[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)