Kosh
Μέλος Σωματείου
Mιας και πιασαμε την κουβεντα στο νημα της S5ii για το θεμα του Raw της Ζ9
Nikon is categorically defending itself. At no point does Nikon see itself as violating a valid and enforceable claim based on the patents listed in the statement of claim, since these are simply not enforceable due to "unenforceable conduct" (originally "unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable conduct").
Nikon disputes the validity of the RED patents, arguing that they were applied for too late at the time and should therefore not have been granted. Nikon points out that RED already offered a camera for pre-order at NAB 2006, in which the relevant codec technology was integrated, but it took more than a year before a patent application was filed. The patent, which was only registered after the fixed one-year period had expired, was wrongly granted from Nikon's point of view, since the patent office had no information that the technology had already been implemented and offered for advance sale.
Nikon also denies that RED has a right to injunctive relief, since - even if a patent infringement should exist - the company has not suffered any damage, let alone irreparable damage.
We are very curious to see whether and to what extent the court will share Nikon's arguments. So far, to our knowledge, the RED patents have been challenged on a different basis, in which it was intended to prove that there was no infringement or that RED in turn infringed patents.
If this new approach were successful, not only would Nikon be able to maintain its new, professional video claim, but sooner rather than later we would certainly see internal, compressed RAW in other cameras as well.
Αλληλουια !!! Ολοι πισω απο την Νικον στο δικαστηριο
Interne RAW-Aufnahme: Nikon hält RED-Patente für ungültig
Eine etwas unerwartete Wendung nimmt die Patentstreitigkeit zwischen RED und Nikon - im Mai wurde ja bekannt,
www.slashcam.de
Nikon is categorically defending itself. At no point does Nikon see itself as violating a valid and enforceable claim based on the patents listed in the statement of claim, since these are simply not enforceable due to "unenforceable conduct" (originally "unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable conduct").
Nikon disputes the validity of the RED patents, arguing that they were applied for too late at the time and should therefore not have been granted. Nikon points out that RED already offered a camera for pre-order at NAB 2006, in which the relevant codec technology was integrated, but it took more than a year before a patent application was filed. The patent, which was only registered after the fixed one-year period had expired, was wrongly granted from Nikon's point of view, since the patent office had no information that the technology had already been implemented and offered for advance sale.
Nikon also denies that RED has a right to injunctive relief, since - even if a patent infringement should exist - the company has not suffered any damage, let alone irreparable damage.
We are very curious to see whether and to what extent the court will share Nikon's arguments. So far, to our knowledge, the RED patents have been challenged on a different basis, in which it was intended to prove that there was no infringement or that RED in turn infringed patents.
If this new approach were successful, not only would Nikon be able to maintain its new, professional video claim, but sooner rather than later we would certainly see internal, compressed RAW in other cameras as well.
Αλληλουια !!! Ολοι πισω απο την Νικον στο δικαστηριο
