Zeloof, a 22-year-old American, produced a chip
| with 1,200 transistors
|
| This is an impressive feat to be sure, but to compare it
| to modern EUV lithography is like comparing a crossbow to
| an ICBM
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Why can I not reply to the person below me?
|
| Regardless, anyone could do this type of fabrication in
| their garage given removing the legal and technical
| barriers that keep EUV technology behind lock and key.
| babypuncher wrote:
| What that guy is doing in his parents garage is not EUV
| lithography. He's doing what early IC manufacturers first
| accomplished in the 60s, only with the benefit of 50
| added years of knowledge in the space and decades old
| equipment that never would have been affordable to the
| average tinkerer when this technology was cutting edge.
|
| The idea that the risk of patent infringement is the only
| thing preventing him from building a chip comparable to a
| modern Intel or AMD CPU in his garage today is absurd.
| mateo1 wrote:
| I also think a shorter duration and/or a cap on total
| royalties would be useful. Like 10 years and 10x initial
| r&d investment, instead of "forever" and "infinite".
| dymk wrote:
| > Most people that do real R&D do it because they want to,
| not because they're rewarded with patents.
|
| Everybody's gotta eat. Would you work your job if you
| weren't getting paid?
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Your question shows a lack of understanding. Many
| billionaires do not need to work. What keeps them showing
| up to "jobs"?
| [deleted]
| betaby wrote:
| Most of R&D in the medical/pharmacological field is done by
| government grants as an example.
| tyrfing wrote:
| Do you have a source for 'most'? Pharma R&D spending is
| very high compared to any other industry.
|
| https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
| betaby wrote:
| https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-
| dolla...
|
| The raw dollar value R&D in the private sector is higher,
| but that's accounting gymnastics for tax purposes, not
| actual R&D.
| netr0ute wrote:
| Then the competitors that don't care about lack of patents
| will take over the market, creating the impetus for
| innovation again.
| Layke1123 wrote:
| I thought competition is what keeps markets working
| efficiently. Without competition, what's the motivation to
| actually share innovation when it is not needed to maximize
| profits, as innovation is much more costly than maintaining
| the status quo?
| Majestic121 wrote:
| Not really, there will be small innovation on obvious
| matters but any R&D that actual takes capital to validate
| or does not have immediate result will simply be dropped.
|
| Or kept purely secret
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Sheer...human...curiosity. When everyone can afford a
| comfortable lifestyle, what else do you think humanity will
| do? Drink themselves to death? If that were true, we would
| already be long gone.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Should have put their patent infringing software behind some DRM.
| RED finds out Nikon is violating their patent, sues Nikon, Nikon
| makes a strategic campaign donation, some people at RED end up
| being felons. God bless America.
|
| Seriously, if I infringe a patent in some DRMed software, can
| anyone ever legally discover that fact?
| nickff wrote:
| > _" Seriously, if I infringe a patent in some DRMed software,
| can anyone ever legally discover that fact? "_
|
| Yes, RED can file a suit, and 'discover' the software. The
| legal system is not some arcane and buggy piece of code.
| bumblebritches5 wrote:
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Alleged violations of patents:
|
| - 7,830,967 "Video Camera"
|
| - 8,174,560 "Video Camera"
|
| - 9,245,314 "Video Camera"
|
| - 9,436,976 "Video Camera"
|
| - 9,521,384 "Green Average Subtraction in Image Data"
|
| - 9,716,866 "Green Image Data Processing"
|
| - 10,582,168 "Green Image Data Processing"
|
| Almost all patents use the following generic description or
| variations thereof:
|
| "Embodiments provide a video camera that can be configured to
| highly compress video data in a visually lossless manner. The
| camera can be configured to transform blue, red, and/or green
| image data in a manner that enhances the compressibility of the
| data. The camera can be configured to transform at least a
| portion of the green image data in a manner that enhances the
| compressibility of the data. The data can then be compressed and
| stored in this form. This allows a user to reconstruct the red,
| blue, and/or green image data to obtain the original raw data or
| a modified version of the original raw data that is visually
| lossless when demosacied. Additionally, the data can be processed
| in a manner in which at least some of the green image elements
| are demosaiced first and then the red, blue, and/or some green
| elements are reconstructed based on values of the demosaiced
| green image elements."
|
| IANAL, but this legal description is gobbledygook describing a
| video camera, that can compress video, in a visually lossless
| manner, by rearranging RGB data to be more compressible, and then
| being able to obtain original data from a "demosaiced" version of
| the RGB data.
|
| RED clearly doesn't like Nikon's use of GREEN.
| pkaye wrote:
| From what I understand we should we looking at the patent
| claims to see what the patent really covers.
| ryandamm wrote:
| I think this is straightforward technical language being
| translated into patent language. But you should always read the
| claims; the language is usually more precise there.
|
| I believe the technique at issue is a way to compress the data
| -- using standard codecs like JPEG2000 -- without first de-
| bayering the image. I imagine it was pretty novel when the
| patent was filed, which would've been the mid '00s. (The Red
| One used this technique, and it launched in ~2007.)
