Also you don't f* with a man who has seen actual war firsthand, not the pretend "war" that Red pretends to think it is, nor a man with a background in computer science vs 2 guys who have zero background in it.

@vitaliy_kiselev Yes, probably should send Jarred and Jim a copy of art of war.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Oh well. Jim has a nice private island and probably a lot of free time in between developing the red hydrogen 2 and Komodo to read up on this book!

Yes I think maybe quite a few companies might not have enterprise media inside. Red should probably pay someone to open up other companies media.

The reaction to all of this in the reduser community is utterly fascinating. I can't stop reading it. To understand the psychology of a large group of people who invested thousands of dollars into a product to start to hear their leader is not what he seems and what they bought is not what it is and was started on a myth that is not what they were sold - this is the dream research project for any sociologist/documentarian. And to see it unfolding in real time.

Reduser isn't a religion - but it definitely has signs of this kind of community. I worked on the hbo series on the cult nxivm so I've been around highly doctinated / members, but I wasn't there on the show for the beginning phases of the falling out. But the stories of the falling out I heard about, of the crumbling of that cult, are too much to stomach.

This falling and breaking of the red religion is more gentle, but then again, the members are camera engineers and enthusiasts, not actors who are much more emotionally needy. Like any religion, there are group meet ups. There are messages from its leader called "recon". There are constant ways to send money from accessories to upgrades to the cameras. And the more red gear one has, one can put that in their "signature". People can even name their cameras and post the serial numbers to show how close they were to the original creation. The closer to the 00001 serial, the stronger a believer in red one is. And there is, supposively, an inner circle.

And it all started with a myth, like most religions.

The myth of Red.  Three guys. Didn't know what they were doing. The CEO, Jim Jannard, a billionare. With Ted and Graemhe. The plan to disrupt the overpriced world of HD video. To replace film.

Now finding out this is false, that Red just bought the tech and rebranded it. That hurts.

And to find out that the camera itself is using cheap media and a cheap LCD, that hurts too. That there is a mark up of 100x.

That maybe the camera's insides is no better than the cheap chinese knock-offs like the Mavo. That maybe the red camera is also made right in the same country as the Mavo. That the red itself is cheap.

When that myth gets lifted, members of the red religion, especially those who own thousands of dollars of gear, will get really really angry at those who lifted the myth. The emperor has no clothes and those who supported him most likely don't support the messenger. They will discredit. Destroy. Bring up lies. Call him crazy.

Especially in the past three years, when 4k is now the norm, a bmcpc can do raw for 300 bucks used and Red no longer has higher resolution as a selling point, and when cheaper cameras like the blackmagic ursa mini pro and c300 ii and fs7 can get people to an image they want for a lot cheaper, those who have stayed with red have stayed for the myth.

And now when Hollywood now primarily uses the Alexa over the red. It's almost an emotional choice to use the camera now. A matter of pride. But to know in one's head that the camera is just cheap Asian parts, when you go on set, that people maybe whispering about your purchase and about how it was built on a lie, that will hurt.

And like all good religious leaders like Jerry Farwell and Jim Baker, the CEO Jim, when at Oakley, has quite a checkered past. He was involved in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal. He most likely was a person who "encouraged" his employee to lie under oath.  Does Jim perhaps feel above laws? Does he have disdain for his customers and the world at large? Maybe not what people expect in a leader.  The type of person who could point blank lie to several customers about the origin of his camera components and would have no problem manipulating his users.

And when more people find out about who he is as a person, the more people may further themselves from his religion. The more people who will leave his religion. The more people who won't join his religion.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/24/20931506/red-hydrogen-one-phone-project-canceled-founder-jim-jannard-retires Jim Jannard retiring - end of hydrogen project

The latest from the Apple vs RED patent case.

https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2019-01064

In october there was a reply from Apple to the patent owners previous rebutal of petitioner Apples claims and and thereafter a sur-reply from the patent owner RED to the latest Apple reply. In short Apple wants the patent board to open up a full examination of the validity of the patent (aka institute a Inter Partes Review) whereas RED wants the patent board to deny this institution on the base that the patents claims are still valid.

A Institution to Inter Partes Review should be decided by the patent board no more than 6 months after petition.

As this case was filed in early may the decision should be ready in early november. Or no later than november 6 to be precise.

"An IPR will be instituted if the Board finds that the petition demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The Board may institute or deny all or some of the challenged claims. The Board will produce a final determination within one year of institution."

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_partes_review https://www.venable.com/files/upload/Timeline_for_an_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf

Jannard leaving, sound like "the rat(s) a leaving the sinking ship" to me.

We are pleased to see our REDCODE patents withstand another challenge.

But hundreds of thousands of people are very upset. does it matter for you? Nope!

To be clear, as I mentioned before, this never really was Apple vs. RED. It has always been APPLE + RED, and this was all part of the process defining how we work together in the future.

Did we just saw fake drama with trial played just to create precedent?

RED integration with Apple’s METAL framework for realtime R3D playback is coming along well and the work that the two teams are doing together is exceeding expectations. We are very excited for the new Mac Pro and the new XDR pro display and the power they bring to the entire RED workflow.

All this sounds fishy.

This proves also to those that questioned Red’s intellectual properties in defamatory YouTube videos and articles that they are the ones full of it.

I hope that ones who questioned Red intellectual property will continue to do so. And more people will join. But it is whole society transformation that must put such things as Red claims for social "intellectual property" (in reality work of thousands of people across all countries) into proper place where they belong - cemetery of history.

