The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.
The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.
Simply because a cursury look at something SEEMS, to the unsophistacated in those areas, to be similar, doesn't mean that they are.
There is often more than one way to do something. It's rarely the end result that is patentable, but the way of getting that result.
I don't know enough about the way Pandora does what it does, or for that matter, exactly what it does.
You are saying that what Apple is proposing here is what Pandora does, in the way it does it?
Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).
And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.
My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.
Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.
The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.
It is perfectly all right to combine the patents of others in a way that none of them singly would have been used, if that results in a product, or service, that is unique, when compared to those other patents, as this appears to be.
This may, or may not, incorporate other patented work. Are you saying that you have knowledge that it does?
Or are you just guessing?
Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.
I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.
As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!
Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).
And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.
My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.
Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.
The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.
Mark
I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.
Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.
One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.
It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.
Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.
I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.
As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!
Again, deeper knowledge is required before one can say that something is right or not. I haven't programmed for over ten years, so I'm not up to "modern" standards there, but I can say that these areas which you mentioned are all different. About the only thing that can't be patented is a direct take from nature in the area of math, for example. Therefore, algorithms, when discovered, can't be patented. Actual lines of code may be, or may not be.
Just because some things look the same on the surface doesn't mean that they are the same inside. Also, a patent in one area may not be valid if applied to another area. It depends on how broad the patent claim is, and whether it is challenged. Even if there are previous patents, they may not be valid, and upon challenge, be lost.
Computer patent law is still in its infancy. There will be, no doubt, some major rulings coming down over the years that will define what can and can't be done, more clearly.
I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.
Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.
One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.
It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.
I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"
No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.
The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.
The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.
LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.
The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.
I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"
No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.
LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.
The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.
There is no similarity. Camera angles on DVD are recorded, and edited in advance. You are merely choosing between one recording, as in a chapter, and another. This is a live interaction, which is entirely different.
Again, this for a live presentation, not a recorded, static lecture.
Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.
Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.
Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.
Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.
Fine with me. We were just discussing what Apple said they were doing.
Didn't Al Gore mention he had this idea back in '58?
M=Ec2
You know, remarks about that are so tiring.
Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. But, he was way ahead of the curve in trying to get legislation in an attempt to open it up to the larger population. That's on record. It's been distorted way out of proportion.
Today he came out with a real thing (see goggle news). End the use of fossil fuels by 2018. He just might use the Apple interactive podcast app to make his point.
Want to see a neat video? Type "al gore 1958" into the goggle web search box. Click on the result titled "THE REFERENCE FRAME" then read the comments below the video frame. Just think how Al could do one better with the forthcoming apple app.
Want to see a neat video? Type "al gore 1958" into the goggle web search box. Click on the result titled "THE REFERENCE FRAME" then read the comments below the video frame. Just think how Al could do one better with the forthcoming apple app.
AG=MC2
1) Why didn't you just post a direct link?
2) I didn't see any comments under The Reference Frame" link.
3) I am not clear on what your point is about Al Gore.
4) I don't get what the M=EC2 and AG-MC2 is supposed to mean.
Comments
Or for that matter:
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/1...R.2004.1334682
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/1...R.2002.1004189
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/384/abowd.html
and that's with just a basic search.
The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.
The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.
Can you illustrate what you are saying?
Simply because a cursury look at something SEEMS, to the unsophistacated in those areas, to be similar, doesn't mean that they are.
There is often more than one way to do something. It's rarely the end result that is patentable, but the way of getting that result.
I don't know enough about the way Pandora does what it does, or for that matter, exactly what it does.
You are saying that what Apple is proposing here is what Pandora does, in the way it does it?
Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).
And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.
My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.
Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.
The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).
I raise this whole topic in:
The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...orpion-th.html
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.
Mark
Knowledge of patent law is helpful here.
It is perfectly all right to combine the patents of others in a way that none of them singly would have been used, if that results in a product, or service, that is unique, when compared to those other patents, as this appears to be.
This may, or may not, incorporate other patented work. Are you saying that you have knowledge that it does?
Or are you just guessing?
Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.
I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.
As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!
Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).
And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.
My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.
Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.
The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).
I raise this whole topic in:
The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...orpion-th.html
Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.
Mark
I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.
Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.
One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.
It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.
Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.
I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.
As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!
Again, deeper knowledge is required before one can say that something is right or not. I haven't programmed for over ten years, so I'm not up to "modern" standards there, but I can say that these areas which you mentioned are all different. About the only thing that can't be patented is a direct take from nature in the area of math, for example. Therefore, algorithms, when discovered, can't be patented. Actual lines of code may be, or may not be.
Just because some things look the same on the surface doesn't mean that they are the same inside. Also, a patent in one area may not be valid if applied to another area. It depends on how broad the patent claim is, and whether it is challenged. Even if there are previous patents, they may not be valid, and upon challenge, be lost.
Computer patent law is still in its infancy. There will be, no doubt, some major rulings coming down over the years that will define what can and can't be done, more clearly.
But for now the old principles apply.
I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.
Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.
One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.
It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.
I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"
No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.
Mark
The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.
The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.
LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.
The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.
I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"
No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.
Mark
That's perfectly fine.
LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.
The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.
That's not what Apple is doing.
There is no similarity. Camera angles on DVD are recorded, and edited in advance. You are merely choosing between one recording, as in a chapter, and another. This is a live interaction, which is entirely different.
Again, this for a live presentation, not a recorded, static lecture.
Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.
Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.
M=Ec2
Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.
Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.
Fine with me. We were just discussing what Apple said they were doing.
Didn't Al Gore mention he had this idea back in '58?
M=Ec2
You know, remarks about that are so tiring.
Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. But, he was way ahead of the curve in trying to get legislation in an attempt to open it up to the larger population. That's on record. It's been distorted way out of proportion.
Today he came out with a real thing (see goggle news). End the use of fossil fuels by 2018. He just might use the Apple interactive podcast app to make his point.
Today he came out with a real thing (see goggle news). End the use of fossil fuels by 2018.
Now we wait for them to redefine the word fossil.
AG=MC2
Want to see a neat video? Type "al gore 1958" into the goggle web search box. Click on the result titled "THE REFERENCE FRAME" then read the comments below the video frame. Just think how Al could do one better with the forthcoming apple app.
AG=MC2
1) Why didn't you just post a direct link?
2) I didn't see any comments under The Reference Frame" link.
3) I am not clear on what your point is about Al Gore.
4) I don't get what the M=EC2 and AG-MC2 is supposed to mean.
ScreenFlow is an amazing app!
Thanks for the link to ScreenFlow. Cool video on their site. Downloaded the app and now off to play with it [ScreenFlow, I mean].
There are other ones if you do the web search.
I thought Al Gore was on the Apple board! Promote the new app with fossil fuel presentations.
As far as the equations, I don't what they mean, I'm no Einstein.
Now we wait for them to redefine the word fossil.
Easy!
That would be me.