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The fundamental problem seems to be that in practice, mere
| novelty is enough to get a patent.
|
| I don't think a company should be granted a 20-year monopoly
| just because they were the first to write an idea down. I
| don't see how patents on run-of-the-mill innovations further
| innovation in the economy as a whole.
|
| Even if there were no such thing as patents, companies would
| have begun compressing individual channels prior to de-
| bayering, because it makes sense and is a fairly obvious
| thing to try. The patent system didn't spur innovation in
| this case. It just allowed one company to demand a rent from
| everyone else.
| adrian_b wrote:
| The application to images may have been novel, but this is
| just a trivial application of a rule that has been well known
| since the first uses of compression methods.
|
| Whenever there is some data which passes through several
| conversion stages, there is a certain point in the chain of
| transformations where compression is more efficient than in
| the other points, so it is always necessary to choose
| carefully where to insert a compression transformation.
|
| For example, if you aggregate some files into an archive file
| and then you encrypt the archive file, a compression step
| must be inserted between the concatenation of the input files
| and the encryption step.
|
| Inserting the compression before concatenation or after
| encryption will give much worse compression ratios.
|
| The same is true for any chain of transformations. It is
| always necessary to identify the point where the compression
| must be inserted, which for image processing in a camera
| happens to be before debayering.
|
| Absolutely anyone who would receive the task to add
| compression to an image processing chain of algorithms would
| start by making tests to determine where to insert the
| compression.
|
| Discovering the claim of the patent does not require any kind
| of creativity or any other special skill in the domain. It
| would have happened automatically to the first one who
| happened to work at this problem.
| Lammy wrote:
| AIUI (and I ANAL), these patents are also behind the Z-Camera
| ZRAW format change as of Z-Cam firmware 0.94.1:
|
| https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25023/z-cam-i...
|
| > "As [the original post] said, ZRAW stores a full RAW, albeit
| compressed (Huffman and Golomb). This means that the original
| information about YUV is not correct. In the code, they called
| the channels that way, indeed, but the channels themselves, as it
| turned out, store the usual RGB CFA Bayer."
|
| https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/25185/zraw-is...
|
| > "ZRAW is not RAW anymore. After firmware v0.94.1 it's an AES-
| encrypted MOV-container-corrupted overXORred shit, that contains
| only HEVC bitstream."
| czbond wrote:
| Did RED or Nikon get them from Pied Piper?
| google234123 wrote:
| Apparently using jpeg2000 to store video (which is redcode) is
| enough to violate these patents. Too bad Apple couldn't demolish
| this patent.
|
| Nikon has 100s or 1000s of their own patents, I would guess that
| they will counter sue for random violatations by RED.
| wmf wrote:
| AFAIK the patent is on lossy raw video; JPEG2000 has nothing to
| do with it.
| [deleted]
| nwiswell wrote:
| As usual, the lawyers win.
| dboreham wrote:
| One would have thought that Nikon has at least one enforceable
| patent against Red and therefore cross-licensing is the eventual
| outcome.
| hatware wrote:
| You mean corporations don't actually want to innovate once they
| have significant market share?
| imagetic wrote:
| Nikon will most likely end up having to remove internal RAW
| support for the Z9. That was a big selling point for me, I
| received one of the first in Z9 preorders (I'm a professional
| photographer who does a lot of video production work as well). I
| work with RED cameras fairly regularly.
|
| RED, while protecting their first to market realm and making sure
| they get the check, have really stifled where the camera industry
| can go. Apple, Sony, Kinfinity, all lost out to RED on similar
| cases.
|
| Assuming Nikon isn't completely ignorant (they've been protecting
| patents for a long ass time), introducing internal RAW in the Z9
| was a red flag on announcement day for this very topic. It gave
| them the splash they needed to launch their flagship camera, so
| it's very possible they figured they'd take the win while they
| can, even if it came with a hard slap for everyone after the
| fact.
|
| And it's a thin, but very legal argument to say they compete in
| the same space. No Z9 owner in a professional space is looking to
| buy a RED really. If there are, it's probably less than 10 in the
| world.
|
| A huge part of me wishes people just wouldn't buy RED cameras in
| protest to how big of a road block they've created and the
| business practices they've employed themselves.
|
| And Maybe the rest of the industry just collectively gangs up on
| them to apply pressure. One can dream. Right now, the only way
| this ends is if people talk with their money, or the patents
| expire.
| sitkack wrote:
| Just use QOI and be done with it. https://qoiformat.org/
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Red joins the ever-growing horde of U.S. American patent trolls.
| It's a real shame.
| esjeon wrote:
| Yeah, real shame. Nikon's market hardly overlaps with RED's,
| and never will. This is not "free market competition", but a
| cheap attempt to suck out money from other companies. Probably
| the company has already reached the end of its own potential.
| bob1029 wrote:
| What would be the consequences of throwing out all patents that
| are purely an information theory thing?
|
| These seem to have the biggest impact on our ability to
| interoperate with complex technologies at scale.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-27 23:00 UTC)