And they'll put this among other useless papers on ground near this grave, so each time people will come to shame Red they could walk on them with their dirty shoes. Proper usage for shitty paper.

https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=IPR2019-01065

First of all, I'm not an expert on this but as the patent 9,245,314 ("digital camera") is published on January 26, 2016 this means that the patent will last until january 2036...

Strangely as the RED system was "invented" a decade earlier, I guess the first patent application filling was Apr 11, 2007 as refered in the patent document. From there on you can add and adjust.

Alas the Sony vs RED patent debacle was in 2013 and is referenced to in the above issued patent, but seems to be regarding RED.com patent 8,174,560 (Jannard , et al. issued May 8, 2012). :-p

Patent 8.174.560 was later re-examined and a few claims dropped from the patent.

(Order Granting Joint Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice; red.com, Inc. v. Sony Corporation of America and Sony Electronics Inc., Case No. 13CV0334-DMS-BGS, dated Jul. 29, 2013. cited by applicant .)

First of all, I'm not an expert on this but as the patent 9,245,314 ("digital camera") is published on January 26, 2016 this means that the patent will last until january 2036...

Patents in the United States are valid for 20 years from their filing date. Since this patent application was filed on April 11, 2008 it will expire on April 11, 2028 as mentioned here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9245314B2/en

Note that the April 11, 2007 date was the date when a provisional patent application was filed. A provisional application allows the person filing a patent to establish a priority date for the invention, but gives the filer up to one year to submit the full application with the detailed patent claims (this is why the full patent application was submitted on April 11, 2008 one year after the provisional application).

So the patent is valid from 2008 + 20 years, but for the purposes of determining if something else was invented first, the 2007 date is used. And one way to invalidate this particular patent would be to show that the invention described in the patent already existed elsewhere as of April 11, 2007.

One other thing worth pointing out is that in order for the date of the provisional application (April 11, 2007 in this case) to be used, the provisional application must be detailed enough to make it clear what the parameters of the invention are and what is new about it. If a bunch of the key details are only added in the later full application, then the date of the full application would be used for those invention details added later.

This issue of which invention date to use was actually relevant for Apple's patent invalidation request. One of the patents Apple cited as prior art was filed on April 13, 2007 (2 days after RED's provisional application), but Apple argued that the RED patent did not deserve its April 11, 2007 priority date because the provisional application lacked key details.

And interestingly the Patent Board did not reject Apple's claims about the priority dates. One way they could have rejected Apple's request would have been to say that RED's April 11, 2007 date does apply and therefore the April 13, 2007 patent is useless for invalidation purposes. But they didn't do this, which may suggest that they agreed with Apple's arguments about the dates.

Instead the Patent Board chose to reject Apple's request more on substance. In particular, a key part of the RED patent is that they claim that their RAW compression is "substantially visually lossless." Set aside the fact that "substantially visually lossless" is not a very meaningful phrase in any objective sense (any number of discussions with pixel peepers makes it pretty obvious that what one person might consider visually lossless, someone else might consider highly objectionable).

Essentially the Patent Board said that Apple didn't clearly show that using the two non-RED patents they cited would result in a compressed RAW recording that was "substantially visually lossless." Basically their response was, "sorry not enough detail."

The thing is that there actually is language (like lack of compression artifacts, near-lossless, etc.) in one of the patents Apple cited to suggest that it would achieve a "substantially visually lossless" result. But apparently they weren't clear enough in pointing this out. So I'm not really sure that this is as strong of an outcome for RED as RED would like people to believe. It will be interesting to see if Apple continues to try and invalidate the RED patents (I believe that they could appeal this decision in Federal court, if desired).

Also, someone else could come along and file an expanded and more detailed request following the Apple blueprint (anyone can file a patent review request even if they are not directly affected by the patent). There are quite a few other companies besides Apple that might be interested in seeing the RED patents invalidated.

https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/party?p0=840&iso=20280411T00&year=2028&month=4&day=11&hour=0&min=0&sec=0&msg=RED.com%20RAW%20patents%20expire&ud=2&csz=1

Scenario in my head. #1: Apple will reopen another patent dispute. Probably cheaper to do this than to pay a licensing fee over many years to Red. Of course this takes time. So.... scenario #2: Jim Jannard says he's retiring and ending hydrogen- maybe a bat signal to apple that they don't want to compete with them any more. Also maybe a sign to apple to "please just buy our company" - Apple buys it, gets the tech, then keeps red going or just dissolves it. Scenario #3: Apple doesn't buy red - retools pro res raw so it's less than 6:1 compression, for now and waits for red to go out of business. Hence why they stopped selling red ravens. They wait for the company to fold which probably seems likely if their future business plan is just the komodo and they haven't expanded into other tech besides cameras. I think it's most likely going to be scenario #3 with a nice pro res raw 5:1 compression on their iphones. And for everyone out there - probably not best to buy into the red ecosystem until there is an official announcement that now Jannard left, of what the future is for red.

@eddavid

Most probable scenario I already outlined above.

Apple just used this attempt as cheap way to test viability of this patent, and also get most opposing side arguments in advance.

Don't be surprised if you'll see Apple on exactly opposite side next year.

One other real case can be that RED is now in horrible financial situation, and this had been attempt to put stick and check if patient is still alive and can handle even small legal expanses.