Andrew Richards
Forum Replies Created
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t know what the current limit is, but frequently companies get extensions, mainly as a way of protecting turf.”
You can calculate the current time limit on copyright by taking the age of MIckey Mouse and adding roughly 15-25 years. Such is the power of Disney’s lobbying efforts. I’m not sure if there is a similar rule of thumb for calculating how far afield from the Framer’s original intent patent expirations will stray.
Best,
Andy -
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “Inarguably one of the absolute biggest things it still completely lacks whatsoever is use in any kind of multi-user, collaborative environment. Until it gets that right, its useless to any kind of serious post house, it simply doesn’t work in that environment… yet.”
Hey, I’ll argue it! How is FCPX any less capable of supporting a multi-user environment than FCP Legend? The only substantive difference I can see is that FCP Legend let you arbitrarily place project files and scratch disks (which certainly is a double-edged sword). If this is about OMFs, EDLs, or legacy XMEML support in-app, I’ll shut up, but if this is about multiple FCP users working collaboratively with the same media and round-tripping work with other apps, FCPX is equipped for that today.
[Nicholas Kleczewski] “This patent clearly is the intentionally ambiguous legal jargon that addresses that major gaping whole. What it will become, who knows.”
This patent describes collaborative editing like no ones else has; live, multi-user concurrent work on a single project across distances without even requiring all parties have the app. Will they build it? Who knows, indeed.
Best,
Andy -
[Chris Harlan] “Knowing some of the people who lived through that, I’d just have to say that is a pretty cheep shot, and in no way comparable to anything happening with X.”
Too soon indeed then. That was supposed to be black comedy, I know very well how bad a time that was.
Best,
Andy -
[Shane Ross] “I highly doubt FCX will ever see the proliferation that FCP 7 did in this town.”
Nobody does blacklisting like Hollywood.
Too soon?
Best,
Andy -
[Michael Gissing] “I stand by my original statement that patents stifle real collaboration.”
I’ve been pretty outspoken in this thread against software patents, so on that principle we seem to agree.
[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.”
The only way for interchange formats like XML or OMF to be made obsolete would be for some kind of open common spec for project files across vendors, and I’m pretty comfortable predicting that will never happen. It isn’t a matter of technical capability, it is a matter of practicality and durability of the dev work. Interchange formats, especially open plain text like XML, are more portable and are a more practical meet-in-the-middle approach to integrating disparate tools.
[Michael Gissing] “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 think you’re missing a key distinction in this patent, which is that this is a method for more than one user to interact with a project simultaneously. It isn’t going to stop anyone from building collaboration features like we’ve had for over a decade with interchange formats for sharing work across tools, albeit asynchronously (which for all we know is already patented by someone else anyway). Apple has long supported asynchronous interchange via XML, which I would argue is the most open and accessible format for a third party to embrace. It is no less a sin for Pro Tools to not import FCPXML than it is for FCPX to not export OMF.
Patent or no patent, there isn’t a way for a third party to implement live collaborative editing within FCP. There would need to be an API and there isn’t, so your point is moot. The same is true for any other NLE save for perhaps Lightworks by virtue of being open source. But even being open source doesn’t guarantee that live multi-user collaboration is doable. You need to have your project data stored in a way that multiple users can simultaneously interact with it without stomping on each other. A flat project file simply won’t permit that, you’d need the data in a DBMS.
[Michael Gissing] “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.”
That would be nice! What you’re describing is an open API for these tools, and one already exists at least for AE (though it may not permit the seamlessness Adobe achieves with Dynamic Link among its own apps). Even with APIs available, in your example Apple would still need to implement their side of the equation (and they don’t even do it for their own motion graphics app). This patent probably does throw cold water on the dream of parallel Post process, where Sound doesn’t have to wait for Picture and Online doesn’t have to wait for Graphics, but I’d say that doesn’t happen in a world without patents anyway. I don’t think a single vendor could realistically pull off that kind of thing among its own apps, let alone several vendors all pulling in different directions.
Best,
Andy -
[Neil Sadwelkar] “Does a miniSAS to eSATA cable work with the Atto H680 SAS HBA, if connected to single drives? Not port multiplier RAIDs.”
Yes. eSATA is just a plug form factor and the H680 supports SATA devices (as any proper SAS HBA should). If you can find a SFF-8088 to eSATA x4 fanout cable, it’ll work. You can drive up to 8 eSATA devices that way across the H680’s two ports.
Best,
AndyEDIT: if I had read Alex’s post prior to posting, I could have avoided the duplicate post.
-
Maybe the adapter is dirty? I can’t remember if those thread the tape out to the deck’s heads or if they have interim heads that transmit to the deck heads.
Best,
Andy -
[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?”
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