Part of that wealth growth must have come from selling Oakley in 2007 for $2.1 billion.
But more power to him, for being that successful. As strange a man as he can seem to be, he did change digital cinematography forever.
Sony now suing RED!
- Thread starter evilthought
- Start date
Part of that wealth growth must have come from selling Oakley in 2007 for $2.1 billion.
But more power to him, for being that successful. As strange a man as he can seem to be, he did change digital cinematography forever.
I think it's like Apple vs Pc.
Last edited:
bruceallen
Well-known member
That's the whole point, Barry: Sony was not suing a ton of people in the camera world until RED started this stupid patent war.
I'm sure they could have. But they exercised restraint.
It is my opinion that this new situation is bad for filmmakers because it quite likely discourages startups from entering the digital cinema camera arena. So I am not pleased at RED. I am allowed to feel this way.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
dustylense
Veteran
There is one difference here though. Sony is a corporation, red is not. Just in that, Sony's legal team will be far larger than RED could dream of. Now Barry, I get you and your argument about Sony and their problems (it's mostly TV's, and small electronics devisions). THey have other ventures though, LOTS OF THEM! http://www.sony.com/SCA/who-we-are/our-businesses.shtml#film-television
SO even as they bleed from TV and music device sales, they still are a giant compared to RED. RED filed a suit over a RAW format. Start thinking about all the Patents Sony has in its file cabinet? I'm sure they outweigh RED by the 1000's. But there is one thing missing from your argument. ANd that is Japanese pride. They are a fight to the death culture backed up with tremendous honor. Even if Sony knew they were going bankrupt in 3 months they would fight this to the last dime just in the name of honor.
Just because the TV's aren't showing well profit wise doesn't mean the whole brand of Sony is sinking. Here is their Shareholdings and subsidiaries list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_C...lm_and_television_production_and_distribution
It's Jim Jannards personal wealth vs. a corporations wealth. Keep in mind that Jim got there selling ugly sunglasses before selling that brand to an Italian for +2billion dollars.
RED couldn't even deliver a 2/3's camera with a mount, but instead made a cheaper Epic. Keep in mind that this was Jim's statement: "The suit demands that Sony destroy all F65, F55 and F5 cameras. In suing Sony, RED claims “loss of sales, reduced business and profit, and that the general reputation of RED has been damaged as a result of the alleged patent infringements.” Jim's own words. You say RED is growing Barry. How do you know their financial situation? Other than Jims personal worth (made from ugly sunglasses) there is very little to read about REDs financials. They are a private company. Then Jim says "We are anxious to resolve this and have everyone move along. But in the end … our ideas, employees and customers matter. We will tenaciously protect all of them.” Sony has shareholders to protect. Who are shareholders? It's Jim trying to protect the "camera clubs" interests vs. Sony protecting a shareholders interests. Read that again from Jim. "Our ideas". Ideas, or developments. The second Sony put a legal team together about RED's ideas probably revealed 10 ideas Sony has patented. We see them as just cameras and what not. But Sony has been making those cameras a lot longer than the sunglasses billionaire.
Grab your popcorn boys. THis will be a long show. But even with Sony's reported losses, it's still a David vs Goliath battle. This time Davids stone is a RAW format claim. What kind of stones are Sony the Goliath packing???....
Keep in mind that both companies are asking for the other to dis-continue sales. By the way, which company had to adjust their prices against the other? Also, which camera has global shutter in it?
SO even as they bleed from TV and music device sales, they still are a giant compared to RED. RED filed a suit over a RAW format. Start thinking about all the Patents Sony has in its file cabinet? I'm sure they outweigh RED by the 1000's. But there is one thing missing from your argument. ANd that is Japanese pride. They are a fight to the death culture backed up with tremendous honor. Even if Sony knew they were going bankrupt in 3 months they would fight this to the last dime just in the name of honor.
Just because the TV's aren't showing well profit wise doesn't mean the whole brand of Sony is sinking. Here is their Shareholdings and subsidiaries list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_C...lm_and_television_production_and_distribution
It's Jim Jannards personal wealth vs. a corporations wealth. Keep in mind that Jim got there selling ugly sunglasses before selling that brand to an Italian for +2billion dollars.
RED couldn't even deliver a 2/3's camera with a mount, but instead made a cheaper Epic. Keep in mind that this was Jim's statement: "The suit demands that Sony destroy all F65, F55 and F5 cameras. In suing Sony, RED claims “loss of sales, reduced business and profit, and that the general reputation of RED has been damaged as a result of the alleged patent infringements.” Jim's own words. You say RED is growing Barry. How do you know their financial situation? Other than Jims personal worth (made from ugly sunglasses) there is very little to read about REDs financials. They are a private company. Then Jim says "We are anxious to resolve this and have everyone move along. But in the end … our ideas, employees and customers matter. We will tenaciously protect all of them.” Sony has shareholders to protect. Who are shareholders? It's Jim trying to protect the "camera clubs" interests vs. Sony protecting a shareholders interests. Read that again from Jim. "Our ideas". Ideas, or developments. The second Sony put a legal team together about RED's ideas probably revealed 10 ideas Sony has patented. We see them as just cameras and what not. But Sony has been making those cameras a lot longer than the sunglasses billionaire.
