Reading mode: Light Dark

RED sues Nikon

Go to last post
Wahrsager

Wahrsager

Veteran Member
Messages
3,627
Solutions
31
Reaction score
4,371
Location
US
Yup RED yet again chasing money in the courts. This will only hurt consumers because we’ll be paying for it, in a shrinking market.
 
RED sued Sony back in 2013 and Sony sued them right back. Both parties filed for dismissal later.

Apple sued Red over video compression patents and lost, so there is some substance to Red's patents.

Presumably Nikon has carefully researched this and believes intoPIX's patents do not infringe on Red's patents.

Worst case is that Nikon has to pay Red some royalties.
 
Last edited:
You could see this coming months back. RED being the patent whores of the industry have a long history of stifling new tech development.

As the genie is already out of the bottle with FW2.0, RED can go screw themselves. Even if RED win it will be a hollow victory, Nikon has planned this from the start. Nicely Played.
 
Last edited:
TED77 said:
You could see this coming months back. RED being the patent whores of the industry have a long history of stifling new tech development.

As the genie is already out of the bottle with FW2.0, RED can go screw themselves. Even if RED win it will be a hollow victory, Nikon has planned this from the start. Nicely Played.
Click to expand...
RED make thousand of patents and then wait and make a trap for others to accidentally overlap with those patents...this should be understood that there are millions of patents which can overlap each other and eventually either Nikon wins and that is over or Nikon pays something to RED to make them silent. It cannot always be 100% clear if any patent never overlaps.
 
Last edited:
ZapperVT said:
RED sued Sony back in 2013 and Sony sued them right back. Both parties filed for dismissal later.

Apple sued Red over video compression patents and lost, so there is some substance to Red's patents.

Presumably Nikon has carefully researched this and believes intoPIX's patents do not infringe on Red's patents.

Worst case is that Nikon has to pay Red some royalties.
Click to expand...
If both parties filed for a dismissal - they settled it out of court.

Red's patents are fairly broad - basically they patented raw compression in a video camera...Apple tried to get the patent thrown out - Apple did not win...

They are probably in talks on a settlement.
 
Canadianguy said:
If both parties filed for a dismissal - they settled it out of court.

Red's patents are fairly broad - basically they patented raw compression in a video camera...Apple tried to get the patent thrown out - Apple did not win...

They are probably in talks on a settlement.
Click to expand...
Far too broad IMO to the point of crippling the entire industry.

Imagine where we would be today if a patent was filed by one manufacturer for autofocus, vibration reduction, RAW photo capture or even any form of digital capture in the first D-SRL.
 
Last edited:
TED77 said:
Canadianguy said:
If both parties filed for a dismissal - they settled it out of court.

Red's patents are fairly broad - basically they patented raw compression in a video camera...Apple tried to get the patent thrown out - Apple did not win...

They are probably in talks on a settlement.
Click to expand...
Far too broad IMO to the point of crippling the entire industry.

Imagine where we would be today if a patent was filed by one manufacturer for autofocus, vibration reduction, RAW photo capture or even any form of digital capture in the first D-SRL.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all those things were patented. Most strong patents get licensed or involved in patent swaps between companies. The others get engineered around. There are usually other ways to solve the problem.
 
Canadianguy said:
ZapperVT said:
RED sued Sony back in 2013 and Sony sued them right back. Both parties filed for dismissal later.

Apple sued Red over video compression patents and lost, so there is some substance to Red's patents.

Presumably Nikon has carefully researched this and believes intoPIX's patents do not infringe on Red's patents.

Worst case is that Nikon has to pay Red some royalties.
Click to expand...
If both parties filed for a dismissal - they settled it out of court.

Red's patents are fairly broad - basically they patented raw compression in a video camera...Apple tried to get the patent thrown out - Apple did not win...

They are probably in talks on a settlement.
Click to expand...
You can't patent a concept - you have to give specific claims on how to do it. It's hard to anticipate all the other ways someone might accomplish the same thing and claim them all, so many patents can be circumvented. I'm guessing Nikon and intoPIX are confident they have done that.
 
ZapperVT said:
Canadianguy said:
ZapperVT said:
RED sued Sony back in 2013 and Sony sued them right back. Both parties filed for dismissal later.

Apple sued Red over video compression patents and lost, so there is some substance to Red's patents.

Presumably Nikon has carefully researched this and believes intoPIX's patents do not infringe on Red's patents.

Worst case is that Nikon has to pay Red some royalties.
Click to expand...
If both parties filed for a dismissal - they settled it out of court.

Red's patents are fairly broad - basically they patented raw compression in a video camera...Apple tried to get the patent thrown out - Apple did not win...

They are probably in talks on a settlement.
Click to expand...
You can't patent a concept - you have to give specific claims on how to do it. It's hard to anticipate all the other ways someone might accomplish the same thing and claim them all, so many patents can be circumvented. I'm guessing Nikon and intoPIX are confident they have done that.
Click to expand...
This is from Red's filing - can you tell how they compressed the video files?

"The ’967 patent discloses, for example, 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 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."
 
