Nikon bought RED Camera - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Black Phoenix
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2024, 01:27:03 am
content: https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/07/nikon-buys-film-camera-maker-red/QuoteQuoteFirst was Altrium being acquired by Renesas. Now Nikon jumps to the forefront of cinema after years of trying to beat Canon and Sony in video.Japanese companies are really swimming in money from the looks of it...

author: Jackster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2024, 01:39:34 am
content: Bet they will move manufacturing out of the US.That compressed "RAW" patent (which is just JPEG) is worth it for Nikon. Now they can roll their own cinema camera and try to compete with Canon and Sony.Even though Sony makes Nikon's CCDs.Going to be an interesting few years.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2024, 10:11:32 pm
content: RED are patent trolls, they don't have special tech, just happened to get a patent for it.

author: chriswebb
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 08, 2024, 10:33:16 pm
content: Patent trolling usually implies they don’t make products and simply rely on their patents. Are you saying they should leave money on the table since they were granted an enforceable patent? Do you need another youtube video to help you decide?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2024, 12:15:53 am
content: The patent is plainly obvious as it required claims of larger resolution and higher frame rate, which were natural extensions of the known (and already demonstrated) methods. They added zero technical or inventive steps.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2024, 01:11:39 am
content: Quote from: chriswebb on March 08, 2024, 10:33:16 pmA company can be a patent troll when they abuse the patent system to stifle competition and maintain their monopoly position despite the technology that is patented not being specifically innovative.Patent examiners aren't always engineers and can't always appreciate why a patent is not novel. I say this having had a US patent issued in my name (for a technique I do believe was novel!) The documents that the patent examiner cited were clearly found on just a textual search and the one document they brought up referencing prior art was completely unrelated to the technology in question.As is my understanding, RED took the JPEG2000 codec, which has a lossless mode, made a few adjustments, and then patented the application of that type of codec to higher resolution images (above 2K in each dimension). Since there are really only a few ways to do lossless efficient image compression, this effectively gave them a market monopoly, but didn't return the benefit of the patent to society (that is, an explanation of how the novel technology works, because, we already knew how JPEG2000 works!)There was no novel step or technique in RED's patent, but if you put enough jibberish in front of a patent examiner, they may well bite and issue you the patent. Patent offices are often under a lot of pressure too, as there can be a several year-long backlog to get patents issued.

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2024, 08:45:24 am
content: Quote from: Jackster on March 08, 2024, 01:39:34 amhttps://petapixel.com/2023/04/27/reds-lawsuit-against-nikon-dismissed-z9-gets-to-keep-compressed-raw/The article speculates that RED may have caved altogether but I think the most likely scenario is that they came to a licensing agreement that was reasonable for Nikon.So I don't think this is about the patent. Nikon has been getting more serious about video but they aren't exactly a known brand in that space and didn't even have a dedicated cine product line. AFAIK the other main contenders are Sony and ARRI, Canon is a bit of a different niche.