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.
Tell that to Apple. The patent is visually lossless video compression using a Bayer CFA in a camera. So I guess Fujifilm could do it if they decided to do RAW video compression using their X-Trans CFA inside their cameras...
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/P...tution_Decision-17-Trial_Instituted_Document/
Read the first paragraph of that link. Apple tried to claim that the Red claims were unpatentable. That is very different than claiming another method of video compression that is not covered by the Red claims, as intoPIX and Nikon would likely do. In other words, Nikon would admit that the Red claims are valid, but not applicable to the methods that they are using.
Did you read the actual patent - its not like Red gave the math formula for their compression scheme so that anyone using a different math formula could say they were not using Red's Patent.
Their Patent basically states any lossly RAW video compression that is visually lossless done in camera on a Bayer CFA is their idea.
I think Apple should have won but what do I know...
The
complaint references 7 patents, not just one. Take the first one (
US7830967B1 ) for example. Let's look at claim 1:
1. A video camera comprising:
a portable housing:
a lens assembly Supported by the housing and configured to
receive light;
a light sensitive device configured to convert the light into
digital raw image data with a resolution of at least 2 kat
a frame rate of at least about 23 frames per second;
a memory device Supported by the housing; and
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.
So right in the first claim, which is the most general and important one, a specific equation is given for a pre-emphasis function. Now If I make a video camera that uses no pre-emphasis function, or a different pre-emphasis function, then Claim 1 does not apply to me. ALL the things in the claim must be true for the claim to hold.
Now look at claim 3:
3. A video camera as in claim 1, wherein the digital raw
image data is
12-bit data and the pre-emphasis function com
prises a curve defined by the function y=(X/4095)0.5.
This is a subordinate claim to claim 1, so is less general. But it specifies 12-bit data. If I make a 14-bit camera, then claim 3 does not apply to me. I did a text search and I find no claims pertaining to a 14-bit recording in this document.
So this is how Nikon's attorneys will proceed. They will pick apart the claims one by one to show that they don't apply to Nikon's method, when all the details of the claim are considered precisely and at once. Each and every detail of the claim must apply.
I'm not a patent attorney but I've > 50 patents and I've written many of the claims myself (with good coaching from a patent lawyer). This particular patent looks weak to me. The claims are way too specific, and highly specific claims are easy to circumvent. You use 13 bits instead of 12 and claim 3 is null, for example. This patent looks like one written by an engineer who didn't get enough coaching by an attorney. Engineers always want to describe how it works rather than what's the broadest concept that can be claimed.
