{"id":125098,"date":"2020-01-03T06:00:23","date_gmt":"2020-01-03T12:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.premiumbeat.com\/blog\/?p=125098"},"modified":"2019-12-26T14:12:19","modified_gmt":"2019-12-26T20:12:19","slug":"apple-vs-red","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.premiumbeat.com\/blog\/apple-vs-red\/","title":{"rendered":"Apple Vs. RED: Was the REDCODE RAW Patentable or Unpatentable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Let’s take a close look at Apple’s challenge to RED, the dispute, the decision, and what it means for the future of both companies.<\/h2>\n

In May, Apple filed a patent petition claiming that RED’s patent on REDCODE RAW was “Unpatentable” for a number of reasons. After the hearing, the court ruled in RED’s favor, stating that Apple’s legal team had not supported their claims sufficiently. This decision means that RED will retain the patent on its implementation of raw compression.<\/p>\n

\n

The Dispute<\/h3>\n
\"Apple<\/a>

Apple claimed that the REDCODE RAW was unpatentable. Image via THINK A<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

In May of 2019, Apple filed its claim that RED’s patent (<\/span>patent number 9,245,314<\/a>) was invalid for a few main reasons. It claimed that the patent was based too heavily on two earlier patents \u2014 the first by <\/span>Ari M. Presler<\/a> regarding a “Digital camera system for recording, editing, and visualizing images,” and the second from <\/span>Claus M\u00f8lgaard<\/a> regarding “image compression for high-quality imaging.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Essentially, Apple was asserting that RED’s patent was based on these earlier patents regarding HD or raw images, and lossless or near-lossless compression and decompression of images in a video camera. Because of this, they claimed that RED’s patent was obvious and shouldn’t be upheld.<\/p>\n

In addition to this claim, Apple had several others that declared RED’s patent as unclear and vague about the way it described the method for its use of compression. These were Apple’s main complaints in the filing:<\/p>\n