Barry_Green
Moderator
Why would you want to support Sony and its lawsuit? Why does that make you happy? You don't know which party is in the right, or which is in the wrong. Or, more likely, they both share some of each...
This is just so weird...
Sony now suing RED!
- Thread starter evilthought
- Start date
This is just so weird...
LyleGorch
Well-known member
I try to remain camera agnostic these days, so I'm certainly not a Sony fanboy. That said I think there are far more examples of the opposite of what you are saying here, the longer this drags on the better it is for the larger entity. Sure, Sony is losing hundreds of millions a year, but the point is that they can handle that (at least for awhile) Sony is diverse and while some might say that is a liability there is a valid argument that it is also keeping them afloat. Even if RED were to win the first round of a trial by jury Sony could go on in appeal for another 10 years and have any reward/remedy reduced to the point that it is meaningless (when balanced against RED's legal costs).
I'm really not rooting for either side, I'm just a critical observer of this 21st century phenomenon of business-by-copyright-litigation, everyone can easily keep track of how often the 'captains of industry' like Apple, Sony, Samsung revert to the courts.
Last edited:
bruceallen
Well-known member
The thing is: I'm rooting for Sony too - simply because Sony didn't start this stupid patent fight. They're just returning fire.
If Sony started it, I would root for RED.
I have historically been pretty darn pro-RED. Especially in 2007/2008 when they were starting out. And I backed that up with action. With both RED ONE and Epic, we were some of the first to use it and get footage out and we always emphasized the positive, because we liked them. Go back and look at their 2007 NAB reel - or their workflow videos, etc.
But Jim bringing all of this litigious BS into the camera world seriously sucks.
Sony has historically been pretty cool about not trolling the other camera manufacturers for patents.
Looking at all the stuff Sony invented, I'm sure they could have successfully sued a lot of other manufacturers if they were in a more litigious mood.
I have no desire to return to 1900s-era Edison moviemaking patent cartels. That's why everyone moved west to Hollywood, remember? To get away from this stupid stuff that RED started.
Because Sony's camera dept has not had a history of patenting ridiculously obvious stuff and attacking other camera manufacturers. Whereas RED seems to like this.
I've read RED's patents and I think their claims on Sony are pretty stupid. In general they are just going to cause a lot of ridiculous legal action - and the effect will be reduced innovation and raised camera prices.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
That makes no sense. One entity is losing money, the other is earning money. So one has got to cut costs, where the other can bear costs longer. The more money Red makes, the more they can put towards their legal team. Sony, on the other hand, is reported to be actually having to sell their Japan and USA headquarters just to try to raise enough cash to stay afloat a little longer.
You said ten years. In 2000, Sony was worth $82 billion. Today, they're worth $16 billion. They lost $6 billion last year alone. If they don't turn things around, they will be GONE in three years (and yes, the new chairman has vowed to turn things around, just as new chairmen always do). The success of his efforts remains to be seen. Stopping the hemorrhaging would be a good first step.
Well, six billion, for 2012...
Not so much actually. As pointed out before, they can't even pay their debt off anymore and they're exploring selling their real estate just to raise cash to continue funding operations.
The only things keeping Sony afloat right now are the movie and insurance business. Everything else is bleeding terribly. So yes, that diversity is helping, but if they want to stay in business, they may very well have to sell off or shutter their electronics arms, because those are what are killing them.
The longer it goes, Red grows stronger and stronger, and Sony grows weaker and weaker.
Now, if Sony has an ironclad case and can prove Red violated their patents, then by all means they should indeed countersue and win. But if they're just trying to delay things, I think the delaying game favors the more profitable company... (of course, if either company is granted their injunction to stop the other company from selling products, the whole situation changes right then and there!)
Last edited:
LyleGorch
Well-known member
In relative terms in relation to the cost of litigation Sony can sustain this longer than RED, those costs to Sony a tiny fraction of operational expenses. But if you are saying this is some sort of race against the clock and that Sony will be out of business before it can be resolved, well I guess that would be a novel legal strategy on RED's part.
Barry_Green
Moderator
But -- if Red is in the right, then shouldn't they have started it?
Even if Sony was in the right?
Only if there's something flawed in his approach. What if he's right? What if Sony has actually stolen designs or violated patents? Would Jim suing about it still suck? Wouldn't he instead be required to sue over it, rather than let some "big behemoth" just steal his work and his designs?
Look, I don't care which party wins, just so long as the RIGHT party wins. Whichever party has caused the harm, should suffer for it.
Well, see, here's the thing that gets me. Are you a patent attorney? Are you a lawyer at all? Have you reviewed all the evidence Red and Sony have garnered on each other? Are you privileged to the (presumably) hours and hours and pages and pages of testimony, evidence, expert witnesses, and everything else that goes into a lawsuit such as this? I dare say not -- and therefore, you (and everyone else taking a "side" on this) are simply not qualified to render a judgement because you don't know all the evidence.
Cases like this (or any other, whether it's Trayvon Martin or Casey Anthony or whatever) shouldn't and can't be litigated in the court of public opinion. The legal system and the courts exist and function when each side presents their best case, and a judge or jury examines the evidence and makes an informed, educated ruling based on the actual evidence. And there are always two sides to every story.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, I still don't understand this. Sony is operationally broke. They cannot pay their bills as-is. Their accounts are shrinking, not growing. Adding legal expenses makes their accounts shrink faster.
On the other side, Red is growing. Their accounts are growing in size. The more they grow, the longer they can last.
I just don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that Sony can sustain any action longer than Red. I mean, if you're talking about legal fees in the hundreds of millions of dollars, then Sony could last longer than I could, if they were suing me, because I couldn't start in the game anyway. But to a guy who's got three billion dollars at his disposal, and more every week, how can it be presumed that Sony could last longer than Red?
The only way Sony can last longer than Red (given today's circumstances) is if Sony is granted an injunction for Red to stop selling all their cameras. If that happens, then Red is in serious trouble. Barring that, I just don't see any way that time or sustenance is on Sony's side in any sort of presumed big advantage. Just seems like each side is capable of putting up enough dough to properly support their case and defend against the others, and I can't see how anyone could suggest that Red would have to drop out as time goes on (unless their enjoined from being able to sell any product; if that happens, then yeah, they're likely dead).
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Well, as of 2012, Sony still had $162.142 BILLION in assets. I think that reports of their imminent demise are greatly exaggerated (To paraphrase Mark Twain). I think a protracted legal battle hurts RED more than it hurts Sony.
I really don't have a dog in this fight. I have used Sony products (Pro-sumer cameras) for a while now and have liked them, but I always tried to make my decisions on buying cameras based on what I felt was the best product I could afford at the time. I am not going to waste any personal emotions over the outcome of this and I sure as heck am not going to tie one iota of personal identification to the the tools I choose to use.
I still think that this whole thing is corporate "Winky Wagging", but I would hate for it to turn into a situation like the Philo Farnsworth versus RCA/David Sarnoff legal battles at the birth of television, where Farnsworth was left a beaten man and his innovations for improved TV were stifled prematurely. In the end the only ones who win are the lawyers.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/11q4_sony.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_Farnsworth
According to Forbes, Sony is #38 in World's Most Powerful Brands. #477 in Global 2000, #70 in sales, #168 in assets.
$86.48 billion in revenue, $20.22 billion in cash on hand, $11.77 in debt, $153 billion in assets, - $3.11 million in profits, 168,300 employees.
Besides professional video/film production products, they're involved in consumer electronics, movie and TV production, music, computers, insurance, banking, gaming consoles and mobile phones.
They may be having a rough time as of late, but they are a huge, huge company. They have a lot invested in the F5/55 and they're not going to let RED have it without a fight.
$86.48 billion in revenue, $20.22 billion in cash on hand, $11.77 in debt, $153 billion in assets, - $3.11 million in profits, 168,300 employees.
Besides professional video/film production products, they're involved in consumer electronics, movie and TV production, music, computers, insurance, banking, gaming consoles and mobile phones.
They may be having a rough time as of late, but they are a huge, huge company. They have a lot invested in the F5/55 and they're not going to let RED have it without a fight.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, whatever, those that want to believe Sony is a big powerhouse can go buy Sony stock; I know that I think it's not a wise investment, but -- whatever.
I think that both combatants are big enough that they will be able to put up adequate defense against the other's claims. I do not think that Sony has some big enormous advantage and that Red is some bug that will be squashed. That's all I was really trying to get at.
I think that both combatants are big enough that they will be able to put up adequate defense against the other's claims. I do not think that Sony has some big enormous advantage and that Red is some bug that will be squashed. That's all I was really trying to get at.
APPLAUSE.
bruceallen
Well-known member
You obviously haven't read the patents cited in the lawsuit. Take your time and check it out thoroughly and let's chat about it then, OK?
Barry, this is a really poor argument. On four levels.
1. By your logic, you feel that LodSys should be given the benefit of the doubt with their patenting of in-app purchasing and those Internet Shopping Cart patent holders should not endure any criticism until they've had their day in court.
2. As a filmmaker, it is my right to criticize one camera manufacturer for starting a legal war that stifles innovation and drives equipment prices up. Especially when that company's marketing relies on "we're the indie good guys, fighting for you the filmmaker". If Blackmagic Design or GoPro or the next innovative company decides to scale back their digital cinema camera plans because of the hostile legal environment RED is creating, then it hurts me.
