FORUMS: list search recent posts

Apple files ten patents relating to editing today

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Craig Seeman
Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 9:22:35 pm

Huge Patent Day for Apple's iMovie and Final Cut Pro Apps
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/08/huge-patent-day-for-app...



Return to posts index

Aindreas Gallagher
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:06:08 pm

"The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip."

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright - the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park.

It's an empty park mind you.

http://vimeo.com/user1590967/videos http://www.ogallchoir.net promo producer/editor.grading/motion graphics


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22:21 pm

From the link:

The timeline of some embodiments includes a primary lane called a spine as well as one or more anchor lanes. The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps.

I think they're misusing the word "spine" here. Herb?

Franz.


Return to posts index


Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47:12 pm

Looks like they are trying to patent a masking tool for secondary color correction. How can the patent office grant this? Looks like the Apple control freaks are using the inability of the patent office to determine 'new' or 'unique' to stifle competition.

This reminds me of the stupidity in granting a patent to Harrison on a motorised joystick for panning audio. Harrison didn't invent the joystick, or the motorised version, just the use of pre existing tech to pan audio. The result is that no other audio company can use this tool and have forced everyone to use a less elegant approach. The use of patents like this is just selfish and heavy handed.


Return to posts index

Shane Ross
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 11:00:06 pm

You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents...it's a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 16, 2012 at 11:15:49 pm

Thanks for the tip Shane. I have heard a few podcasts of that This American Life and it's great.


Return to posts index


Shawn Miller
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:30:04 am

[Shane Ross] "You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents...it's a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free."


Exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for calling out the number and name of the episode, Shane. It's a very interesting piece.

Shawn



Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:10:58 am

[Shane Ross] "You all need to listen to the THIS AMERICAN LIFE episode on PATENTS. When it comes to software patents...it's a strange strange world.

Episode 441, When Patents Attack. Available on iTunes for free.
"


Yeah, it was a great episode. The current state of software patents is quite Dickensian. You could set a modern version of Bleak House around the patent litigation. The absurdity of Jarndyce v.Jarndyce has nothing on the typical US infringement suit.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:08:50 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I think they're misusing the word "spine" here. "

I think they're misusing the words "the", "timeline", "of", "some" ...

We have met the enemy, and they are definitely not us.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Richard Herd
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 18, 2012 at 8:45:16 pm

http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/FinalCutProX/Reference...

p. 10: A container that schedules elements sequentially in time


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 19, 2012 at 6:40:11 pm

[Richard Herd] "p. 10: A container that schedules elements sequentially in time."

While that is Apple's definition of spine in that document, it would mean that beyond the primary storyline every secondary, every compound clip would be a spine - which would mean that a timeline could have multiple spines, which does not seem to match the description of FCPX currently in use.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Richard Herd
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 12:04:53 am

The timeline of some embodiments includes a primary lane (also called "spine") as well as one or more secondary lanes (also called "anchor lanes"). The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip. The clips in the anchor lanes are anchored to a particular position along the spine (or along a different anchor lane). Anchor lanes may be used for compositing (e.g., removing portions of one video and showing a different video in those portions), B-roll cuts (i.e., cutting away from the primary video to a different video whose clip is in the anchor lane), audio clips, or other composite presentation techniques

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p...

***

Thou shalt not confuse thy tags in XML.

***

What's really happening? It's going to sound silly to say, but right now if the spine (aka primary) is deleted then so is the anchor lane (aka secondary) to which the spine is attached. It appears to me that that will no longer be the case. If you delete the spine, the anchor lane will stay in place. This is a fix, imo, to compete with normal editing. In every other NLE I've used, there was no spine or lane.

Instead--the way we are all used to--if you delete the clip on track 1, track 2 stays in place. X does not do that. We've been using a work around, a simple one, you hit CMD-uparrow to make a spine into a lane, or you hit CMD-downarrow to make lane into a spine.

***

I can't believe anyone would read this far. Seems to me this is for developers coding XML and not for video editors, per se.

***

I found a cool technique for color correction. I end up multi clicking every other track and select it as CMD-uparrow, then forming an entire compound out of all that. Wallah! Tracks! The benefit to this is, the color correction and audio is applied en mass to the CC, not to individual clips. That is, when open the compound clip, gap clips are auto-created and are alpha channels. It is a very fast way to work.


