-
Apple Patents
This might interest some of you.
-
44 Replies
-
Patenting collaborative workflows? Sounds like the antithesis of collaboration to patent it. A sure way to make third parties shun you I would have thought.
More Apple control freak stuff more likely
-
[Michael Gissing] “Patenting collaborative workflows? Sounds like the antithesis of collaboration to patent it. A sure way to make third parties shun you I would have thought. “
Did you read it? It isn’t a patent on collaborative workflows. It is a patent for an NLE-like computer program that can have multiple instances of the UI acting upon a single project at the same time. It has nothing to do with the amorphous concept of interchanging work between multiple tools as is done with XML, OMF, EDL, etc.
[Michael Gissing] “More Apple control freak stuff more likely”
Yes. Software patents as a concept are bogus. Apple aggressively exploits them for better or worse. I say they stifle innovation in their current implementation.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] ” It is a patent for an NLE-like computer program that can have multiple instances of the UI acting upon a single project at the same time”
An interest aspect of this is that Walter Murch has been advocating for an interactive, collaborative timeline for many years. His concept is that several editors (or editors + sound + VFX) could be simultaneously working on the exact same timeline at once. Each person would have a section “cordoned off” as they were working on it, so that two people wouldn’t be able to alter the same section of the timeline at once. Release the “block” and everyone’s timeline is updated. He has certainly verbalized this concept since before this patent date. In some ways, Lightworks does that now.
[Andrew Richards] “Software patents as a concept are bogus. Apple aggressively exploits them for better or worse. “
I completely agree. Many software patents are awarded for processes, not products, code, etc. The patent is for the general way something is done, not for a specific and quantifiable way of doing it. In many cases these are relatively intuitive workflows that anyone could figure out and generally do. Yet often companies are awarded patents on these simply by having a clever write-up and paying lawyers to file. The patent office doesn’t really understand and doesn’t know enough to challenge them.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
Interesting, too, in reading this, is that the general description seems to overlap what is already done by Avid, Quantel, A-Frame, Xprove and others. I’m sure Avid and Quantel would have patents on their work, so as usual, it sounds like multiple patents have been issues for essentially the same processes. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, but this is certainly not a patent for a specific piece of software.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Oliver Peters] “Of course, I’m not a lawyer, but this is certainly not a patent for a specific piece of software.”
It wouldn’t be a proper software patent if it weren’t tragically broad and overreaching.
Best,
Andy -
This patent along with Alex Gollner’s observations are almost enough to buoy my hopes of actually seeing a client/server collaborative FCPX feature set.
Almost. It’s hard not to expect to be disappointed anymore.
Alex posted his thoughts on the patent as well.
Best,
Andy -
Wait until the soccer mom skateboarding youtubers get a hold of this!
They will be able to collabo-chat to their editor back in the edit trailer after landing a 720 off the vert pipe.
Pretty radical.
In all seriousness, I’m all for it as long as it is useful. Personally, in our tiny little biz, sharing is becoming more and more crucial. It allows for generalization as well as specialization.
The FCPX timeline has been the most controversial topic of FCP X. I and others like me, have always felt that a bigger picture is in store and what we are seeing now is just a shell, a beginning.
Eventually, it will make greater sense and, I believe, the X timeline metaphor might begin to crystallize. I can already see a bit of it now as X is certainly primed for it if you can allow your imagination to wonder a little bit.
Of course, I think this patent vision will take a long time to put in to practice and “get right”, and I’m certain it won’t look like anything that I would expect, but I sure am listening and watching.
Jeremy
-
[Andrew Richards] “This patent along with Alex Gollner’s observations are almost enough to buoy my hopes of actually seeing a client/server collaborative FCPX feature set. Almost. It’s hard not to expect to be disappointed anymore.”
This is all very interesting to me. The article indicates the patent was filed in July 2008. That’s around where I identify the turning point in Apple’s treatment of the so-called “video pro” market (see my article FCPX and the Domino Effect [link]).
My question — and it is a question, as I could argue the point both ways — is this: does this patent on collaborative editorial mark the end of one era, or the beginning of another?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “My question — and it is a question, as I could argue the point both ways — is this: does this patent on collaborative editorial mark the end of one era, or the beginning of another?”
I second your question, and you’ve perfectly articulated the rationale for my skepticism. My inner optimist really wants this thing to become a product, but my inner realist says nothing Apple has been doing in the intervening years would indicate that is likely to happen.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] ” Software patents as a concept are bogus.”
Richard,
That’s kind of a broad statement, so I won’t try to read too much into it.
If you come up with an idea for a better mouse trap, shouldn’t you be able to protect your idea? Protect it from others who might simply copy it and profit from your idea? Protect your idea from large corporations who might copy it and also have enough money and lawyers to make it difficult for you stop them?
I thought that was one of the ideas behind patents. Protecting a person’s (corporations are apparently people too)idea. That seems like a good idea. At least from the perspective of person with the idea. The end consumer may not have the same perspective. Even though having the ability to patent and idea might be good for the consumer.
But you don’t seem to have an issue with patents in general. Specifically software patents? Why would a software idea be different from a non-software idea? Or did I read too much into your comment? (if I did, sorry) I’m just interested.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up