3. I am not a lawyer but do know IP lawyers, and believe me their opinion is even more scathing.
4. You obviously have a greater faith in our patent and court system than I do. I am not fond of litigious companies and I intent to put not just my purchasing dollars but my equipment rentals dollars where my mouth lies. Just as I would prefer to use a Google product - because they have a stated policy of not sue over patent infringement "unless attacked".
http://google-opensource.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/taking-stand-on-open-source-and-patents.html
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Barry_Green
Moderator
For reference, the only number that actually really matters is market capitalization. If Sony has $162 BILLION in assets, why is their entire market capitalization only $16 billion? Because there's debt and there are problems. The market capitalization is the total sum of everyone's beliefs, opinions, research, projections, and everything else that goes into determining what a company is worth. And that number, for Sony, right now, is about $16 billion. And ten years ago it was $83 billion. And when Sony goes losing $6 billion in cash in one year, that has a very negative effect on their market capitalization.
Is $16 billion bigger than $3 billion? Yes it is. But both are very big numbers. Tossing numbers out like "$82 billion in revenue" and "$162 billion in assets" mean nothing when you're losing money on revenue and you're in debt and you have to sell your real estate just to raise money to pay those 168,300 employees.
The only number that matters, in evaluating Sony, is Sony's market capitalization. The best minds in the business have all evaluated all the reports and projections and market conditions and everything, and collectively they've settled on today's valuation of about $16 billion. If Jim wanted to buy Sony outright, he'd have to get together with four equally-wealthy friends and pool their money together, but they could do it. Of course, they're not going to, but it helps to demonstrate the perspective of the situation.
Is $16 billion bigger than $3 billion? Yes it is. But both are very big numbers. Tossing numbers out like "$82 billion in revenue" and "$162 billion in assets" mean nothing when you're losing money on revenue and you're in debt and you have to sell your real estate just to raise money to pay those 168,300 employees.
The only number that matters, in evaluating Sony, is Sony's market capitalization. The best minds in the business have all evaluated all the reports and projections and market conditions and everything, and collectively they've settled on today's valuation of about $16 billion. If Jim wanted to buy Sony outright, he'd have to get together with four equally-wealthy friends and pool their money together, but they could do it. Of course, they're not going to, but it helps to demonstrate the perspective of the situation.
LyleGorch
Well-known member
I guess people can decided for themselves how broke Sony is:
http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Income-Statement
Evidently you have a link for information on Red's finances you can supply? I've never seen any sort of publicly available balance sheet.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Ah, but I have. I just recognize that I'm not enough of an expert to be able to have a valid opinion on it, just like reading WebMD doesn't make me a doctor.
Always interesting when someone else tells you what you're thinking, isn't it?
You are free to criticize anyone and anything, that is your free speech right. I just would refrain from doing so if I didn't know what the facts of the situation actually are, that's all. You can stir up a hornet's nest of trouble if you tell people that they're surrounded by a dangerous chemical called dihydrogen monoxide, and that it's fatal if inhaled, and excess exposure to it is deadly, and yet it's in the food you eat and it's literally soaked into the ground. Sure, lots of people could criticize and raise all manner of hell about it and call their congressmen and demand accountability and change... but if they don't know the actual facts, is any of that bluster really accomplishing anything?
And if Sony's patent suit stifles Red's innovation, does that not equally hurt? Or if Indian or Chinese manufacturers rip off designs and put out cheap knockoffs, does that not stifle the incentive for the innovating companies to produce more?
I just think it's presumptuous for people who don't know the actual details or the evidence, to go rendering scathing opinions of "right" and "wrong". If you're comfortable doing it, go right ahead.
Not saying I have great faith in the system at all. Just saying that the court is the only place where the evidence will actually be heard. All I'm really saying, at the end of the day, is that we HAVEN'T HEARD THE EVIDENCE. All we've heard is some press releases, which -- dare I say it -- may not be the most unbiased presentations of evidence, y'know?
And even if we do hear the evidence, are we qualified to know what it means?
But, whatever -- doesn't really matter, I was just expressing shock of how quickly the tables have turned, how Jim was going to "free us" from the evil overlording syndicate of the Japanese manufacturers, and now, just about six short years later, people are actually rooting for the formerly-despised Japanese behemoth to crush Jim. Doesn't that seem bizarre?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Thanks for posting that. That points it out rather well, doesn't it? Just go down to the line that matters: Net Income (loss). Sales are irrelevant, if you lose more money than you make in sales. If you sold $100 billion, but you lost $110 billion, your net result is that you've lost $10 billion...
There is no publicly available info, because Red is a private company. The only number we can use is Forbes' estimation of Jannard's wealth, which currently stands at about $3 billion.
Why this is about image:
Because the company that appears to be the innovator is the one that gets new business and by the time this issue is finally resolved, the technology may be irrelevant.
I don't think RED had anything to lose in saying Sony stole from them. Whether he wins or loses in court doesn't matter.
By being the first one to sue, he reaffirms that his company is the innovator, not the follower. So much so that he is willing to sue the Goliath.
The thing is Jannard is first and foremost a master of hype, marketing and strategy. His whole site speaks of and to the Alpha male.
Battle tested, special ops, etc.
He needs to have a battle in order to affirm his identity at all times as a leader, and therefore the identity of RED as a leader as well.
It's the oldest story out there, create a conflict in order to draw your supporters in closer and clearly define the enemy.
Certainly all of his loyal troops will defend him to the very end. Where else do we see such Brand Loyalty?
Look at the release of the newest Scarlet, the site crashed because so many users were checking it out.
What did Jannard do?
Did he say that their server couldn't handle the volume of viewers, that they underestimated their needs?
No.
He came into the press conference and stated that they were under attack.
Captain Jim.
From a marketing point of view, his lawsuit is a win, even if he loses. Because he was the first to attack.
Every Alpha male out there will see RED as in the driver seat. And that is the profile of the kind of buyer RED appeals to.
The countersuit was Sony's only means to be perceived as something other than defensive.
The only thing I might add is what a Japanese general said after Pearl Harbor.
"I fear we may have awakened a sleeping giant."
Ironically, they too calculated that the risk was worth it, and we all know how that turned out.
Because the company that appears to be the innovator is the one that gets new business and by the time this issue is finally resolved, the technology may be irrelevant.
I don't think RED had anything to lose in saying Sony stole from them. Whether he wins or loses in court doesn't matter.
By being the first one to sue, he reaffirms that his company is the innovator, not the follower. So much so that he is willing to sue the Goliath.
The thing is Jannard is first and foremost a master of hype, marketing and strategy. His whole site speaks of and to the Alpha male.
Battle tested, special ops, etc.
He needs to have a battle in order to affirm his identity at all times as a leader, and therefore the identity of RED as a leader as well.
It's the oldest story out there, create a conflict in order to draw your supporters in closer and clearly define the enemy.
Certainly all of his loyal troops will defend him to the very end. Where else do we see such Brand Loyalty?
Look at the release of the newest Scarlet, the site crashed because so many users were checking it out.
What did Jannard do?
Did he say that their server couldn't handle the volume of viewers, that they underestimated their needs?
No.
He came into the press conference and stated that they were under attack.
Captain Jim.
From a marketing point of view, his lawsuit is a win, even if he loses. Because he was the first to attack.
Every Alpha male out there will see RED as in the driver seat. And that is the profile of the kind of buyer RED appeals to.
The countersuit was Sony's only means to be perceived as something other than defensive.
The only thing I might add is what a Japanese general said after Pearl Harbor.
"I fear we may have awakened a sleeping giant."
Ironically, they too calculated that the risk was worth it, and we all know how that turned out.
Last edited:
LyleGorch
Well-known member
So if there is no publicly available information how do you support your argument that "On the other side, Red is growing. Their accounts are growing in size. The more they grow, the longer they can last." ? You really can't have any information about RED's financial position unless Jannard or his accountant told you something (which understandably might be prudent not to reveal). I don't see how anyone can really make any statements about the relative health of RED's finances under the circumstances. The only thing that is certain is that Sony is a much much bigger company than RED.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
No documentable evidence other than Red's own growth (acquiring studios, adding employees, etc) and the Forbes estimation of his wealth, which was under $1.5 billion in 2005 and is now up to $2.8 to $3 billion now. Jannard's worth has doubled in the last 8 years. And since selling Oakley, he focuses all his attention on Red. So that's the only public information (and, an estimate at that) of how Red is doing.
I don't understand why this should be inflaming passions.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Me either, so I'll drop out.
If someone wants to research Red, they could go on dandb.com and get the Dun & Bradstreet reports, but you'd have to pay about $550 for a five-pack, and there's at least five businesses that might be Red (Red.com, Red, Red Digital Cinema, Red Digital Marketing, Red Cinema Rentals were all names that looked like they could be associated under the master Red umbrella).
If someone wants to research Red, they could go on dandb.com and get the Dun & Bradstreet reports, but you'd have to pay about $550 for a five-pack, and there's at least five businesses that might be Red (Red.com, Red, Red Digital Cinema, Red Digital Marketing, Red Cinema Rentals were all names that looked like they could be associated under the master Red umbrella).