Canadianguy said:
This is from Red's filing - can you tell how they compressed the video files?

"The ’967 patent discloses, for example, 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 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."
Click to expand...
Exactly, a crystal clear roadmap on how it's done, NOT. It is so ambiguous and general in its description to be laughable. I'd certainly call this a concept.
 
Well, when I was thinking about how ARRI stepped out of their patents, I just found ARRIRAW is uncompressed at all...

I guess RED want everyone to use CinemaDNG and start to buy magazines of storage card.
 
Canadianguy said:
This is from Red's filing - can you tell how they compressed the video files?

"The ’967 patent discloses, for example, 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 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.
Click to expand...
This is true of any archived signal ever since analog and digital color imaging were first developed. 'visually lossless' is relative and a RED herring: how far are you standing from the display and what is its gamut?
Canadianguy said:
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."
Click to expand...
This has been true for the majority of demosaicers ever since Bayer.

I am curious about what in RED's patents is truly a novelty and not prior art or something that the average scientist would obviously come up with once tasked with looking into the problem. Anyone know?
 
Last edited:
What little I know is that Red claims that any compression of the raw video stream is their idea.

The question isn't are they right or wrong but how much are you willing to waste fighting them?

The question here is does Tico have patents? Nraw isn't a totally inhouse Nikon product.
 
NickZ2016 said:
What little I know is that Red claims that any compression of the raw video stream is their idea.

The question isn't are they right or wrong but how much are you willing to waste fighting them?

The question here is does Tico have patents? Nraw isn't a totally inhouse Nikon product.
Click to expand...
Tico has patents but they seem to be for compression methods and they have mostly been used in streaming or transmission of video over IP networks.

RED seems to be claiming patents over built-in RAW compression in a video camera...

Sony got hit in 2013

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/red-ceo-jim-jannard-lawsuit-sony-raw-compression

Then Apple took a run at RED a few years ago for all the things we are saying here and RED still won...so they are feeling pretty confident.

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/apple-vs-red/

Only chance that Nikon has is if they have patents they claim over RED then they can move to settlement talks. That's what happened in the Sony case - case was withdrawn by both parties after a private settlement.
 
Last edited:
Canadianguy said:
NickZ2016 said:
What little I know is that Red claims that any compression of the raw video stream is their idea.

The question isn't are they right or wrong but how much are you willing to waste fighting them?

The question here is does Tico have patents? Nraw isn't a totally inhouse Nikon product.
Click to expand...
Tico has patents but they seem to be for compression methods and they have mostly been used in streaming or transmission of video over IP networks.

RED seems to be claiming patents over built-in RAW compression in a video camera...

Sony got hit in 2013

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/red-ceo-jim-jannard-lawsuit-sony-raw-compression

Then Apple took a run at RED a few years ago for all the things we are saying here and RED still won...so they are feeling pretty confident.

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/apple-vs-red/

Only chance that Nikon has is if they have patents they claim over RED then they can move to settlement talks. That's what happened in the Sony case - case was withdrawn by both parties after a private settlement.
Click to expand...
No, the other chance is that the TicoRAW IP they licensed from intoPIX does not violate the specific claims of the Red patents. You can't just patent "compressed video raw" - you have to specify in detail the methods to do the compression. There are a lot of ways to do compression. intoPix may have found a method that Red did not think of or cover by a claim in their patents.
 
Red is likely suing because not suing equals a loss. They've almost certainly talked to Nikon already who told them to go fly a kite. DJI and Kinety caved last year/early this year I think in both cases without a lawsuit.

With Apple and Sony they may have both settled after deciding it wasn't worth the risk. If Tico is involved they might feel it's a make or break issue for them and decide to push it all the way.

I'm curious what damages could be. HEVC is licensed at between $1 and $2 per camera. HEVC is covered by a long list of patents. How does Red claim more than that?
 
NickZ2016 said:
Red is likely suing because not suing equals a loss. They've almost certainly talked to Nikon already who told them to go fly a kite. DJI and Kinety caved last year/early this year I think in both cases without a lawsuit.

With Apple and Sony they may have both settled after deciding it wasn't worth the risk. If Tico is involved they might feel it's a make or break issue for them and decide to push it all the way.

I'm curious what damages could be. HEVC is licensed at between $1 and $2 per camera. HEVC is covered by a long list of patents. How does Red claim more than that?
Click to expand...
Sony and Red settled before going to court, Apple lost in court.

HEVC is not RAW.

No one has been able to put RAW compression in a video camera without getting sued by RED.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jtr27
Nikon’s Hybrid Sensor Patent Describes a Selective Global Shutter (Petapixel)
Replies
12
Views
12K
Krummj
Krummj
C
Nikon ZR - High Demand before shipping
Replies
7
Views
13K
NickZ2016
N
Bird_Nerd
Updated ZR Pre-Release Specs
Replies
1
Views
8K
Z8ZF
Z8ZF
C
Next camera - Nikon NR ?
Replies
6
Views
10K
Andre Yew
A
R
The first professional ZR review--from the RED shooter community
Replies
2
Views
18K
AZ Indie
AZ Indie

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top