-
Patent Thing meets FCP-X.
-
[Craig Seeman] “Hmm, like the iPhone and iPad?
How about they want to protect original creation.”The had neither a previous phone nor tablet when they released the iphone and ipad, so no the X situation is not very comparable to that.
Yes Apple, like anyone else, wishes to protect original creation while also stealing as much as they can from everyone else and then stifling all competition. I don’t blame Apple for their behavior, they are just like every other large company beholding to stock owners; I blame the US Patent office.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
. . . and imagine if Ken Burns actually patented his motion control effect (which he didn’t originate).
-
[Herb Sevush] “When exactly did they say that?”
I can’t recall where I read it but it was in one of the “noteworthy” blogs when they where asked that question. Assuming the blog accounts are true, they did say something to that effect.
-
[Herb Sevush] “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.”
To the best of my knowledge, there was ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping them from trying.
The patent office, as it was run in that era would either have granted or disallowed it. And the industry would have moved on. At that time in history – those concepts weren’t deemed protectable. Or just never came up for that kind of review.
But we don’t live back then anymore. Things have changed. Instead of a few hundred people with access to the means of movie production, we have hundreds of millions.
This is “strict constructionism” writ large. It’s the “this is how it is and it is how it must be for all times – even if the things that caused it to be be that way change” thinking. I don’t find that to be particularly bright. It’s NOT 1957 anymore.
The industry – in fits and starts and with much disruption – is changing as well. The Patent Office will get some stuff right, get some stuff wrong, and muddle through – EXACTLY as every other institution on earth.
Overall, they’ve participated in helping the US grow strong and compete globally. It’s a necessary function if we want national companies who can compete globally.
And I’m sorry, but this entire patent kerfluffle is a GNAT in the face of human ingenuity.
It won’t really change anything other than annoying a lot of enterprises by making them all dance the same patent dance, whether they’re big or small, weak or powerful.
I still think the central question is one of power imbalance. I can accept that the more successful can wield some power over the less successful. That’s an incentive for everyone to focus on success. And I emotionally enjoy having the big guys successfully slapped by the little guys as much as the next onlooker – a necessary step to curb arrogance. But I just can’t gin up much “dear me the sky is falling” angst for Apple and Samsung going at it in court. Samsung got slapped this time. Apple will at others.
Fine for me, again cuz it’s a fair fight.
Taking software patents off the table doesn’t, in my view, make any fight any fairer because it removes a tool that any innovator, large or small, can use (or even try to misuse) to gain an advantage. As long as it’s all done in open court – with both you and I getting to weigh in here – I suspect over the long haul the game will function OK.
I know many here see this as a slippery slope argument. I just think all the current players in this are wise enough to bring climbing hammers and ropes to the party.
Period.
“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] “To the best of my knowledge, there was ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping them from trying. “
For whatever reason artistic techniques have never been patented, possibly because artists are not as greedy as corporate execs, possibly because they are accustomed to being protected by copyright as opposed to patent law. All I’m suggesting is that the one more ought resemble the other- that patent law more closely copy copyright law.
In the mid 70’s I worked at an animation house in, of all places, Washington DC that had discovered and engineered new ways to use Arial Image photography. The owner and inventor of this device talked a lot about patents, and was considering patenting his device. The issue for him was that a patent described what you were doing in ways that made it easier for competitors to steal your design – either illegally, by copying it exactly, or by giving them enough understanding of your device to allow them to come up with a similar but legally different device. It was often thought wiser, if there wasn’t a mass market for the device, to not patent it at all.
Apparently the patent office has come a long way, and yes I still believe that not all growth is good. Sometimes it’s a cancer.
[Bill Davis] “It’s NOT 1957 anymore.”
Yes, that was the year Mickey Mantle hit .365 with 30 home runs, won his second straight MVP award and the Yankees offered him a pay cut. IT’s definitely not 1957 anymore.
Here’s a list of Hollywood movies released in 1957 (I’m leaving out foreign films like The Seventh Seal and Throne of Blood for brevity’s sake.)
* 3:10 to Yuma,
* 12 Angry Men
* An Affair to Remember
* The Bridge on the River Kwai
* Decision at Sundown
* Designing Woman
* Desk Set
* Edge of the City
* The Enemy Below
* A Face in the Crowd
* Fear Strikes Out
* Funny Face
* Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
* Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
* Kiss Them for Me
* Love in the Afternoon
* Man of a Thousand Faces
* Old Yeller
* The Pajama Game
* Pal Joey
* Paths of Glory
* The Sad Sack
* The Spirit of St. Louis
* Sweet Smell of Success
* The Tall T
* The Three Faces of Eve
* The Tin Star
* The Wings of Eagles
* Witness for the ProsecutionLook at that list and then look at a list of this year’s movie releases and tell me again why I’m supposed to think that change, while inevitable, is always for the better?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “The had neither a previous phone nor tablet when they released the iphone and ipad, so no the X situation is not very comparable to that. “
And they had no in house NLE as FCP legacy and most of the added ProApps also came from out of house. This is a “course correction” as it where as Apple probably wants complete in house control of all IP.
[Herb Sevush] “I blame the US Patent office.”
This does open into a broader issue (at least to me). There’s major issues with copyright and derivative work as well. -
usually when you buy a company, you also get all pending and granted IP belonging to that company. Unless those applications were licensing IP from other companies at the time, then it would have been negotiated at the time. I don’t believe that Apple dropped FCP7 development because of IP issues. It’s probably a combination of old code, starting from scratch anyway, and new business models that can better take advantage of the Apple store and in-app purchases allowing Apple to better manage their 30% of everything they don’t develop themselves.
Michael
-
[Craig Seeman] “And they had no in house NLE as FCP legacy and most of the added ProApps also came from out of house. “
Craig, they had an in-house NLe. they had it for 10 years. They may not have originated the code, but they updated seriously for years and years. From 2000 to 2010 they marketed the hell out of it, proud as panda’s that FCP was used on this film and that film. And now you’re re-writing history to claim they had no in house NLE. What kind of Orwellian nonsense is that? This bears NO relationship to the situation with the iphone. None. No matter how you try to sidestep it.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin’ attached to nothin’
“Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf -
[Herb Sevush] “They may not have originated the code”
And thus, not created in house and they may not have owned the IP (possibly licensed instead) on every aspect as well.
-
[Herb Sevush] “* The Wings of Eagles
* Witness for the ProsecutionLook at that list and then look at a list of this year’s movie releases and tell me again why I’m supposed to think that change, while inevitable, is always for the better?
“Here’s why.
Do a search for Top 25 movies of 2012. (half this year)
You’ll find more range, more variety, and all the quality.The issue is that nobody hears of half of them because we’re innundated with too much choice. Every week there not 10 or 20 movies released in the modern era, but hundreds.
With 40 restaurants in town, they can mostly be decent. With 400, it’s not as easy. The customer pool is diffused, there’s more competition for resources and talent, and so there will be more BAD to go along with more GOOD.
The 2011 Rotten Tomatoes top 25 has movies every bit as good as those on your “classic list” and when those who are teenagers today look back at Drive, or the Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, or Super 8, 50 years on – I suspect they will compare quite well to our view of the 1957 fare given the same patina of nostalgia.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up