Apple files ten patents relating to editing today

[Aindreas Gallagher]

“The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip.”

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright – the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park.

It’s an empty park mind you.

https://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics

[Franz Bieberkopf]

From the link:

The timeline of some embodiments includes a primary lane called a spine as well as one or more anchor lanes. The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps.

I think they’re misusing the word “spine” here. Herb?

Franz.

[Michael Gissing]

Looks like they are trying to patent a masking tool for secondary color correction. How can the patent office grant this? Looks like the Apple control freaks are using the inability of the patent office to determine ‘new’ or ‘unique’ to stifle competition.

This reminds me of the stupidity in granting a patent to Harrison on a motorised joystick for panning audio. Harrison didn’t invent the joystick, or the motorised version, just the use of pre existing tech to pan audio. The result is that no other audio company can use this tool and have forced everyone to use a less elegant approach. The use of patents like this is just selfish and heavy handed.

[Shane Ross]

You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents…it’s a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def

[Michael Gissing]

Thanks for the tip Shane. I have heard a few podcasts of that This American Life and it’s great.

[Herb Sevush]

[Franz Bieberkopf] “I think they’re misusing the word “spine” here. “

I think they’re misusing the words “the”, “timeline”, “of”, “some” …

We have met the enemy, and they are definitely not us.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

[Shawn Miller]

[Shane Ross] “You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents…it’s a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free.”

Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for calling out the number and name of the episode, Shane. It’s a very interesting piece.

Shawn

[David Lawrence]

[Aindreas Gallagher] “”The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip.”

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright – the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park.”

I noticed they refer to it as an “Anchored Timeline”. That seems curiously appropriate to me. Though not for the reasons they think…

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Chris Harlan]

[Shane Ross] “You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents…it’s a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free.
“

Yeah, it was a great episode. The current state of software patents is quite Dickensian. You could set a modern version of Bleak House around the patent litigation. The absurdity of Jarndyce v.Jarndyce has nothing on the typical US infringement suit.

[Bill Davis]

[David Lawrence] “[Aindreas Gallagher] “”The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip.”

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright – the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park.”

I noticed they refer to it as an “Anchored Timeline”. That seems curiously appropriate to me. Though not for the reasons they think…
“

I’m kinda interested in what this on-going angst fest about the X approach to editing is all about?

Do you guys actually have problems editing with magnetism? Did you just play with it and decide it wasn’t for you and give up on it?

If so, why are you so hostile to the feature if you don’t have to use it?

I can only speak for myself, but it took me about a week or so to get used to it IN the timeline.

Then when I learned about pre-editing in the Event Browser, the magnetism that I sorta understood but just seemed “workflow OK to me” suddenly started to ROCK and became a fundamental part of a daily technique for taking significant time out of my editing.

So please explain to me why you guys keep rediculing this part of FCP-X.

Seriously. What’s wrong with it. Specifically. Why is having the option to have software that removes gaps between clips when you discover that there are new workflow processes where that’s a VERY desirable capability?

Here’s what I’ve come to believe: Magnetism SUCKS for people who can’t get their brains out of a Legacy Style timeline. And if you’ve become “wired” like that, I can understand why it’s going to annoy you daily.

But if you’ve managed to move to the two stage process represented by X – which is to say preparation in the EB, including pre-selection and trimming that can be stored for future projects – then using the timeline for assembly and tune-up – rather than just LIVING in the timeline to do everything. Magnetism is a superb new tool that makes timeline assembly MUCH faster and easier.

So someone please explain this on-going magnetism hostility to me.

Cuz it continues to sound to me like the drone of people who don’t like it because they never actually explored it enough to figure out how it might actually be extremely useful.

Floor’s open.

Oh, and on the patent thing. I don’t get the angst here either. Apple spends lots company resources on IP development. That’s a fact. Wouldn’t it be corporate malfeasance if they didn’t follow up by applying to protect that IP with patents? You might feel that they shouldn’t apply for or be granted such patents – but we’re generally not patent attorneys here -and I can’t see a functional reason that they wouldn’t keep a robust and on-going operation in place to do exactly what they’re doing – building company value by patent acquisition. Isn’t that what EVERY business that spends money to develop new technology does? It’s fine to argue that a patent might be too broad or might be overly restrictive – but that’s for the patent bureau and the courts to settle. Apple is just applying for the protection. What’s the problem with that?

FWIW.

“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor