-
Apple Patents
-
[Kevin Patrick] “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.”
Not all industries face the same issues around innovation, so the one-size-fits-all patent system may be more appropriate for some than for others.
Richard Posner (a judge who recently threw out a smartphone patent case between Apple and Motorola) has written a fascinating editorial:
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 -
I think I can understand the concern over what a patent is granted for. Or being concerned over granting a patent that is too broad.
I’m not sure I agree with the argument that patents should be granted to ideas that are costly to produce (or come up with) as opposed to an idea that does not have a high cost to produce. Such as the pharmaceutical industry.
Perhaps there are too many patents. I’m not sure how you quantify this, or where you draw the line.
Perhaps some patents are too broad. I can see where that can be a problem.
But I think if you have a unique idea, one which you can specifically define, you should be able to patent it. Regardless of whether the idea is hardware or software related. Regardless of how hard it was to come up with the idea. How could you get a small start up business funded and up and running if you’re brilliant, unique idea can simply be copied by anyone else?
Just my thoughts. Not necessarily the correct ones.
-
[Kevin Patrick] “Richard, “
Kevin, as a fellow first-name-as-surname sufferer, I expected better…
j/k, happens all the time.
[Kevin Patrick] “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.”
There is a great debate raging all around the Web regarding the conceptual validity of software patents and to a lesser extent business method patents as opposed to traditional “manufactured thing” patents. Your reaction citing the better mousetrap is an example of the type of patent people typically think of when they think of patents. However, software patents are very different, often to the point of being ridiculous. The standards of being patentable are supposed to be novelty, utility, and non-obviousness. Software patents often fail at least two of those tests even to the eyes of a layperson.
Kirby Ferguson says it very eloquently in part 4 of his excellent Everything Is a Remix series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAmmtCJxJJYBasically nearly all software is by its nature interrelated and software patents harm the process of innovation and tilt the field in favor of big companies or patent trolls that only use them as weapons. Hence my link to Judge Posner’s opinion after dismissing one of Apple’s patent suits.
Best,
AndySome contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
[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?”
[Andrew Richards] “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.
“Not sure here.
Apple seems (in my layman’s brain at least) to use patents a bit as shields against endless litigation. (Clearly since they have such deep pockets, they’re a massive lawsuit target.)
So if they can lodge a patent in their portfolio that codifies their rights to interface elements, it’s gotta be at least SOME hedge against someone claiming that they need to cough up royalties on whatever comes next.
Wasn’t that one of the fundamental speculations about why X was such a radical departure? In part because a good chunk of the code in Legacy was licensed rather than original Apple IP?
With their resources and legal clout, perhaps having a robust defensive technology patent filing program is probably just smart basic business. The more they can get ahead of IP issues by constantly working the patent stream, the less time they may have to spend in court fighting against other sharks who want to litigate a chunk of Apple’s cash or revenue stream into their own pockets?
It’s a cold world out there in big money land.
“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
-
[Bill Davis] “Apple seems (in my layman’s brain at least) to use patents a bit as shields against endless litigation. (Clearly since they have such deep pockets, they’re a massive lawsuit target.) So if they can lodge a patent in their portfolio that codifies their rights to interface elements, it’s gotta be at least SOME hedge against someone claiming that they need to cough up royalties on whatever comes next.”
Ask Samsung and Motorola if Apple plays offense or defense with their patent portfolio.
But that wasn’t the point Andy and I were making there — we were wondering if the collaborative editorial idea here came from the Legend or X side of the fence. The timing could be right for either one, and the distinction is important.
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] “The timing could be right for either one, and the distinction is important.”
Well, to some still trying to suss things out, I suppose.
And happily, we’ll eventually know the truth as X develops.
I know it would delight many of us to know that Apple has a big master plan for X’s future.
But I also keep trying to live in the NOW. And this prognostication stuff is usually too much inside baseball for me since I’ve already made the commitment to X and all my time is devoted to trying to keep learning more about how it works right now!
Here in Arizona we’re expecting rain and the rare chance to walk in warm rain is one of the things I truly treasure about life in the desert.
Have a great weekend, one and all.
“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
-
[Bill Davis] “Here in Arizona we’re expecting rain and the rare chance to walk in warm rain is one of the things I truly treasure about life in the desert. “
Enjoy!
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 -
Yes Andrew I read the article and I understand the concept. However I stand by my original statement that patents stifle real collaboration. For nearly 15 years I have had exactly this sort of collaborative workflow with DAWs like dSP and now Fairlight. dSP did it best by allowing ownership of tracks within a project. I had three studios networked 14 years ago to a shared RAID and this sort of collaboration was not only possible but was a common occurrence.
However Apple has a history of punitive legal action to protect such bogus patents. So if I was a third party software developer or even a rival NLE manufacturer, I would be pretty annoyed that I wouldn’t be able to access a wider collaborative process without paying royalties or even emulate similar functionality.
It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary. Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple.
It would be nice if a concept like dynamic linking between Adobe software could be applied to someone using AE generated graphics elements in a FCPX edit with audio being done on a Fairlight or ProTools. This patent discourages this sort of thinking.
-
Also keep in mind that having a patent granted doesn’t necessarily imply they will develop it and bring it to market. But it does mean that it may cause other manufacturers to delay, revamp or not deliver, or allow Apple to license it. Lots of ways that patents can work for a company.
Michael
Michael Phillips
-
I think I need to say that I’m against stifling creativity through bogus patents. I would hope that whatever this patent turns out to be that it legally blocks other companies from attempting “collaboration” in similar ways. I am not smart enough to know how far is too far and what software patents really do (or don’t do).
[Michael Gissing] “It also strikes me as problematic to a third party plugin developer to be able to handle such workflows. I already have issues with plugins and fonts when projects are moved from one FCP system to mine. But the more an NLE relies on third party developers then the harder it will be to create stability. In the long run inter software collaboration is important so that external interchange formats like XML & OMF become less necessary. Apple are clearly signalling that collaboration is going to be within their eco system and anyone trying to emulate or collaborate across other NLE & post systems will be discouraged by having to comply and pay royalties to Apple.”
I’m not sure about what relying on third party and stability have anything to do with each other.
People herald FCP Legend for its third party capabilities.
Adobe after effects major strength is sheer amount of plug in and bolt ons that take advantage of Ae’s core strengths.
Third party development helps to strengthen the core app in the long run.
XML v5 is where it is today through developer collaboration with Apple.
This patent doesn’t seem like it will stifle third party development, but I’m not a lawyer either.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up