RED Mini-Mags Exposed, or just Business As Usual?

jamedia.uk said:
It is in court (well all the preamble to the actual hearing ) and it is RED doing the complaining about Jinni.
Click to expand...

Big surprise. But the fact remains: the videos aren't in court, they're on youtube.

However there are multiple other cases against RED the latest one being Apple.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that... but that doesn't give these guys any credibility.
 
Tamerlin said:
Big surprise. But the fact remains: the videos aren't in court, they're on youtube.
Click to expand...

That is what I have said several times. However elsewhere in this thread someone explained that in the USA lawyers like to get this stuff out in the public domain before the case is heard.
I always thought they wanted to keep their powder dry until actually in court. However it seems that the "court of public opinion" holds some weight?

On the REDmag stuff it seems Jinni win hands down.
 
jamedia.uk said:
That is what I have said several times. However elsewhere in this thread someone explained that in the USA lawyers like to get this stuff out in the public domain before the case is heard.
Click to expand...

The don't.

I always thought they wanted to keep their powder dry until actually in court.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Releasing information about an ongoing case to the public is very rare.

However it seems that the "court of public opinion" holds some weight?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The "court of public opinion" largely consists of people who evaluate the credibility of their source based on what they want to hear rather than on fact checking. It has no value whatsoever.

On the REDmag stuff it seems Jinni win hands down.
Click to expand...

According to Jinni, which isn't doing a good job of establishing its own credibility.
 
jamedia.uk said:
That is what I have said several times. However elsewhere in this thread someone explained that in the USA lawyers like to get this stuff out in the public domain before the case is heard.
I always thought they wanted to keep their powder dry until actually in court. However it seems that the "court of public opinion" holds some weight?
Click to expand...

Completely depends on the case. The rationale for withholding until trial is to keep the opposition relatively in the dark about what arguments will be used to retain the element of surprise. The rationale for going public is to introduce public pressure, usually to try to force a settlement (if a business starts tanking because of bad press, they may come back to the negotiating table rather than wait for a long and slow trial).

I’m not confident Jinni is operating with any kind of legal strategy. They’ve had at least one set of attorneys recuse, which more often than not suggests something is up with the client that makes representation difficult.
 
dcoughla said:
... The rationale for going public is to introduce public pressure, usually to try to force a settlement (if a business starts tanking because of bad press, they may come back to the negotiating table rather than wait for a long and slow trial)...
Click to expand...
That's correct. After all, a legal opponent stands to lose from a negative verdict in a trial or an out-of-court settlement. For example, most labor negotiations take place in public before they take place behind the closed doors.
 
DLD said:
That's correct. After all, a legal opponent stands to lose from a negative verdict in a trial or an out-of-court settlement. For example, most labor negotiations take place in public before they take place behind the closed doors.
Click to expand...

In other words, if you don't have a strong enough case to win in court, you try to get the public opinion on your side...
 
Tamerlin said:
In other words, if you don't have a strong enough case to win in court, you try to get the public opinion on your side...
Click to expand...

You have just described how politics works.

However in business public perception is also very important. Ask Apple. :-)

In legal cases the public verdict can have an effect too.

It is not a case of having a strong enough case or not.
 
jamedia.uk said:
You have just described how politics works.
Click to expand...

Yep... and little things like reality have nothing to do with politics at all, obviously.

However in business public perception is also very important. Ask Apple. :-)
Click to expand...

Yep... one of the most litigious tech companies out there...

In legal cases the public verdict can have an effect too.
Click to expand...

Not really, especially since the unwashed masses usually have no idea what's really going on, and form their opinion based on what they want to hear. Jinnitech is playing to the crowd most likely because that's the only card it has.

It is not a case of having a strong enough case or not.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. The catch is that what constitutes a strong case can be swayed significantly by the budget of the parties on either side. If the party with more money has the facts on their side, then the party with less money doesn't really stand a chance.

There have of course been situations where the party with the facts on its side lost simply because it couldn't afford to see the case through (i.e. Intel vs Intergraph).
 
Tamerlin said:
There have of course been situations where the party with the facts on its side lost simply because it couldn't afford to see the case through (i.e. Intel vs Intergraph).
Click to expand...

Which I expect why Jinni has taken the steps to put al the information out there.
 
jamedia.uk said:
Explain? What have I proved right?
AFAIKC Jinni have all the facts and have put them out there as clearly RED have cash to splash and have home turf advantage.
Click to expand...

"AFAIKC Jinni have all the facts and have put them out there"

On what are you basing that? What makes you believe that Jinni is credible?
 
Tamerlin said:
"AFAIKC Jinni have all the facts and have put them out there"

On what are you basing that? What makes you believe that Jinni is credible?
Click to expand...

experience. On what are you basing your opinion that it is false? Are you an electronics engineer?
 
jamedia.uk said:
experience. On what are you basing your opinion that it is false? Are you an electronics engineer?
Click to expand...

In other words, you're basing your opinion on what you want to hear.

I didn't state an opinion that it's false, what I stated is that their methods make me skeptical of their claims. Several comments I've seen from people in better positions to be in the know than I am have also raised my skepticism.
 
Tamerlin said:
In other words, you're basing your opinion on what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. I said experience.
BTW I am not a RED user so it makes not difference to me.

Tamerlin said:
I didn't state an opinion that it's false, what I stated is that their methods make me skeptical of their claims. Several comments I've seen from people in better positions to be in the know than I am have also raised my skepticism.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I also talked to other people about some of it out side my area of expertise.
 
jamedia.uk said:
Re the Apple litigation on REDcode http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365484-More-Red-Camera-falsehoods&p=1986803312&viewfull=1#post1986803312
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple is trying to invalidate Red's patent because it knows that it wouldn't be able to win a patent infringement suit in court otherwise. It's probably a disagreement over a license fee that Apple doesn't want to pay or something along those lines.

It's probably going to a while before we get a conclusion to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top