Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Forums Creative Community Conversations Patent Thing meets FCP-X.

  • Patent Thing meets FCP-X.

  • Bill Davis

    August 29, 2012 at 6:35 am

    All afternoon I’ve been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies.

    Makes the “gut and rebuild” strategy of FCP-X look smarter and smarter.

    It’s also likely why the Export functions in X are so Apple-centric. Most of what you can output is Apple owned or consortium licensed (H-264) tech.

    If you want to cross convert from that – you have to let someone else pay for and manage the software licenses.

    Appears to me that Apple realized that with so much success in the consumer products – they could concentrate on playing the longer game rather than the shorter one for quite some time now.

    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

  • Craig Seeman

    August 29, 2012 at 7:36 am

    [Bill Davis] “All afternoon I’ve been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies.

    Makes the “gut and rebuild” strategy of FCP-X look smarter and smarter.”

    I said this was the likely reason in June 2011 or thereabouts. I quoted from Wikipedia
    Macromedia could not release the product without causing its partner Truevision some issues with Microsoft, as KeyGrip was, in part, based on technology from Microsoft licensed to Truevision and then in turn to Macromedia. The terms of the IP licensing deal stated that it was not to be used in conjunction with QuickTime. Thus, Macromedia was forced to keep the product off the market until a solution could be found.

    The Mac version was working with a Truevision RTX dual stream real time card with limited real time effects. When no purchaser could be found, Apple purchased the team as a defensive move. When Apple could not find a buyer in turn, it continued development work, focusing on adding FireWire/DV support and at NAB 1999 Apple introduced Final Cut Pro.

    My guess is the IP issues resurfaced and probably had to be renegotiated at a much higher price and that’s why FCP7 was pulled so suddenly. I’d also guess, given Apple’s long term thinking (as you note), at some point they decided to kill everything Pro App related that was purchased out of house. In any case I think behind the scenes IP issues lead them to decide to build the whole thing from scratch in house and, as we see from the recent FCPX related filings, guard every single thing about it.

    Just a tangential guess but Logic, as the lone surviving out of house tool, might be taking as long as it is because it’s getting a ground up internal rewrite as well.

  • Rafael Amador

    August 29, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Warning.
    Endogamy leads to inbreeding, which results in:
    – Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
    – Increased genetic disorders
    – Fluctuating facial asymmetry
    – Lower birth rate
    – Higher infant mortality
    – Slower growth rate
    – Smaller adult size
    – Loss of immune system function
    See Wikipedia or ask your veterinary.
    rafael

    http://www.nagavideo.com

  • Herb Sevush

    August 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    [Craig Seeman] “My guess is the IP issues resurfaced and probably had to be renegotiated at a much higher price and that’s why FCP7 was pulled so suddenly.”

    Yes Craig, you’ve said this many times and it would make sense if you could answer the follow up question that has been asked just as many times of how was it then possible for Apple to reverse itself a month later and continue to sell FCP7, even if only thru more limited channels. If they couldn’t sell FCP7 in June because of licensing problems then how were they able to sell it in August, September, October … ?

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

  • Herb Sevush

    August 29, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    [Bill Davis] “All afternoon I’ve been thinking if Apple might have realized that in the new era, constant IP defense would be such a top-line concern for all large companies. “

    Does this mean you are reversing yourself and acknowledging that these broad, non-specific software patents are counter productive for business?

    Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?

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

  • Craig Seeman

    August 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    [Herb Sevush] ” how was it then possible for Apple to reverse itself a month later and continue to sell FCP7″

    Apple’s initial response was that they would investigate continued sales. I don’t doubt their lawyers found some method that may have reduced cost given some kind of limits (not marketed for sale by them, only sold on request, low threshold). All speculative. You’ll have to ask Apple and of course they’re not going to say. That is was “a month” later may mean it was not a simple or obvious process such as “it’s ours and we can sell it again if we want” because that does not seem to be what happened.

  • Craig Seeman

    August 29, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    [Herb Sevush] “Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?”

    Hmm, like the iPhone and iPad?
    How about they want to protect original creation.

  • Bill Davis

    August 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    [Herb Sevush] “Does this mean you are reversing yourself and acknowledging that these broad, non-specific software patents are counter productive for business?

    No. Apple is doing precisely what they are asking Samsung to do. Rather than infringe on others work, buckle down and do your OWN damn work. Nothing inconsistent in that at all.

    [Herb Sevush] “Does this also define X as a product not made not for the betterment of the art of editing but merely to avoid the kind of patent wars that Apple is such a proponent of?”

    Only if your viewpoint is that people can’t re-work things and not only make them unique, but make them BETTER suited for the evolution of the industry.

    As I’ve said before, X is not presently the perfect high-end collaborative tool for editing. At the same time, it’s an absolutely killer tool for the new era of editing and delivery of shorter form web-centric content and a whole lot more. I’m enjoying delivering broadcast package work out of it in my little pond. It’s faster and over time I suspect it’s going to come to own the much, much larger pond of general editing, simply because it’s so capable. – and by doing so – will have the resources to develop into the next great general purpose editing approach.

    It will be the tool, IMO, that folks who come to editing from the net viewpoint rather than from TV stations or Movie viewpoints will increasingly use as their baseline.

    The “art of editing” is bigger than movies and TV. Tho I understand that those working in those traditional industries will have a very hard time coming to grips with the fact that those aren’t the only industries that deserve being catered to.

    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

  • Tim Wilson

    August 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    I can’t imagine that licensing had anything to do with pulling FCP 7. Apple either had the rights to that stuff or they didn’t. Anyone seeking damages for infringing uses would have done so based on ALL the money that Apple had ever made with that technology, going back to the very beginning. These kinds of lawsuits are intentionally blunt instruments.

    I’ve written at extensive length why I think Apple ended FCP 7. They’d been dying to do it for years, which is why it had had ZERO major development since multicam in 2005. ProRes was just a format, and it came 4 years later than the Avid DNxHD it was clearly modeled on. FCP was zombieware, moving just slowly enough to trick you into thinking it was still alive.

    More than that, it was borg-ware. Other than Motion, almost the entire suite had been bought from other companies, with — beyond those three dots to manage the windows, genie effects and splat-H– very little effort to make it have even the most basic Apple look and feel. Even a single day more after the launch of X would have been continuing the self-defeat that FCP 7 had become for any reason but money — and as much as thuggish as they’re proving to be, they’ve NEVER done anything JUST for money. Never.

    It’s all about protecting the Apple Way, and FCP/FCS had very little to do with that. X has EVERYTHING to do with that.

    Anyway, I’ve written enough about this, but I’ll maintain this until Apple tells us otherwise: X was always about putting a shovel in the head of the FCP borg zombie, and doing things Apple’s wat. THAT was the goal, not money, not licensing, certainly not serving existing customers…which they have likewise never prioritized over Apple’s look, feel, etc.

    I think that this is also why X is being tied so much more closely to Mac core functions. They ALWAYS want to do this with EVERYTHING, as well they should – and FCS was never going to get them there. Never, which means it HAD to die the second it possibly could. It’s survival was a continuing affront to everything that Apple has stood for, and wants to stand for going forward.

    It’d be nice to have something else to blame other than Apple being Apple, but this has been their MO since 1984. The longer you’ve been an Apple customer (since 1979 for me), the more often you’ve been bit by it.

    Tim Wilson
    Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
    Creative COW Magazine
    Twitter: timdoubleyou

    The typos here are most likely because I’m, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.

  • Herb Sevush

    August 29, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    [Bill Davis] “No. Apple is doing precisely what they are asking Samsung to do. Rather than infringe on others work, buckle down and do your OWN damn work. Nothing inconsistent in that at all.”

    To throw some more fuel onto the fire, would you care to speculate on what would have happened if Edwin S. Porter patented cross cutting in an action scene. Or Orson Welles patented the dramatic use of deep focus in dramas. Jerry Lewis could have patented the idea of using subjective funny sounds in a comedy. The list could go on and on. We’re actually lucky that Moviola or someone else didn’t patent the idea of sequencing shots together to form a story.

    Apple is poising the town’s reservoir while it digs it’s own well; it’s a strategy that might work for awhile, but it’s not something to be proud of.

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

Viewing 1 - 10 of 29 posts

Log in to reply.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy