IMAX Sues Cinemark For Building Competing System... While Being An IMAX Customer
from the can't-take-the-competition? dept
IMAX theaters have become an increasingly important part of the movie business's continuing success over the past few years, as theaters have realized that (1) you can't "pirate" the IMAX experience and (2) people are often willing to pay more for it. But, it appears that at least one theater began to wonder why it had to pay IMAX so much for such an offering, and decided to set out on its own to build a competitor. The only problem is that this theater, Cinemark, has been a customer of IMAX, so now IMAX is suing Cinemark for trade secret violations and breach of contract (sent in by Eric Goldman).The details of the case certainly look like a business deal gone bad, and also involve Cinemark preemptively going to Texas (of course) to file a patent action against IMAX, asking the court to make clear that it does not infringe on IMAX's patents. There may very well be breach of contract issues involved here, so IMAX may have a decent case on that front. But what's more interesting is the question of whether or not there are trade secret violations here. We don't talk about trade secret protections as much around here, because they really don't come up that often. But IMAX is claiming that it shared proprietary trade secret info with Cinemark as part of their relationship, and that info was used by Cinemark to build its competing service.
Perhaps much more interesting, however, is the fact that, at least according to the IMAX lawsuit, the Cinemark XD quality has been reviewed poorly compared to IMAX (I looked around and actually found the reviews to be mixed, with many saying that the two are comparable in terms of experience). Cinemark is a much bigger company than IMAX, and had direct access to all of their technology -- and, even so, at least some are saying that the end result doesn't measure up. I'm reminded again of how silly it is to claim that big companies can always "steal" good ideas from smaller ones. It's simply not that easy. Beyond just the basic quality issues, IMAX really has built up a great brand name, and many people do think specifically about going to see "IMAX films." Cinemark can chip into that, but it's going to take a lot of marketing effort. And, really, what's wrong with a bit of competition? IMAX has had the market to itself for years, and some competition between two different methods of "immersive" movie-going experiences seems like it should only create a better situation for consumers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: big screen, competition, immersive experience, movies, trade secrets
Companies: cinemark, imax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nitpicking
Second, "big companies can always "steal" good ideas from smaller ones" - it's true that Cinemax is larger (by market cap) than IMAX, but it's 1.3B vs 0.5B - neither is exactly an embattled sole proprietor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nitpicking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It have never been about the customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did Cinemark sign a non-compete / non-disclosure?
In any case, folks like Microsoft have been stealing the work of others for years. Having been at a small company, have seen these partnerships produce huge increases in sales and huge competitors.
From a legal perspective if folks within Cinemark wanted to create a competitor, all they had to do was walk out the door and start a new company that Cinemark would be happy to invest in and buy product from in advance. This would have created more value for Cinemark since other movie chains might have been willing to buy from an independent company.
Sorry but to me, Cinemark just looks like poor business managers and slimy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which IMAX?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which IMAX?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Which IMAX?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competition
'Thus, IMAX seeks redress for Cinemark's willful breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with existing and prospective economic relations, breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and deliberate acts of bad faith, as well as misappropriation of trade secrets.'
Come on. At LEAST wait until the contract has expired!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contradict
You contradict yourself. Previously you assailed TX as a patent friendly jurisdiction. Yet in this case Cinemark went there to obtain a ruling unfavorable to a patent. Is TX favorable to patent holders or those who challenge patents? You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big companies stealing from little companies
For important stuff, I repeat, that is why the founding fathers specified IP in the Constitution (yes, they said "arts and sciences" - in those days, "arts" did not mean the same sort of trivia it means now).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAX is the Competition
Yes competition is good but it should be fair. Cinemark should respect their joint venture agreement as the mutually beneficial deal it was intended to be, and not exploit it in such an obviously unethical way. Once the agreement has expired they are free to compete but they should benefit the consumer by coming out with original ideas/designs of their own and not simply copying their competitor's product while arguing that the patents aren't enforceable. We should all be supporting IMAX because they are still the underdog here. Cinemark is the bully that is trying to knock them down before they have a decent chance to get up on their feet and fight fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Flexibility
Strictly from a self-interested point of view, I welcome Cinemark's XD system because only three of four of the next dozen films I'm hot to see are liable to be available on IMAX, whereas ALL films, if they are popular enough, have the chance of being seen on XD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]