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 12:42:12 am

[Aindreas Gallagher] ""The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip."

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright - the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park."


I noticed they refer to it as an "Anchored Timeline". That seems curiously appropriate to me. Though not for the reasons they think...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 2:26:36 am

[David Lawrence] "[Aindreas Gallagher] ""The spine represents a primary sequence of media, which, in some embodiments, does not have any gaps. When a clip is deleted or removed from the timeline, the media-editing applications automatically closes the gap created in place of the clip."

yep. thats the new iOS rubber banding alright - the world and its aunt will be after this one.

brain damaged ripple delete: cupertino knocks it out of the park."

I noticed they refer to it as an "Anchored Timeline". That seems curiously appropriate to me. Though not for the reasons they think...
"


I'm kinda interested in what this on-going angst fest about the X approach to editing is all about?

Do you guys actually have problems editing with magnetism? Did you just play with it and decide it wasn't for you and give up on it?

If so, why are you so hostile to the feature if you don't have to use it?

I can only speak for myself, but it took me about a week or so to get used to it IN the timeline.

Then when I learned about pre-editing in the Event Browser, the magnetism that I sorta understood but just seemed "workflow OK to me" suddenly started to ROCK and became a fundamental part of a daily technique for taking significant time out of my editing.

So please explain to me why you guys keep rediculing this part of FCP-X.

Seriously. What's wrong with it. Specifically. Why is having the option to have software that removes gaps between clips when you discover that there are new workflow processes where that's a VERY desirable capability?

Here's what I've come to believe: Magnetism SUCKS for people who can't get their brains out of a Legacy Style timeline. And if you've become "wired" like that, I can understand why it's going to annoy you daily.

But if you've managed to move to the two stage process represented by X - which is to say preparation in the EB, including pre-selection and trimming that can be stored for future projects - then using the timeline for assembly and tune-up - rather than just LIVING in the timeline to do everything. Magnetism is a superb new tool that makes timeline assembly MUCH faster and easier.

So someone please explain this on-going magnetism hostility to me.

Cuz it continues to sound to me like the drone of people who don't like it because they never actually explored it enough to figure out how it might actually be extremely useful.

Floor's open.

Oh, and on the patent thing. I don't get the angst here either. Apple spends lots company resources on IP development. That's a fact. Wouldn't it be corporate malfeasance if they didn't follow up by applying to protect that IP with patents? You might feel that they shouldn't apply for or be granted such patents - but we're generally not patent attorneys here -and I can't see a functional reason that they wouldn't keep a robust and on-going operation in place to do exactly what they're doing - building company value by patent acquisition. Isn't that what EVERY business that spends money to develop new technology does? It's fine to argue that a patent might be too broad or might be overly restrictive - but that's for the patent bureau and the courts to settle. Apple is just applying for the protection. What's the problem with that?

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


Return to posts index

Neil Goodman
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:29:44 pm

[Bill Davis] "Cuz it continues to sound to me like the drone of people who don't like it because they never actually explored it enough to figure out how it might actually be extremely useful."

I just finished the Lynda and Ripple training on FCP X, after poking around for months, i figured lets see if this thing will grow on me.

I dont hate the magnetic timeline, and i see its advantages in CERTAIN situations, but for most situations it seems pointless to me. After doing all the training, i realized i like the old way, i like tracks and knowing exactly where my clips will land and being able to organize as such. I like having complete control, and i feel like the magnetic timeline assumes you dont know what your doing, and guides in you in staying in tact. The majority of us dont need that.

That said, if someone asked me to work in it, i would and now feel a bit more confident in accepting a job in it, but im sticking with MC and FCP 7 for the unforeseeable future.

Neil Goodman: Editor of New Media Production - NBC/Universal


Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 3:56:26 pm

[Neil Goodman] "but for most situations it seems pointless to me. After doing all the training, i realized i like the old way, i like tracks and knowing exactly where my clips will land and being able to organize as such. I like having complete control,"

EXACTLY! I set up my tracks by what is on them. specific tracks for narration, for interviews, for on camera dialog and SOT, for sound effects and music. I layer a LOT of audio, because I'm required to do a lot of sound design...especially on my latest show that is a ghost story series. I know what tracks my creepy sfx, and my transition SFX are on. And in Avid I can color code them, so I can easily find them. With a magnetic timeline, I feel that I'd be going "is this it? No...is it this down here? No...Ah, there it is."

And all the pre-labelling that needs to be done, and assigning roles. that doesn't save time. You need to take time to assign the role, or label the clips. Less time than it takes me to target a track.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 7:46:44 pm

Good.

The presumption is that you should be free to use whatever tools best meets your needs, and thankfully, nobody is arguing that the way you like to work is lame or unprofessional or stupid.

All some of us who enjoy working in X are asking, is that we get similar treatment.

Not really so much to ask, is it?

"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


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 17, 2012 at 8:27:01 pm

I don't know what Apple needs to prove with these patents. I understand it's big business, but they need to stop being the insecure nerd in the room.

[Shane Ross] "And all the pre-labelling that needs to be done, and assigning roles. that doesn't save time. You need to take time to assign the role, or label the clips. Less time than it takes me to target a track."

I have a bone to pick with this as I find this to be relatively not true. Assigning Roles, especially preassigning Roles saves so much time down the road, and you can do this lickety split wither in the Browser or Project.

I don't think its perfect yet, and there's some audio work that needs to be done, but some of the group features that you can knock out in FCPX pales in comparison to FCP7. It does look and operate complete differently than a track based system. I'm not saying it's better, or for everyone, but it certainly does a really good job at certain group based naming, organizing, and adjusting functions.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 18, 2012 at 5:10:07 am

A patent retaliation: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/17/google-files-new-patent-lawsuit-against-ap...


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 18, 2012 at 11:34:58 pm

[Bill Davis] "It's fine to argue that a patent might be too broad or might be overly restrictive - but that's for the patent bureau and the courts to settle. Apple is just applying for the protection. What's the problem with that?"

Fair question. The answer is in how Apple intend to leverage the patents. I am sure that publicly they will argue they are protecting themselves and their IP. Totally fair and the exercise of the intent of Patents. But recent history has shown that broad patents have been granted multiple times to different parties because the patent office can't understand that what I'd being described is unique or even new.

So what I, as a layman, see is a trend to aggressively use patent litigation to stifle innovation rather than protect IP. My caution is based on Apple,s recent history of litigating against Samsung worldwide to force the delay of their 10inch tablet. Apple are great at adaptation but it isn't invention or innovation. From mouse and GUI to OS and iPod/iPad, Apple have stylishly adapted but hardly invented anything.

FCPX is not an invention or original idea either so by snapping up patents that describe what other developers have done and then using them to stifle industry wide developments is what Shane and I fear is the motive, rather than the more innocent usage that you may hope they put it to.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 4:14:59 am

[Michael Gissing] "My caution is based on Apple,s recent history of litigating against Samsung worldwide to force the delay of their 10inch tablet. Apple are great at adaptation but it isn't invention or innovation. From mouse and GUI to OS and iPod/iPad, Apple have stylishly adapted but hardly invented anything. "

Look, I'm not a patent attorney, but as a layman, it's hard for me to look at the exhibits posted at AppleInsider and elsewhere - and not notice that before the iPhone, NOTHING else looked like an iPhone.

Then a year later, Samsung and others had phones that looked and appeared to operate nearly EXACTLY like an iPhone.

If it was my widget, or your widget, are you telling me that if somebody ripped off your "expression" of a product that audaciously that you wouldn't have sued if you had the resources? That's simply not credible in my mind.

And as to the "hardly invented anything" you must be arguing that the huge and clearly valuable large portfolio of patents revealed as part of Steve Job's estate on his death were nothing more than an the patent office making mistake after mistake after mistake?

Now there may well be an ulterior business motive in all of this. These are massive companies and they are playing at the highest level of hardball global competition.

But Apple wouldn't be a quality company if they didn't use all the legal tools at their disposal to enhance their business opportunities.

If there was some huge power imbalance here - for example like the currently circulating story I heard about Progressive Insurance sending lawyers to actually defend a drunk driver responsible for their young female client's death in order, it was alleged, to shield their company from having to make a big payout - that would be one thing.

Presuming the facts are as I read them, that's actually what improper use of the legal system is all about, IMO.

But this is Apple against Samsung. Heavyweight against heavyweight. Fair fight, in my book.

And the evidence says that Apple HAS invented lots and lots of stuff.

You can quibble with an item here or there as "unworthy" of the patent issuance, but Apple has spent heavily on R&D for a long time. They've been awarded lots and lots of patents based on their efforts - each reviewed by the same body that grants all American patents using precisely the same process.

So I'm sorry, but I feel the facts simply prove the "hardly invented anything" thinking is not just arguably, but provably false.

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


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 6:59:52 am

[Bill Davis] "You can quibble with an item here or there as "unworthy" of the patent issuance, but Apple has spent heavily on R&D for a long time. They've been awarded lots and lots of patents based on their efforts - each reviewed by the same body that grants all American patents using precisely the same process.







Software patents are bogus. If Xerox PARC had patented the graphic computer interface they invented, the Macintosh simply would not exist. Software patents are bogus.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 7:18:45 am

I really didn't expect you to understand Bill. If nothing else, listen or read the transcript of the episode of This American Life that Shane Ross mentioned earlier in this thread. Also study the history of Apple and you might understand my comment about hardly inventing anything.

There is a world of difference between invention and adaptation. I acknowledge Apple has been very good at the later and I stand by my assertion that they are not really inventors. Patents were designed to protect inventors and make those that adapt and develop pay royalties. It is counter productive to grant patents on the grounds of these ten patent applications when they are basically describing modes of editing and color correction which they surely didn't invent.


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 8:07:18 am

Thanks David. That TED talk pretty much nails it.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 25, 2012 at 10:37:39 pm

Finally had time to watch this.

I remain largely unswayed.

The creators of the melodies he builds his case upon had a perfect and unfettered opportunity to compete for financial success. And they failed compared to the Dylan expressions of very similar melodies.

Software companies that adapt others ideas (e.g. Xerox Parc) -also have ample opportunity to openly market their innovations and create significant business value for their shareholders and owners. Or to fail.

When they fail (mediocre expressions) or choose NOT to compete in the marketplace (PARC) they and/or their products become largely irrelevant.

What IS relevant in my thinking is when an individual or company refines a particular expression of an idea into a thing that has economic value demonstrated by market results - then others eschew doing their own innovation and instead RIDE on the mindshare or success generated by linking their work to the expressions that generated the marketplace success.

Patents exist, not to protect IDEAS per se, but to protect the ECONOMIC value that can be derrived from ideas. What increasingly creates that value is the marketplaces perceptions of a brand. Patents protect THAT.

Of course eveyones' work is built on everyone else's. Heck, my thinking as an individual is built on the foundations of what I learned from my parents, my teachers, and society in general. But if I invent something that becomes a success - the patent system is there to provide me with a defensible legal argument that someone shouldn't be allowed to come along later and leverage the brand value that I've created in order to peddle a similar product.

They would be riding not on my "idea" so much as on the value I've created in the marketplace through driving the success of my expression of those universal ideas.

In politics currently, it's the wedge about the President mentioning that small business success is leveraged by government investment. Everyone has access to the infrastructure. The "business creator" has to leverage that to build value. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong. The problem arises when someone conveniently ignores the contribution of either side. When the Republican says "government didn't build the success, I did" they are cherry picking facts. And when the Democrat says "the entrepreneur has no path to success without government assistance" this is also cheery picking because intuitively there's no real correlation between use of government assistance and the success or failure of any particular business.

Both sides play the same game of foolish absolutes.

Same with this discussion of Patent Law, IMO.

Derivative work is fine. Right up to the point that it extracts value from the patentable expressions of others purely in order to "vampire" unearned economic value from the brand it's stealing from. Then it's something the law should address. IMO.

The guy in the video is arguing that because the melodies are the same - that's infringement. I'm arguing that because Dylan used the melody to create lasting value using that melody in song - that someone can't come along and co-opt the additional VALUE he brought to that melody to leverage their own success.

An important distinction, IMO.

"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


Return to posts index

Alex Gerulaitis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 8:47:38 am

[Bill Davis] "it's hard for me to look at the exhibits posted at AppleInsider and elsewhere - and not notice that before the iPhone, NOTHING else looked like an iPhone."

If you listen to Apple (Insider), yeah, it would be hard. Have you looked at actual evidence about iPhone prior art?

That's not even mentioning the absurdity of patenting the iPhone shape, where it's clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that smartphones in general, with the progress in voice recognition, touch and display technologies, will all march towards one general shape type, much like TVs: a large screen with a brain and battery packed tightly behind it. Some will even have rounded corners: not much of a choice here, is it?

There is little question that Apple grossly abuses the patent system, making frivolous litigation a part of their business model.

Wikipedia now has a page, "Apple Inc. litigation". What an honor. Excerpt:

"Between January 2008 and May 2010, Apple Inc. filed more than 350 cases with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) alone, most in opposition to or taking exception to others' use of the terms 'apple', 'pod', and 'safari'; those cases include sellers of apples (the fruit), as well as many others' less unassuming use of the term 'apple'." (highlighting mine)

Next thing on Apple's agenda? A patent on the on-off button. Then we're really screwed, all of us.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 2:00:02 pm

Some of these patents seem as ludicrous as an automobile manufacturer patenting the 4 wheel vehicle or a round steering wheel.

Sorry for the car analogy, but it's true.


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 4:46:00 pm

I'm reading the abstract for "masking" for the purpose of color correction. Now I know that Silicon Color had to name their process a "vignette", because "PowerWindow" was taken, among others. Its a daVinci trademark and patent, now owned by Black Magic Design.

Hmmm.

Wouldn't it be entertaining if what develops is a hostile, predatory litigation (by a cash-rich company) to simply out-sue in the hopes of an attrition battle that a smaller company cannot hope to win. Its just SunTzu strategy. Corporations are legally obliged by their shareholders to cheat, lie, steal, murder, anything, in the name of profit.

http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/corporations-are-sociopaths/

Also, see: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Wright_Bros/Patent_Battles/WR12.htm
which includes Henry Ford, Glenn Curtiss, Orville Wright and World War One.

It also talks about patent definitions pertaining to "improvements" and "innovations".


And yes, Apple sends lawyers to fight pointless actions -- do some research around the NVidia card fiasco on the 17" MacBook Pro motherboards. Look for the Seattle litigation. Just one tiny example with which I am not personally unfamiliar, having experienced the failure, and also the song-and-dance runaround.

Eventually the revolutionaries all become Big Brother, and then we need more revolutionaries.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 4:51:40 pm

Okay I'm in..., you know I love the analogy game. ;)

Apples patents are to computers as Mercedes Benz much touted 80,000 auto patents are to cars.

Funny how all those Auto patents over a far longer innovative timeline -for an even less complex device - did hardly anything to "stifle" the car industry.

But the software patents as used in the modern era are somehow the devils spawn.

Someone want to explain why the computer industry is so special?

"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


Return to posts index

TImothy Auld
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 5:04:11 pm

An automobile compared to software? A mechanical device with hard, easily demonstrable and definable differences compared to something that exists only as numbers on recordable media? That analogy I don't get.

Tim


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 20, 2012 at 10:05:26 pm

Bill, just watch the TED talk that David Lawrence linked and also the ep of of This American Life that Shane mentioned. You will get the history or how the patent office had to be taken to court to recognise software patents because evn they thought software patents were bogus.

Yes the software industry is a special case and both those bits of background explain it.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 21, 2012 at 10:37:37 pm

Some relevant developments:


http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Seeks+to+Ban+Almost+Apples+Entire+US+Produc...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50:17 pm

Right, and then Google says, 'by the way we should change the system' as Craig posted.

Also, Samsung, who is wrapping up closing arguments in the current Apple case as we type, is dumping a large sum of money to revamp a factory that will make iPhone processors.

http://www.statesman.com/business/samsung-plans-another-3-billion-austin-in...

You can't make this stuff up.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Joseph Owens
Re: Apple files ten patents relating to editing today
on Aug 22, 2012 at 3:29:03 am

The current round of patent suits does resemble a late-middle game "ko" fight, if you study Japanese-rules GO. Basically, expert players spend The middle game building as many threats as they can, so that if one of them pulls the pin on a really aggresive invasion, the one that has the most ko threats will eventually take the initiative "sente" to capture the most territory, or inflict such heavy damage on the adversary that a resignation is the only option.

But reading the proceedings reports, it seems like Apple is behaving like a belligerent teenager with no sense of mortality, and all the entitlement of a mediocre rich kid. The judiciary is not amused.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Google: Time to ditch our current software patent system?
on Aug 20, 2012 at 10:13:31 pm

Google: Time to ditch our current software patent system?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57496747-38/google-time-to-ditch-our-curr...



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]