Grab your popcorn boys. THis will be a long show. But even with Sony's reported losses, it's still a David vs Goliath battle. This time Davids stone is a RAW format claim. What kind of stones are Sony the Goliath packing???....
Keep in mind that both companies are asking for the other to dis-continue sales. By the way, which company had to adjust their prices against the other? Also, which camera has global shutter in it?
Nothing to do with this lawsuit business, but I made a post in the Cafe section which got locked for some reason (despite my best efforts), so I'm not going to repost that link, but it was about the huge decline of once dominant electronic companies from Japan. What was interesting, is that they looked at Sharp, Panasonic, Sony and Hitachi. Hitachi is doing the best, mostly by getting out of consumer electronics to focus on their heavy machinery and process core competency. Of the remaining Sony, Panasonic and Sharp, Sony has relatively the best position insofar as they are most diversified into non-electronic businesses that are highly profitable (in comparison). For example, Sony derives more money out of their profitable insurance business than anything out of electronics. The article concludes by saying that in contrast, Panasonic and Sharp are in deep doo-doo, because they have nothing to fall back on.
So, if Barry thinks that Sony is in sad shape and their very survival is in question, what does that say about Panasonic who are supposedly in even worse shape... boy, how much faith are we to hold in those camera product road-maps from Panasonic? As a Panasonic camera owner, I am not exactly reassured. I'd like to think there will be a company behind the products in a few years, when I've invested in a platform and committed financially... and quite frankly from that point of view, if that was all that I was counting, I have more faith in Sony cameras sticking around than Panasonic (though I hope both survive - we all benefit by competition and innovation from many sources).
Sony situation is bleak? Well Panasonic is bleaker... and that makes me sad
So, if Barry thinks that Sony is in sad shape and their very survival is in question, what does that say about Panasonic who are supposedly in even worse shape... boy, how much faith are we to hold in those camera product road-maps from Panasonic? As a Panasonic camera owner, I am not exactly reassured. I'd like to think there will be a company behind the products in a few years, when I've invested in a platform and committed financially... and quite frankly from that point of view, if that was all that I was counting, I have more faith in Sony cameras sticking around than Panasonic (though I hope both survive - we all benefit by competition and innovation from many sources).
Sony situation is bleak? Well Panasonic is bleaker... and that makes me sad
LyleGorch
Well-known member
It is in the sense that Apple (like RED) want to manipulate their image to appear as the underdogs fighting the big nasty corporations for the good of the consumer. This is fiction.
evilthought
Well-known member
Ok, you have been predicting demise of Sony for a long time long in various threads. Sony is not going anywhere anytime soon. -- Not in your lifetime Sony still owns billions and billions of dollars of assets that they can sell if they run out of cash. For example, look at all the semiconductors plants that Sony owns. Almost every cellphone in the market (from Iphone to Samsung to Chinese phones) have Sony made CMOS in them made in those Sony owned semi-conductor plants.
You are babbling absolute nonsense. Yes they have been not profitable for a few years, but that doesn't change the fact that still own well over 100 billion dollars worth of assets.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Not knowing what the real truth is, I can just say lawsuits are more often than not horrid for both parties. Especially when there are 2 wealthy players who can hire legal teams that are extremely crafty and capable and of using any number of legal techniques to bend the facts to their favor and or drag out the process for a long time.
If there was some extreme injustice by Sony against Red, I could understand Red going after Sony...but the fact that we would need a brigade of lawyers to tell us what the extreme injustice was...in my very humble opinion, means it isn't there. Did Sony maybe, possibly use some portion of Reds technology...who knows. Could Red have maybe, possibly used some portion of Sony's technology in the past....again who knows. Are lawsuits and long legal battles worth what will be gained by either party? Doubt it.
If there was some extreme injustice by Sony against Red, I could understand Red going after Sony...but the fact that we would need a brigade of lawyers to tell us what the extreme injustice was...in my very humble opinion, means it isn't there. Did Sony maybe, possibly use some portion of Reds technology...who knows. Could Red have maybe, possibly used some portion of Sony's technology in the past....again who knows. Are lawsuits and long legal battles worth what will be gained by either party? Doubt it.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
There is a flaw in your logic... those assets are largely going to be factories. If they sell a factory, they lose all production from that factory. At some point, you sell too many assets and you can't make any more gadgets to sell, or at least enough to keep the company afloat. It's a bit like selling your car to pay your mortgage when you have no other way to get to work.
Not saying that Barry is right or wrong, only that the logic that they can simply sell assets to stay in business is flawed. There are plenty of companies that had plenty in assets that still went under.
another scenario. Red is broke. They cannot sustain this agressive behavior, cutting price, giving endless innovation. Competition start to be too hot.
Their market is filled, no money left for a new camera, just frustrated early users with unfinished cameras, and tons of Epic and Scarlet reaching now their 2nd hand era and customers starting to be very demanding for support. Too proud to give up, david need a goliath to suicide....so the bad sony has killed the good red... end of story, not my fault.
Or happy end, jannard sells Red to Sony, he becomes even richer and if something goes wrong it is Sony fault.
Their market is filled, no money left for a new camera, just frustrated early users with unfinished cameras, and tons of Epic and Scarlet reaching now their 2nd hand era and customers starting to be very demanding for support. Too proud to give up, david need a goliath to suicide....so the bad sony has killed the good red... end of story, not my fault.
Or happy end, jannard sells Red to Sony, he becomes even richer and if something goes wrong it is Sony fault.
Michael Schrengohst
Well-known member
If it came to a jury trial in the US - Red a USA company that makes their products in the USA vs. the evil Sony corporation zapping taxes and sales from the poor, poor US consumer that is struggling everyday to eek a mere existence against these foreign megacorporations that are destroying the very fiber of American life…..
rogar-Smoke(DBG):rogar-Love(DBG)::zombie_smiley:
rogar-Smoke(DBG):rogar-Love(DBG)::zombie_smiley:
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
If it came to a jury trial in the US - Red a USA company that makes their products in the USA vs. the evil Sony corporation zapping taxes and sales from the poor, poor US consumer that is struggling everyday to eek a mere existence against these foreign megacorporations that are destroying the very fiber of American life…..
I'd wager that Sony employs more Americans and puts more money into the American economy than Red does.
This is the two edged sword of patent protection. Patent protection promotes innovation. R&D costs millions and millions of dollars. You can always beat someone in price if you let them spend the money on R&D, then you copy the product and produce it. With no patent protection there is no R&D because you will go broke if you spend money to research and develop while everyone else just manufactures and sells for less money than you.
On the other hand to much patent protection can stifle innovation. If it's to broad or to long lasting, new products can never be developed because everything overlaps or builds on something else. There is also lawsuit farming where companies buy patents for no other reason than to make money on lawsuits and have no intention of ever manufacturing anything.
There's no way to perfectly write patent laws so that these two issues are balanced out and there is never a problem.
However, tech consumers are relatively savvy. They know when a lawsuit is to protect the investment in R&D, when a company is legitimately protecting itself from just spending the research money while some other company steals the research and makes the product. They also know when one company is just using the Patent laws to stifle competition, which is not in the best interest of the consumer.
It's a little early to tell what's going on here because the issues are so technical, but I think enough information will eventually emerge for people to take one of these positions.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Which is ultimately irrelevant... whether or not RED is an American company or Sony is a "big, evil Japanese" company, all that matters is who infringed on who's patent (if at all), not who is more well liked. Michael's proposition is how third world countries and banana republics are run.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I agree with you which is why I was pointing out the futility of expecting to play the ' American made' game with a Jury.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Indeed : ( Added the fact the founder of dvxuser is the President of RED company and a friend of a few of us here, this is even sadder to see.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Any doubts out there?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Damn, did Jannard stomp on your puppy or what?
Michael Schrengohst
Well-known member
Lawyers try and get the dumbest people on juries (that's why I never get picked) that have no idea what the case is even about. Lawyers will play the "USA" card….
You are supposing that most people in the US are as smart and informed as DVXUsers - they are not.
rogar-Dum(DBG):I've a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint - though it's difficult to say if either or neither of them have a just cause. If either really did have right on their side, it would obviously sway things.
But it's not just Sony and Red. Red have only just settled a case versus Arri (which AFAIK no side came out a clear winner from) and Red may be in danger of losing so much of the good PR that they generated in the early days. They started off being seen as the ones on the side of the little guys - their legal activities have not helped that image.
As for general financial situation, then all the main Japanese technology giants have been losing huge amounts of money in the last year or so, and all been having to lay off staff. That's true for each of Sony, Panasonic and Sharp. (Panasonic also lost nearly $10 billion last year.) But that seems to point more to the general economic situation (and competition from such as Samsung) and unlikely to last very long term.
Yes, it's leading to all of them having to take severe measures to cut costs, but it's key to remember that for all of them they are made up of varied and diverse business units. The likelihood is that in each of the cases some parts will have to be sold off or closed down, the ones seen as with the best long term prospects will be kept. No sentiment. In Sony's case, it seems that whilst such as consumer TV making is losing money, it's music and film businesses are doing well. They will likely adopt a policy of closing some divisions - but expect them to rigorously defend the ones they value.
My own expectation is that this will all end with a very quiet announcement in some months time that a settlement has been reached. Not with Red, Sony or any other big similar company going spectacularly broke.
Last edited: